Einstien's Relativity Error

[JohnOwens]

I predict you will keep milking this opportunity to dodge the issues.
I think you are dodging the issues. You flagged me. You posted a message to me. So let's talk about relativity.
Does that mean you're ready to quit talking about Einstein, Lorentz, & Maxwell?

[Sam5]

Masashi,

Well, let’s talk about the physics issues of SR. What’s your opinion about it. So you think SR doesn’t contain errors? Then why did he add gravity to it in 1918?

[Sam5]

Does that mean you're ready to quit talking about Einstein, Lorentz, & Maxwell?

I’m waiting for Masashi. He accused me of dodging the issues, so I want to talk the issues with him but it looks like he up and disappeared.

[JohnOwens]

Masashi,

Well, let’s talk about the physics issues of SR. What’s your opinion about it. So you think SR doesn’t contain errors? Then why did he add gravity to it in 1918?
I thought you were ready to discuss physics instead of history and "He"?

[Sam5]

I thought you were ready to discuss physics instead of history and "He"?

Why would I want to talk about helium?

I’m waiting until Musashi comes back so we can talk about the physics issues of SR theory.

[Normandy6644]

Masashi,

Well, let’s talk about the physics issues of SR. What’s your opinion about it. So you think SR doesn’t contain errors? Then why did he add gravity to it in 1918?

For the last time Sam he didn't add gravity to SR to correct it, he added it to expand it into a GENERAL theory that would cover both inertial and non-inertial frames. This comment exemplifies your misunderstanding of essentially everything we've talked about. If you cling to this idea, then I don't see how a reincarnated Einstein himself (or his brain, if it's still around) could teach you relativity. The title of section 2 of his 1916 paper is

The Need for an Extension of the Postulate of Relativity

He's extending it, not fixing it. #-o

[Tensor]

you asked a question of Tensor (show where GR and SR agree), I provided an answer

Why is it when I ask someone a question, someone else answers it? Are you divided up into teams?

Nope, does it really matter who shows that, mathematically, you have no idea what you are talking about?

Why does it take so many of you to debate me? If I'm wrong, why don't you just ignore me?

Because we want to make sure that people who come here don't mistake your posts for someone who understands physics or relativity.

I mean, if all of you are experts on relativity,

I don't think anyone here claims to be a expert on relativity ( well maybe Celestial Mechanic and a few others), however, most of us in this debate have taken the trouble to go out and learn the math and the ideas behind the theory and have, at least, an understanding of what SR and GR can and can't do mathematically.

and I’m just a “crackpot”, then why does it take so many of you to work in 24 hour relay teams to answer my simple questions? Why couldn’t just one of you do it? Why does it take 7 or 8 guys?

That's simple. Your posts contain so many errors, one person would have to be on here 24 hours a day to refute all the wrong physics you post.

[Musashi]

I thought you were ready to discuss physics instead of history and "He"?

Why would I want to talk about helium?

I’m waiting until Musashi comes back so we can talk about the physics issues of SR theory.

I'm sorry sam, I am very busy right now. I am having debates with several people at the same time, and you can't expect me to answer all the questions right away can you? You may as well take some other questions because I will not be able to devote any more time to this thread right now. Thanks for your concern though.

[Tensor]

Note: You still didn't acknowledge my answer as being correct.

Tensor a question that he doesn’t know the answer to.

Not true. I saw the that question today around 3:30 PM my time today and it was trivial to find the same equation the Normady posted around noon. However, being at work, I didn't have a scanner and couldn't scan it or post it, because I was at work. (BTW Normady, the equation is in section 13.4 in MTW. Although it uses some different letters for each index)

Unfortunately, unlike you (you claimed to be a retired journalist remember), I have to work. If you look at the timing on my message, it was posted at 12:30AM EDT and I signed iff just after I posted. I didn't get on for more than 3 minutes all day and all night, until now.

You make excuses for him and you try your hand at an answer. Then while I’m typing out an answer, Musashi comes along and posts a sarcastic comment just to irritate me.

This is modern American science?

And ignoring questions about your claims is?

It should be pretty evident to you that the “clock paradox” issue has gone on for 99 years for a good reason.

You can’t rule out all the professional physicists who have said over the years that the 1905 SR theory is not accurate.

Yes we can, because, like you, they can't show where it is wrong within its realm of validity.

It should be obvious to you that if he originally said that acceleration is not considered in the SR theory and the effects of gravity fields are not

snip...

he realizes the critics were right about the original SR theory being wrong? I mean, that's not obvious to you?

Is it not obvious to you that if you don't understand how the theory works with the math, you have no basis to claim that it is wrong, if the math has been shown to match predictions?

What he is basically saying in the section you quoted is that if the gravity field disappears, then the SR theory is supposed to apply, but he is still rates, no matter what kind of clock it is, and no matter how many other clocks are moving relative to it.

And this is one more area of misunderstanding for you. You can't claim that just because Newton needed a force, relativity does. Newton also requires instantaneous force propagation, which hasn't been observed.

[Tensor]

Because, like you, we are all busy and since Tensor and I (among others) think the same thing, I see no harm in answering questions for the other person, so long as the answer is right.

Yep. Thanks.

Note: You still didn't acknowledge my answer as being correct.

And still hasn't.

[Celestial Mechanic]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Sam5 appears to be identical to David over at metaresearch.org, Tom Van Flanders' website. Ignore his protestations about lack of time.
[-(

[Tensor]

How do we evaluate the depth of your understanding of physics, Sam?

Actually, it's quite easy, just look at the contents of his posts.

[Tensor]

I’m waiting until Musashi comes back so we can talk about the physics issues of SR theory.

Of course, that way you don't have to answer questsions, and don't have to acknoledge that Normany showed you that SR and GR will give the same results, where there is non-accelerated relative motion. But, by now, why should that surprise us?

[Tensor]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Sam5 appears to be identical to David over at metaresearch.org, Tom Van Flanders' website. Ignore his protestations about lack of time.
[-(

Yeah, and since he claims to be retired, I know he has a whole lot more time, to spend here, than I do.

[Sam5]

I'm sorry sam, I am very busy right now. .

No, you brought it up. You flagged me. You said I was avoiding the issues because I couldn’t respond to 8 people asking questions fast enough.

So, I’ve decided to respond to you. So ask me your physics questions, and I will try to answer them.

Don’t tell me you are trying to avoid the issues. Surely you have some physics knowledge you can talk about. How about house wiring or circuit breakers?

[Sam5]

I think it would help if you also stuck to the physics issues, but you don't.

You haven't brought up any physics issues. You refuse to say anything about the physics issues. So what physics issues do you want to discuss?

[Musashi]

Yeah, if you have questions about house wires or circuit breakers I could probably help you, but you should probably start a new thread. I think you should probably try answering other people's questions, since I don't have any for you a this time. Of corse, you can keep responding to me if you want, you obviously need a break from physics.

[Musashi]

No, you brought it up. You flagged me. You said I was avoiding the issues because I couldn’t respond to 8 people asking questions fast enough.



And? You are still avoiding the issues.

[Musashi]

So, I’ve decided to respond to you. So ask me your physics questions, and I will try to answer them.


My question is: Why won't you answer the physics questions posed to you in this thread? If you want something more, I will be happy to come up with some questions for you, but I have a feeling you are going to a) be disappointed, and b) avoid my questions too (probably under some pretext).

[Musashi]

Don’t tell me you are trying to avoid the issues. Surely you have some physics knowledge you can talk about. How about house wiring or circuit breakers?

Are you trying to imply that an electrician can't comprehend physics? Surely I have a better starting point than a retired journalist?

[captain swoop]

No, I can't, but they can be outweighed by the 1000x more that agree.





All called Steve?

[milli360]

Well, let’s talk about the physics issues of SR. What’s your opinion about it. So you think SR doesn’t contain errors? Then why did he add gravity to it in 1918?
To address the last question, I'd like to point out that Einstein spent a large portion of his later life in trying to come up with what we nowadays call a Theory of Everything. He thought that all of physics could be unified. That's why he added gravitation to his earlier theory.

[Normandy6644]

BTW Normandy, the equation is in section 13.4 in MTW. Although it uses some different letters for each index.

It's actually a picture from a website that has lecture notes on GR. The form isn't identical to Einstein's (he has the two equal, with the minus sign gone because he's made a substitution for another set of Christoffel derivatives), but it carries the same meaning about a point in a gravitational field (or lack thereof). I figured that would get the job done for showing how SR and GR get the same answer when gravity is neglected. :roll:

[Sam5]

If you want something more, I will be happy to come up with some questions for you, but I have a feeling you are going to a) be disappointed, and b) avoid my questions too (probably under some pretext).

No, your appearance on these threads is only to harass me and post insults. You know nothing of the physics issues involved in this discussion, and you have no desire to talk about the issues. So while I’m trying to respond to 8 guys at once, you have fun posting your insults to me. Well now you’ve hijacked and disrupted this thread and you can take that responsibility.

[Tensor]

If you want something more, I will be happy to come up with some questions for you, but I have a feeling you are going to a) be disappointed, and b) avoid my questions too (probably under some pretext).

You know nothing of the physics issues involved in this discussion, and you have no desire to talk about the issues.

IF, this is the case(and I don't think it is), then you are on equal footing with Musashi, as far as knowing physics and having a desire to talk about the issues.

[SeanF]

To discuss the physics issues in a calm intellectual atmosphere of a one on one exchange of ideas, sort of like the way science has always been discussed among intelligent learned people in an old-fashioned coffee house located near a major university. I don’t have a big university or coffee house nearby, so I thought maybe this would be the next best thing. But instead, I sometimes feel like I’m being trampled to death by a herd of wild steers.

A public bulletin board is not the place for a "one-on-one" discussion, Sam5. There's Private Messages and e-mail if that's what you want.

What I find interesting is that after all this time, you apparently weren't aware of what happens when you post your anti-Relativity drivel on this website. This is not the first time we've all pointed out your mistakes. And yet you still keep coming back and doing it.

So, either you're lying when you say that it bothers you to be treated this way or you're simply not understanding that this always happens when you do this.

Either way, I'm having a hard time generating any sympathy for you. If it really bothers you, just stop coming to this board and claiming SR is wrong and it'll stop.

[Donnie B.]

Doggone it, where's the blankety-blank reset button for this thread? #-o

[Taibak]

I think it would help if you also stuck to the physics issues, but you don't.

You haven't brought up any physics issues. You refuse to say anything about the physics issues. So what physics issues do you want to discuss?

I can't help but laugh at the hypocracy of this statement. Sam5, in case you haven't noticed Musashi, isn't the only person here who has directly questioned both your claims and your intellectual integrity. Based on your apparent desire to single him out, I have to agree that it's nothing but a thinly-disguised ruse to avoid the real issues. You have routinely ignored pages of questions. You have constantly filtered out the physics questions in favor of half-baked historical arguments. You consistently take quotes out of context, ignore the math, and overlook bits of quotes - at times even bits of the same sentence - that don't fit your hypothesis. When confronted with counterarguments, you either ignore them or dismiss them as false without offering any reasons for doing so. When pressed by Musashi to stick the physics being discussed, you change horses and pose an irrelevant question about Newton's first law. And you're accusing someone else of not wanting to talk physics? Sam5, I submit that if YOU really wanted to talk physics, you would have answered the questions that people have been asking since the very beginning of this thread.

Still, I'd love you to prove that last sentence wrong, although my expectations are, unfortunately, low. To help you out, here are a list of as-yet unanswered questions for which we're STILL waiting for answers. I'll admit that they're not all physics questions, strictly speaking, but those that aren't are epistomological questions raised by the experiments in question and your interpretations of those experiments. That makes them relevant on the grounds that how one interprets the evidence and the validity of the evidence is as important as the evidence itself.

If Lorentz is right, the magnetic field lines of a moving object are finite. The Earth is moving relative to the Sun and there is no evidence of its magnetic field being broken as a result. According to Einstein's theories, magnetic field lines are always closed loops - and this has been observed (repeatedly) in nature. Explain.

If massive objects produce a 'local ether,' what causes it? Taken a step further, because the Earth is in motion, it should leave behind some sort of wake. It doesn't. Explain.

If the local ether exists, what are its properties? What is its permeability and permittivity? What is its density? How does it interact with other forces? Does it interact with other local ethers (that is, does the Earth's local ether field interact with the Moon's local ether field?)? If so, how? What is its index of refraction?

Both the special and general theories of relativity have been shown to agree with every experimental test to which they've yet been subjected. Why should we scrap theories that work so well? Similarly, Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanics are also in strong agreement with experiment and that's based on Einstein's 1905 paper.

If Dr. Su's theory is right, the error in the Bragg diffraction angles should be approximately one degree. By his own admission, the error is over 40 degrees. Explain this discrepency and explain why we should believe a theory that predicts a result 40 times smaller than what's observed, espescially when relativity, as outlined in the 1905 and 1916 papers, produces the correct results?

Taken the last point a step further, you make a big deal about Einstein making and correcting mistakes en route to developing the definitive version of his theories and see this as evidence that relativity as a whole is wrong. On the other hand, Dr. Su's theories contain a glaring, uncorrected error and you insist on the theory's validity. Both made mistakes and admitted them. Why is this a problem for Einstein and not for Su? Are the rules of evidence different for them?

Your expertise with clocks - does that extend to clocks moving at greater than roughly half the speed of light relative to a stationary observer? If not, how can you claim to have first hand experience with observing time dilation when the effects can be mathematically shown to be negligible at low speeds?

Is it possible that the 'wristwatches' and 'balance-wheel clocks' Einstein refers to in the 1905 paper were idealisations and not actual clocks? If so, can those timepieces be assumed to function as perfect clocks that keep time with 100% precision regardless of whatever mechanical effects they may experience?

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.

[With respect to an object's temperature dropping due to relative motion] Really? Do you mean frozen water, as in ice? If you do, could you please explain where all the thermal energy has gone?

If the ether moves with the earth, how do you explain the presence of stellar aberration? Shouldn't a fixed ether not give aberration?

[Tensor]

Doggone it, where's the blankety-blank reset button for this thread? #-o

Why, we still have 62 pages to go. :o #-o

[Ricimer]

I really like Sam's debate style.

He stalls until someone who hasn't been doing much speaks up for a post or two.

Then, seeing "fresh meat" he singles them out, in hopes that they won't be as tough an opponent as the people who've been trying to get a straight answer for the past dozen pages.

Like when he asked for a single debater, he picked russ, now its Musashi.

I think this retired journalist picked up a few to many habits from the politicians he may (or may not) have interacted with.

[Lunatik]

Sam5 wrote:
The distance between you and me can vary, but that doesn’t change all distances. The distance between you and me isn’t all of “distance itself”. It is just one distance that changes, and it changes for a specific reason, without any other distance having to change as a result. How can the relative motion between my clock and a clock on another planet in another galaxy cause either of our clocks to change rates?
From the perspective of a 'stationary' observer (in a rest frame), the time or length will 'appear' to change in the observed (moving frame). I think where Relativity requires a stretch of logic is where that perceived 'apparent' change in time or length is then applied to the 'observed' frame in motion, as if it were actually happening there. The 'state of being' of the frame in motion is not affected by its motion within itself, only from the observer's point of view, if I understand this correctly.

Now, doesn't it mean that what is being 'observed' in the moving frame the same as what it is? Yes and no. From the observer's point of view, yes; from the observed's point of view, no. I hope this helps a little.

Quite a 'dog fight' though! =D>

[russ_watters]

I really like Sam's debate style....

Like when he asked for a single debater, he picked russ, now its Musashi. Its ok, it fits with my style too - read for a while with incredulity, then point out a glaring contradiction/error. Its fun, and it keeps me from getting bogged down - I have no desire to argue with him circularly for 85 pages.

If you're interested, he's posted on a BB that I moderate and those arguments are relatively short: with fewer people and a more focused discussion, there is nowhere for him to run.

[SeanF]

Sam5 wrote:
The distance between you and me can vary, but that doesn’t change all distances. The distance between you and me isn’t all of “distance itself”. It is just one distance that changes, and it changes for a specific reason, without any other distance having to change as a result. How can the relative motion between my clock and a clock on another planet in another galaxy cause either of our clocks to change rates?
From the perspective of a 'stationary' observer (in a rest frame), the time or length will 'appear' to change in the observed (moving frame). I think where Relativity requires a stretch of logic is where that perceived 'apparent' change in time or length is then applied to the 'observed' frame in motion, as if it were actually happening there. The 'state of being' of the frame in motion is not affected by its motion within itself, only from the observer's point of view, if I understand this correctly.

You don't. :) You're still not following how Relativity actually works, and your first sentence is a good example.

You think that Relativity compares how you appear to me when you're stationary relative to me, and how you appear to me when you're moving relative to me. Or maybe it compares how you appear to me and how I appear to you when we're moving relatively. That's not right.

Relativity compares how the universe, space and time itself, appears to me and how it appears to you when we're in relative motion to each other. When you and I are in relative motion, the distance and duration between two events will be different for you than for me. The two events do not even need to be events that either of us is directly involved in. Some durations will be less for me, some less for you. Some distances will be greater for me, some greater for you.

Now, doesn't it mean that what is being 'observed' in the moving frame the same as what it is? Yes and no. From the observer's point of view, yes; from the observed's point of view, no. I hope this helps a little.

There's no distinction between "observer" and "observed". In the "Twin Paradox," both twins are observing and both are observed. The duration between the two events (departure and arrival) is greater for the "stay at home" twin than for the "go out and return twin."

Quite a 'dog fight' though! =D>

Ain't it, though? :)

[Lunatik]

SeanF writes:
Relativity compares how the universe, space and time itself, appears to me and how it appears to you when we're in relative motion to each other. When you and I are in relative motion, the distance and duration between two events will be different for you than for me. The two events do not even need to be events that either of us is directly involved in. Some durations will be less for me, some less for you. Some distances will be greater for me, some greater for you.
Alas, I must admit in shame that this doesn't make total sense to me, that it is a function of the universe, so will have to take your word for it now. :-?

[Tensor]

Alas, I must admit in shame that this doesn't make total sense to me, that it is a function of the universe, so will have to take your word for it now. :-?

Lunatik, try here (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm) for a good begining tutorial on relativity (Galilean, Special, and General). Some math, but there are diagrams to assist you. Contrary to what Sam5 has said, there are some good relativity sites on the web, this is one. The page is part of a cosmology tutorial and was created by Ned Wright, who teaches cosmology at UCLA. After reading the relativity part, you can check out the cosmology part (I've seen your questions in other threads)

[Yannox]

The results of Gravity Probe B will be helpful to geocentricity regardless what the outcome is. If the experiment "disproves" frame dragging, then relativity takes it on the chin. If it "proves" frame dragging, then Einstein's geocentric version of reality is supported. So, we'll keep an eye on those four polished quartz spheres and see what happens. They'll use relativistic assumptions and corrections before interpreting the data, and we'll see relativity-friendly results pop out. Or so they hope.

[Sam5]

Lunatik, try here (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm) for a good begining tutorial on relativity (Galilean, Special, and General). Some math, but there are diagrams to assist you. Contrary to what Sam5 has said, there are some good relativity sites on the web, this is one. The page is part of a cosmology tutorial and was created by Ned Wright, who teaches cosmology at UCLA. After reading the relativity part, you can check out the cosmology part (I've seen your questions in other threads)

On that website you linked to, Ned says, “Michelson and Morley used two bouncing photon clocks at right angles to each other, but without the lasers and counters which didn't exist. This left an L-shaped interferometer. But they were able to show that dP/P was essentially zero instead of the ether model prediction.”

But what he doesn’t say is that the MM “ether model prediction” was for a “universe-stationary” ether inside a non-expanding “static” universe filled with “fixed” stars. Einstein himself admitted in 1952 that the MM experiment did NOT rule out a local ether that was locally stationary with the earth, much like the earth's local full-strength gravity field is stationary with the earth, and full-strength areas of the fields of other bodies are stationary with the bodies that generate them. In fact, Einstein said in his 1952 Appendix to his 1916 book:

“Concerning the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H.A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest.”

Ned Wright should have pointed that out on his webpage. To let his readers think that the MM experiment proved the invalidity of a “local ether” theory is very misleading.

[milli360]

The results of Gravity Probe B will be helpful to geocentricity regardless what the outcome is. If the experiment "disproves" frame dragging, then relativity takes it on the chin.
You've said that before. Of course, geocentricity would be in real trouble then, without general relativity and mach's principle to fall back on.

[swansont]

On that website you linked to, Ned says, “Michelson and Morley used two bouncing photon clocks at right angles to each other, but without the lasers and counters which didn't exist. This left an L-shaped interferometer. But they were able to show that dP/P was essentially zero instead of the ether model prediction.”

But what he doesn’t say is that the MM “ether model prediction” was for a “universe-stationary” ether inside a non-expanding “static” universe filled with “fixed” stars. Einstein himself admitted in 1952 that the MM experiment did NOT rule out a local ether that was locally stationary with the earth

And the reason for that was that the locally stationary ether had already been ruled out by stellar aberration measurements! Surely in your investigations you already learned this.

[Sam5]

Relativity compares how the universe, space and time itself, appears to me and how it appears to you when we're in relative motion to each other. When you and I are in relative motion, the distance and duration between two events will be different for you than for me. The two events do not even need to be events that either of us is directly involved in. Some durations will be less for me, some less for you. Some distances will be greater for me, some greater for you.


That’s a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense. Einstein took “geometric length contraction” due only to “relative motion” out of his SR theory in 1907, and he took clock slowdowns due only to “relative motion” out of it in 1918.

The laws of physics are the same in all the galaxies, whether they are moving relative to us or not, and clocks will tick inside those galaxies based on the laws of physics and the circumstances inside those galaxies. The relative motion between two galaxies is not going to slow down any clock inside either galaxy.




There's no distinction between "observer" and "observed". In the "Twin Paradox," both twins are observing and both are observed. The duration between the two events (departure and arrival) is greater for the "stay at home" twin than for the "go out and return twin."

In the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment of Section 4 of the 1905 SR theory, there is no “stay at home” or "go out and return twin." There is only relative motion between the k and K systems, and according to the theory, the K observer sees the k clock slow down, while the k observer sees the K clock slow down. But since Einstein had only one clock “lagging behind” the other when the two clocks united, that’s what caused his famous “clock paradox”, which he finally had to resolve by using acceleration and gravity fields, and manipulating the fields by turning them on and off, and by having one of the clocks “fall accelerated” in one of the fields. That’s why the “clock paradox” is still written about today, 99 years later.

Several years ago, someone added the accelerated “twin”, blasting off from the earth in a rocket ship and “turning around” in space, so as to add their own accelerative effect to the “traveling twin’s” atomic clock. But there is no “blast off” or “turn around” in that first 1905 SR theory thought experiment that led to the “clock paradox” in the first place.

[Taibak]

Relativity compares how the universe, space and time itself, appears to me and how it appears to you when we're in relative motion to each other. When you and I are in relative motion, the distance and duration between two events will be different for you than for me. The two events do not even need to be events that either of us is directly involved in. Some durations will be less for me, some less for you. Some distances will be greater for me, some greater for you.


That’s a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense. Einstein took “geometric length contraction” due only to “relative motion” out of his SR theory in 1907, and he took clock slowdowns due only to “relative motion” out of it in 1918.

Then why are they in his 1952 book?

The laws of physics are the same in all the galaxies, whether they are moving relative to us or not, and clocks will tick inside those galaxies based on the laws of physics and the circumstances inside those galaxies. The relative motion between two galaxies is not going to slow down any clock inside either galaxy.

You're partly right. We see our clocks in the Milky Way run normally and from our point of view clocks in the moving Andromeda Galaxy run slow. Anyone in the Andromeda Galaxy sees their clocks running normally and ours running slow. And that's simply due to the relative motion of the two galaxies.


There's no distinction between "observer" and "observed". In the "Twin Paradox," both twins are observing and both are observed. The duration between the two events (departure and arrival) is greater for the "stay at home" twin than for the "go out and return twin."

In the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment of Section 4 of the 1905 SR theory, there is no “stay at home” or "go out and return twin." There is only relative motion between the k and K systems, and according to the theory, the K observer sees the k clock slow down, while the k observer sees the K clock slow down. But since Einstein had only one clock “lagging behind” the other when the two clocks united, that’s what caused his famous “clock paradox”, which he finally had to resolve by using acceleration and gravity fields, and manipulating the fields by turning them on and off, and by having one of the clocks “fall accelerated” in one of the fields. That’s why the “clock paradox” is still written about today, 99 years later.

Several years ago, someone added the accelerated “twin”, blasting off from the earth in a rocket ship and “turning around” in space, so as to add their own accelerative effect to the “traveling twin’s” atomic clock. But there is no “blast off” or “turn around” in that first 1905 SR theory thought experiment that led to the “clock paradox” in the first place.

And as other people have pointed out, you don't need the acceleration to resolve the paradox. If you bring the clocks back together again for comparison, one of them has to change its reference frame. Once it does that, the symmetry is broken, it's no longer in an inertial reference frame, and its clock can definitively be said to run slow.

Taibak

Edited to close a tag.

[Ricimer]

And the reason for that was that the locally stationary ether had already been ruled out by stellar aberration measurements! Surely in your investigations you already learned this.

Correct Swansont.

For those out there wanting some insight to this, I'll post it again (making it the third time I think). And maybe Sam won't ignore it again.

The MM experiment disproved the static Aether, as Sam5 pointed out (something he gets right, and repeats often).

That leaves open the possibility of a "local" aether. If that's the case, there should be a large abberation of starlight as it shifts from the "static" aether to the "local" aether.

The only abberation detected is in agreement with taking earths rotation into effect, and the very minor index of refraction for air. There is no room left in the detected abberation for Aether based abberation effects.

That is what killed the "local" aether idea.

[Sam5]

And the reason for that was that the locally stationary ether had already been ruled out by stellar aberration measurements! Surely in your investigations you already learned this.

Who ruled it out? You? Lol.

So you believe that you have to tilt you telescope to allow the “raindrops” of light to slant down the tube? Lol.

[Ricimer]

actually Sam, yes, that's basically what happens. Go look it up, its an observed phenomena.

[Taibak]

But what he doesn’t say is that the MM “ether model prediction” was for a “universe-stationary” ether inside a non-expanding “static” universe filled with “fixed” stars. Einstein himself admitted in 1952 that the MM experiment did NOT rule out a local ether that was locally stationary with the earth, much like the earth's local full-strength gravity field is stationary with the earth, and full-strength areas of the fields of other bodies are stationary with the bodies that generate them. In fact, Einstein said in his 1952 Appendix to his 1916 book:

“Concerning the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H.A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest.”

Ned Wright should have pointed that out on his webpage. To let his readers think that the MM experiment proved the invalidity of a “local ether” theory is very misleading.

Swansont is right - stellar aberration had already disproved the existence of any local ether. When Michelson and Morely performed that experiment, the prevailing theory was that the ether was at rest relative to the entire universe and NOT relative to the Earth. Since we see stellar aberration, the ether can not be a local phenomenon and, since the MM experiment produced a null result, the ether can not be a fundamental feature of the universe. If it's not local and not universal, that doesn't leave anywhere for the ether to go.

Should Wright have mentioned that? Perhaps. It really isn't a huge omission, however, since the prevailing theory didn't involve a local ether. Mentioning the local ether there would really just overcomplicate the historical narrative. Since there is plenty of other evidence against a local ether, the omission doesn't impact the science.

Also, the Michaelson-Morely experiment in no way depends on whether or not the universe is static.

[Taibak]

And the reason for that was that the locally stationary ether had already been ruled out by stellar aberration measurements! Surely in your investigations you already learned this.

Who ruled it out? You? Lol.

So you believe that you have to tilt you telescope to allow the “raindrops” of light to slant down the tube? Lol.

Well... stellar aberration has been extensively documented since 1727. That and both professional and amateur astronomers account for it on a daily basis....

[Sam5]

Then why are they in his 1952 book?


Politics.


You're partly right. We see our clocks in the Milky Way run normally and from our point of view clocks in the moving Andromeda Galaxy run slow. Anyone in the Andromeda Galaxy sees their clocks running normally and ours running slow. And that's simply due to the relative motion of the two galaxies.

Since M31 is moving toward us, we see its light as being blueshifted, not redshifted. Any “clocks” you can see in M31 appear to be running fast because of the classical Doppler effect.



And as other people have pointed out, you don't need the acceleration to resolve the paradox. If you bring the clocks back together again for comparison, one of them has to change its reference frame. Once it does that, the symmetry is broken, it's no longer in an inertial reference frame, and its clock can definitively be said to run slow.

In the 1905 theory, the motion is only relative, not absolute, so the two systems are said to be moving relatively. Since no acceleration is felt by either clock, and no physical force is used to start the imaginary motion, the motion between the two systems is only relative, and both systems are absolutely equal. The k observer in the relatively moving k system is supposed to see the K clock slow down, and the K observer in the relatively moving K system is supposed to see the k clock slow down. Yet he has only one clock “lagging behind” the other, and he does not report, in that particular thought experiment, what the k observer sees. According to his own theory, the k observer is supposed to see the K clock "lag behind” at the end of the experiment, while the K observer sees the k clock “lag behind” at the end of the experiment. That is indeed a “peculiar consequence”.

[Taibak]

Then why are they in his 1952 book?


Politics.

So he was forced to include a theory that was obviously incompatible with general relativity in his book and nobody has noticed over the past 50 years? Highly unlikely. Relative motion is still a part of general relativity.


You're partly right. We see our clocks in the Milky Way run normally and from our point of view clocks in the moving Andromeda Galaxy run slow. Anyone in the Andromeda Galaxy sees their clocks running normally and ours running slow. And that's simply due to the relative motion of the two galaxies.

Since M31 is moving toward us, we see its light as being blueshifted, not redshifted. Any “clocks” you can see in M31 appear to be running fast because of the classical Doppler effect.

While the light from M31 is blueshifted, the effects of time dilation are still present. In fact, the presence or absence of the Doppler effect has no effect on relative motion. We would still observe clocks in Andromeda as running slow - all the Doppler effect would do is change the color of the light we see coming from those clocks, not how fast those clocks are ticking.



And as other people have pointed out, you don't need the acceleration to resolve the paradox. If you bring the clocks back together again for comparison, one of them has to change its reference frame. Once it does that, the symmetry is broken, it's no longer in an inertial reference frame, and its clock can definitively be said to run slow.

In the 1905 theory, the motion is only relative, not absolute, so the two systems are said to be moving relatively. Since no acceleration is felt by either clock, and no physical force is used to start the imaginary motion, the motion between the two systems is only relative, and both systems are absolutely equal. The k observer in the relatively moving k system is supposed to see the K clock slow down, and the K observer in the relatively moving K system is supposed to see the k clock slow down. Yet he has only one clock “lagging behind” the other, and he does not report, in that particular thought experiment, what the k observer sees. According to his own theory, the k observer is supposed to see the K clock "lag behind” at the end of the experiment, while the K observer sees the k clock “lag behind” at the end of the experiment. That is indeed a “peculiar consequence”.[/quote]

So why do you find that so objectionable? It's a 'pecular consequence,' but to date all the experimental evidence supports it.

BTW, I'm still waiting for answers to the questions that I reposted at the top of the page.

[SeanF]

Relativity compares how the universe, space and time itself, appears to me and how it appears to you when we're in relative motion to each other. When you and I are in relative motion, the distance and duration between two events will be different for you than for me. The two events do not even need to be events that either of us is directly involved in. Some durations will be less for me, some less for you. Some distances will be greater for me, some greater for you.


That’s a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense. Einstein took “geometric length contraction” due only to “relative motion” out of his SR theory in 1907, and he took clock slowdowns due only to “relative motion” out of it in 1918.

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true:

During procedural steps 2 and 4, clock U1, moving at velocity v, has indeed a slower rate than clock U2 which is at rest.

Nothing but relative motion during steps 2 and 4, yet U1 is running slower than U2 (in U2's reference frame, anyway. It's running faster in U1's).


There's no distinction between "observer" and "observed". In the "Twin Paradox," both twins are observing and both are observed. The duration between the two events (departure and arrival) is greater for the "stay at home" twin than for the "go out and return twin."

In the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment of Section 4 of the 1905 SR theory, there is no “stay at home” or "go out and return twin." There is only relative motion between the k and K systems, and according to the theory, the K observer sees the k clock slow down, while the k observer sees the K clock slow down. But since Einstein had only one clock “lagging behind” the other when the two clocks united, that’s what caused his famous “clock paradox”, which he finally had to resolve by using acceleration and gravity fields, and manipulating the fields by turning them on and off, and by having one of the clocks “fall accelerated” in one of the fields. That’s why the “clock paradox” is still written about today, 99 years later.

He has the two clocks united without one of them turning around? That's a neat trick. You don't understand the math behind the "peculiar consequence," Sam5, which is why you think it's wrong. It's not.

[Sam5]

[quote=Einstein in 1918]During procedural steps 2 and 4, clock U1, moving at velocity v, has indeed a slower rate than clock U2 which is at rest.

Lol, you need to get yourself a copy of the whole paper and read Procedural Steps 1, 3, and 5 for both systems. That’s where the accelerative and gravitational effects are, and real physical "forces".

Also, see his 1907 paper:

“Assertions about the shape of a body in nonaccelerated motion therefore have a direct meaning. The shape of a body in the sense indicated we will call its ‘geometric shape.’ The latter obviously does not depend on the state of motion of a reference frame.”

[swansont]

And the reason for that was that the locally stationary ether had already been ruled out by stellar aberration measurements! Surely in your investigations you already learned this.

Who ruled it out? You? Lol.

So you believe that you have to tilt you telescope to allow the “raindrops” of light to slant down the tube? Lol.

This is what you consider "discussing the physics?"

It's an established fact, as others note as well. When observation contradicts your hypothesis, you have to abandon the hypothesis. We aren't at rest with an ether, and we aren't moving through it. What's left? I think the phrase you have to get used to is "there is no ether."

With no ether, how do you account for the behavior of the light-pulse clock?

[Taibak]

During procedural steps 2 and 4, clock U1, moving at velocity v, has indeed a slower rate than clock U2 which is at rest.

Lol, you need to get yourself a copy of the whole paper and read Procedural Steps 1, 3, and 5 for both systems. That’s where the accelerative and gravitational effects are, and real physical "forces".

True, but that doesn't change the fact that in steps two and four time dilation is occuring solely due to relative motion.

Also, see his 1907 paper:

“Assertions about the shape of a body in nonaccelerated motion therefore have a direct meaning. The shape of a body in the sense indicated we will call its ‘geometric shape.’ The latter obviously does not depend on the state of motion of a reference frame.”

Again, the 1907 paper was a work in progress. The 1916 and 1918 papers contain the final version of the theory. As such, they supercede the 1907 paper.

Edited to fix a tag.

[Sam5]

Then why are they in his 1952 book?


Politics.

So he was forced to include a theory that was obviously incompatible with general relativity in his book and nobody has noticed over the past 50 years? Highly unlikely.

Oh, they noticed it alright. And he wasn’t “forced”. He sort of did it out of stubbornness.


While the light from M31 is blueshifted, the effects of time dilation are still present. In fact, the presence or absence of the Doppler effect has no effect on relative motion. We would still observe clocks in Andromeda as running slow - all the Doppler effect would do is change the color of the light we see coming from those clocks, not how fast those clocks are ticking.

You are just making stuff up here.

Where are there scientific papers that show the rate of clocks in M31, other than to discuss the blueshifts due to the Doppler effect?

The only “clocks” that we can see in M31 are stars, and they exhibit a Doppler blueshift, not a Doppler redshift or an Einstein redshift. As Einstein said in his 1907 paper, “There exist ‘clocks’ that are present at locations of different gravitational potentials and whose rates can be controlled with great precision; these are the producers of spectral lines.” These are the oscillating atoms that emit the light from the stars in M31.

[SeanF]

During procedural steps 2 and 4, clock U1, moving at velocity v, has indeed a slower rate than clock U2 which is at rest.
Lol, you need to get yourself a copy of the whole paper and read Procedural Steps 1, 3, and 5 for both systems. That’s where the accelerative and gravitational effects are, and real physical "forces".
Don't you understand that what happens "during procedural steps 2 and 4" and what happens during "Procedural Steps 1, 3, and 5" are different? There are accelerative/gravitational effects during 1, 3, and 5, but not during 2 and 4. Yet the clocks tick at different rates during 2 and 4.

The only “clocks” that we can see in M31 are stars, and they exhibit a Doppler blueshift, not a Doppler redshift or an Einstein redshift. As Einstein said in his 1907 paper, “There exist ‘clocks’ that are present at locations of different gravitational potentials and whose rates can be controlled with great precision; these are the producers of spectral lines.” These are the oscillating atoms that emit the light from the stars in M31.
What do you think this proves? Do you believe that the measured amount of Doppler Shift in M31 tells us that time is not running slow in that galaxy?

[Sam5]

During procedural steps 2 and 4, clock U1, moving at velocity v, has indeed a slower rate than clock U2 which is at rest.
Lol, you need to get yourself a copy of the whole paper and read Procedural Steps 1, 3, and 5 for both systems. That’s where the accelerative and gravitational effects are, and real physical "forces".
Don't you understand that what happens "during procedural steps 2 and 4" and what happens during "Procedural Steps 1, 3, and 5" are different? There are accelerative/gravitational effects during 1, 3, and 5, but not during 2 and 4. Yet the clocks tick at different rates during 2 and 4.


Lol, he’s just jiving his critics in an attempt to confuse them. It is the U2 clock, not the U1 clock, that winds up lagging behind at the end of the thought experiment. But to respond to his critics regarding their complaint about the parts of his 1905 theory that would cause the U1 clock to “slow down” (just like the U2 clock, due to relative motion), he says in this version that the U1 clock slows down for a little while. But in order to resolve the paradox, he manipulates the acceleration effects and the gravity fields, so that the U1 clock gains back the time it lost earlier. So in the end, the U2 clock slows down more than the U1 clock, and everyone lives happily ever after. The End.

Also, to add a little extra confusion to this thought experiment, he has the K and K’ systems move “to and fro”. Of course they do not do that in the original 1905 version of the theory. But they do it here because he is desperate to confuse his critics, since there is no way to actually resolve the 1905 paradox.

It would help if you understood this guy’s sense of humor.

This version of the SR thought experiment confused Pauli so much, he said it was just the gravity effects that did the trick in the 1918 paper. It confused Max Born too. In his book, he gave several different conflicting reasons for why there is supposed to be no “paradox” in the original paper. Born used SR and GR and covered all his bases.

I wish you could understand this stuff and why he did it. I think you would enjoy it. His cleverness at this type of thing was exceptionally brilliant.

[Sam5]

What do you think this proves? Do you believe that the measured amount of Doppler Shift in M31 tells us that time is not running slow in that galaxy?

You think time is running “slow” in M31? Lol. woo woo.

[Sam5]

I saw on another thread that Russ told a guy that the distance to M31 would shrink a great deal if we sent a small rocket at high speed toward M31.

But I didn’t say a word. I didn’t want to embarrass the guy.

[Tensor]

I ask Tensor a question that he doesn’t know the answer to.

You know, I think you are projecting here. Because you can't answer the questions we pose, you think nobody can answer questions. Actually that may not be right. You could answer our questions or acknowledge the refutations we provide, but you don't dare. Because if you do, you have to admit you are wrong. And you have too much invested in your version of reality to admit you are wrong. You would lose too much face and have to admit that all your supposed years of research were wasted.

[Sam5]

I ask Tensor a question that he doesn’t know the answer to.

You know, I think you are projecting here. Because you can't answer the questions we pose, you think nobody can answer questions. Actually that may not be right. You could answer our questions or acknowledge the refutations we provide, but you don't dare.

Tensor, I’ve told you several times. I’ve got about 8 guys here harassing me and asking me a lot of questions. I don’t have time to even attempt to answer all the questions, and I’ve already told you several times that I don’t know all the answers to all the questions. If I knew all the answers, I wouldn’t be here, I’d be writing them up in papers. Some of the answers aren't simple ones, and I like to go into some detail about the ones that I can and have time to answer. And I don't like to be rushed by a bunch of impatient guys who have only one united objective... to try to salvage the SR theory.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Tensor, I’ve told you several times. I’ve got about 8 guys here harassing me and asking me a lot of questions. I don’t have time to even attempt to answer all the questions, and I’ve already told you several times that I don’t know all the answers to all the questions.[Snip!]
But you do have time to post as David over at metaresearch.org AND over at a BB forum that russ_watters moderates, AND ???
Thou dost protest too much. 8)

[Sam5]

You’ll get fewer answers when you post personal insults.

[Tensor]

I ask Tensor a question that he doesn’t know the answer to.

You know, I think you are projecting here. Because you can't answer the questions we pose, you think nobody can answer questions. Actually that may not be right. You could answer our questions or acknowledge the refutations we provide, but you don't dare.

Tensor, I’ve told you several times. I’ve got about 8 guys here harassing me and asking me a lot of questions. I don’t have time to even attempt to answer all the questions.

Then why were you so quick to accuse me of not being able to answer when I couldn't get on for a while, due to work. It was very similar to you accusing me of not being able to answer in another thread, when my mother was in the hopital. Hey, if you can demand quick answers, why can't we?

[Celestial Mechanic]

You’ll get fewer answers when you post personal insults.
Who ruled it out? You? Lol.
You are just making stuff up here.
It would help if you understood this guy's sense of humor.
You think time is running "slow" in M31? Lol. woo woo.
I didn't say a word. I didn't want to embarrass the guy.
What a dull world this would be if everyone followed their own advice, eh?

This is what you consider "discussing the physics?"

[Sam5]

During procedural steps 2 and 4, clock U1, moving at velocity v, has indeed a slower rate than clock U2 which is at rest.

Lol, you need to get yourself a copy of the whole paper and read Procedural Steps 1, 3, and 5 for both systems. That’s where the accelerative and gravitational effects are, and real physical "forces".

True, but that doesn't change the fact that in steps two and four time dilation is occuring solely due to relative motion.

He made up whatever he wanted to make up, in attempt to try to salvage the original SR theory. It was the U2 clock that ultimately “lagged behind” the U1 clock at the end of the 1918 thought experiments, just as in the 1905 thought experiments. He managed to do that in 1918 with additional thought experiment manipulations. Since so many people had said that in the original SR theory, the U1 clock would run slow if the U2 clock ran slow, under the terms of the theory, in the 1918 paper he had to have the U1 clock run slow for a while, but then, in order to pretend to resolve the paradox, he had to add the gravity fields and the acceleration effects, which were not in the 1905 theory, and he had to have the U1 clock run fast to make up for the lost time, so the U2 clock would still “lag behind” the U1 clock at the end of the 1918 thought experiments. This was just a shear manipulation of his readers, with no attempt at all to conform to physical reality. The objective was not to produce a theory of physical reality in the 1918 paper, but to try to salvage the 1905 SR theory.

[Taibak]

Then why are they in his 1952 book?


Politics.

So he was forced to include a theory that was obviously incompatible with general relativity in his book and nobody has noticed over the past 50 years? Highly unlikely.

Oh, they noticed it alright. And he wasn’t “forced”. He sort of did it out of stubbornness.

Okay... so he did it out of stubbornness. That still doesn't change the fact that he kept special relativity intact when he wrote both the 1916 paper on general relativity and the 1952 book. Any way you slice it, he was still publishing and promoting the theory. As such, it's hard to believe that, in the almost 90 years since the 1916 paper, nobody has yet to successfully prove that the two theories are incompatible. Both the math and the experimental evidence have supported the special and general theories.


While the light from M31 is blueshifted, the effects of time dilation are still present. In fact, the presence or absence of the Doppler effect has no effect on relative motion. We would still observe clocks in Andromeda as running slow - all the Doppler effect would do is change the color of the light we see coming from those clocks, not how fast those clocks are ticking.

You are just making stuff up here.

No, I'm not. The Doppler effect has no effect whatsoever on the rate at which time passes. It's just a freqeuncy change due to relative motion. Insisting that relativistic effects should always overpower Doppler shifts is a naive statement, at best. M31 is approaching the Earth at a relative speed of roughly 1.4 x10^5 m/s, or .00047c. Using the Lorentz equation for time dilation, special relativity predicts that, for every second that passes on Earth, an observer on the Earth would see an amount of time pass equal to:

t(M31)/t(Earth) = {1 - [(140,000 m/s / 3 * 10^8 m/s)]^2}^1/2 = .99999989.

That's a difference of roughly a hundred thousandth of a percent - a miniscule amount.

By contrast, the ratio of the observed and emitted frequencies, as given by the relativistic Doppler shift equation, is equal to:

f(Received)/f(Emitted) = [(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2

= [(1-.047)/(1 + .047)] = .95405.

That's a difference of 4.6% and a MUCH bigger effect than would be caused by time dilation. That's also why the light has a net blueshift and not a net redshift. We're talking six orders of magnitude here.

Where are there scientific papers that show the rate of clocks in M31, other than to discuss the blueshifts due to the Doppler effect?

There doesn't need to be any nor, based on the subtlety of the effect, should there be any mention of it in anywhere except in papers dealing with ultra-precise observations. However, similar papers HAVE been done analyzing the dropoffs in supernova intensities in more distant galaxies. Those galaxies are receeding from the Earth much faster than M31 is approaching us and in every case yet observed the effects are totally consistent with special relativity.

The only “clocks” that we can see in M31 are stars, and they exhibit a Doppler blueshift, not a Doppler redshift or an Einstein redshift. As Einstein said in his 1907 paper, “There exist ‘clocks’ that are present at locations of different gravitational potentials and whose rates can be controlled with great precision; these are the producers of spectral lines.” These are the oscillating atoms that emit the light from the stars in M31.

In that case, feel free to check my math and show me where I'm wrong. Appealing to the 1907 paper isn't going to help you there.

I saw on another thread that Russ told a guy that the distance to M31 would shrink a great deal if we sent a small rocket at high speed toward M31.

But I didn’t say a word. I didn’t want to embarrass the guy.

Good thing too, because you'd only have embarrassed yourself! The person in the rocket actually DOES see the distance to M31 shrink.

You think time is running “slow” in M31? Lol. woo woo.

As seen from the Earth's reference frame? I know for a fact that it is. All the evidence points towards SR being right and SR predicts that, from our reference frame, time is passing slower in M31. Similarly, anyone in M31 sees time passing slower for us.


And you STILL haven't responded to the questions I've been reposting endlessly. If you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and actually answer some scientific questions, they're currently near the top of page 22 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12739&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=525).


Edited to fix a couple typos.

[Yannox]

If an aether exists, the fact that the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun cannot be measured with respect to it must be accounted for. The converse is true for the Earth's axial rotation: the Sagnac Effect, from the point of view of most aether theories, exhibits the Earth's rotational motion wrt the aether.

The challenge lies in explaining why aether entrainment arises from the Earth's rotation but not from its annual revolution. All entrainment theories (including those that adopt the principles of inertial frame dragging) falter on this point.

Geocentricity cuts the Gordian Knot by affirming that the aether, as an infinitely rigid body, rotates diurnally on its axis through the Earth's poles, accounting for Sagnac Effect, Michelson-Gale, Michelson-Morley etc.

[Taibak]

True, but that doesn't change the fact that in steps two and four time dilation is occuring solely due to relative motion.

He made up whatever he wanted to make up, in attempt to try to salvage the original SR theory. It was the U2 clock that ultimately “lagged behind” the U1 clock at the end of the 1918 thought experiments, just as in the 1905 thought experiments. He managed to do that in 1918 with additional thought experiment manipulations. Since so many people had said that in the original SR theory, the U1 clock would run slow if the U2 clock ran slow, under the terms of the theory, in the 1918 paper he had to have the U1 clock run slow for a while, but then, in order to pretend to resolve the paradox, he had to add the gravity fields and the acceleration effects, which were not in the 1905 theory, and he had to have the U1 clock run fast to make up for the lost time, so the U2 clock would still “lag behind” the U1 clock at the end of the 1918 thought experiments. This was just a shear manipulation of his readers, with no attempt at all to conform to physical reality. The objective was not to produce a theory of physical reality in the 1918 paper, but to try to salvage the 1905 SR theory.

Actually, he's making a subtle argument that you missed. The clock paradox from the 1905 paper dealt with special relativity only. To set up a thought experiment under those conditions, you need two observers that are moving along the same gravitational potential or, preferably, in zero gravity. Either way, as long as the gravity is the same for both observers (and STAYS the same for both observers) the 1905 thought experiment works.

The thought experiment he's using here is more complex because the observers aren't at the same gravitational potential for the whole experiment. During steps two and four, clock U2 is at rest and clock U1 is moving - and Einstein (rightly) points out that, as a result of that relative motion, U1 is running slow. However, during step 3, one of the clocks moves to a different gravitational potential. Either U2 has moved to a higher potential or U1 has moved to a lower potential. It doesn't matter which. That also causes time dilation.

As such, the second thought experiment is similar to the first, although emphatically not identical, just as the two paradoxes are similar, but not identical. The key in the second experiment is realising that there are two sources of time dilation - motion and gravity. What Einstein is saying is that, in this case, gravitational time dilation is the larger of the two and, as a result, overpowers the effects of time dilation due solely to relative motion. That doesn't mean that motion doesn't cause time dilation - just that its effect is the smaller of the two.

Edited to clean up some BB Code. *Sigh*

[Tensor]

Geocentricity cuts the Gordian Knot by affirming that the aether, as an infinitely rigid body, roates diurnally on its axis through the Earth's poles, accounting for Sagnac Effect, Michelson Gale, Michelson Morley etc.

What is going to be your argument when the time comes and the MM, Michelson-Gale, and Sagnac effect experiments are done on the Moon or Mars, and the results are the same as those experiments done on earth? If that happens, Geocentricity is done, although I guess you could cling to geocentricity.

[Yannox]

Exactly. But what will be your reaction when these experiments are done on the Moon or Mars, if they give different results from on Earth? g you can live with. But could you live with G?

[Sam5]

Actually, he's making a subtle argument that you missed. The clock paradox from the 1905 paper dealt with special relativity only. To set up a thought experiment under those conditions, you need two observers that are moving along the same gravitational potential or, preferably, in zero gravity. Either way, as long as the gravity is the same for both observers (and STAYS the same for both observers) the 1905 thought experiment works.

Lol, that’s the paradox. If U2 ran slow due to relative motion in 1905, and if U1 runs slow due to relative motion in 1918, then both clocks are running slow, so where relative motion in the SR theory is concerned, neither “lags behind” the other when they unite. And there were no gravity fields or acceleration considered in the SR theory.

The 1918 paper is the most purposely deceptive physics paper I’ve ever read. The guy was clearly lying in it, in an attempt to salvage the 1905 SR theory and make people think it had no defects in it.

[Sam5]

Using the Lorentz equation for time dilation, special relativity predicts that, for every second that passes on Earth, an observer on the Earth would see an amount of time pass equal to:

t(M31)/t(Earth) = {1 - [(140,000 m/s / 3 * 10^8 m/s)]^2}^1/2 = .99999989.



Just saying that doesn’t make it so. Lorentz invented the transformation equations to use when oscillating atoms move through fields and through ethers that behave like fields. Do you have any evidence that M31 (but not our galaxy) is moving through a field or an ether?

You just keep making up excuses for the errors in SR theory. There is no evidence that all the clocks in M31 are running slow. In fact, the Doppler effect makes all the atomic clocks in M31 seem to be running fast, but that is just a Doppler illusion.

[Taibak]

Actually, he's making a subtle argument that you missed. The clock paradox from the 1905 paper dealt with special relativity only. To set up a thought experiment under those conditions, you need two observers that are moving along the same gravitational potential or, preferably, in zero gravity. Either way, as long as the gravity is the same for both observers (and STAYS the same for both observers) the 1905 thought experiment works.

Lol, that’s the paradox. If U2 ran slow due to relative motion in 1905, and if U1 runs slow due to relative motion in 1918, then both clocks are running slow, so where relative motion in the SR theory is concerned, neither “lags behind” the other when they unite. And there were no gravity fields or acceleration considered in the SR theory.

You're still missing the point. As I explained in the next two paragraphs, the paradox only exists in the 1918 thought experiment if relative motion is the ONLY cause of time dilation. However, that is clearly not the case. Once step three happens, the two clocks are at different gravitational potentials and there are TWO effects to consider.

The 1918 paper is the most purposely deceptive physics paper I’ve ever read. The guy was clearly lying in it, in an attempt to salvage the 1905 SR theory and make people think it had no defects in it.

You still haven't provided any evidence of that, just exhortations that it is.

[Sam5]

The person in the rocket actually DOES see the distance to M31 shrink.

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks. Everybody who moves sees the distance between them and the destination shrink, but the distance between the earth and M31 is not going to shrink one bit, just because we send a tiny little rocket toward M31. You are telling fantasy stories about things that don’t happen.

[Sam5]

Actually, he's making a subtle argument that you missed. The clock paradox from the 1905 paper dealt with special relativity only. To set up a thought experiment under those conditions, you need two observers that are moving along the same gravitational potential or, preferably, in zero gravity. Either way, as long as the gravity is the same for both observers (and STAYS the same for both observers) the 1905 thought experiment works.

Lol, that’s the paradox. If U2 ran slow due to relative motion in 1905, and if U1 runs slow due to relative motion in 1918, then both clocks are running slow, so where relative motion in the SR theory is concerned, neither “lags behind” the other when they unite. And there were no gravity fields or acceleration considered in the SR theory.

You're still missing the point. As I explained in the next two paragraphs, the paradox only exists in the 1918 thought experiment if relative motion is the ONLY cause of time dilation. However, that is clearly not the case. Once step three happens, the two clocks are at different gravitational potentials and there are TWO effects to consider.


The 1918 paper is supposed to be explaining why there is no paradox in the original SR theory. But the paradox is still there in 1918. He never got rid of it using relative motion alone. When he brings in acceleration and gravity fields, he is slowing down atomic clocks, just as Lorentz had predicted in his 1895 book that atomic clocks would slow down when the clocks were subjected to physical forces, which Lorentz predicted 23 years earlier. You are just making excuses for Einstein’s unethical manipulation of his thought experiments, which he did in 1918 to try to deceive his readers. There are no “TWO effects to consider” in the SR theory. The clocks in SR theory weren’t swaying “to and fro” and they weren’t “falling in a gravity field”. They never left the x axis. They never experienced acceleration or gravity fields. The guy is lying in the 1918 paper, and you are trying to cover up for him.

[Sam5]

You think time is running “slow” in M31? Lol. woo woo.

As seen from the Earth's reference frame? I know for a fact that it is. All the evidence points towards SR being right and SR predicts that, from our reference frame, time is passing slower in M31. Similarly, anyone in M31 sees time passing slower for us.


Nobody in the earth's reference frame sees "time passing slowly" in M31. You are saying exactly the opposite from what is revealed through true scientific observation. The atoms in M31 appear to be oscillating more rapidly and emitting blueshifted light, but this is only an illusion caused by the Doppler effect. People in M31 see the same blueshift in light from our galaxy. You are just making up the stuff about the “clocks running slow” in M31, and there is no evidence for it. The evidence available (the Doppler effect) makes it seem that the clocks are running fast. How can you say things that are not true, that are not supported by any observational evidence, just because you believe in a hundred year old fable?

[SeanF]

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks.
Unfortunately for you, reality is not restricted to what you think happens. The distance does shrink, but it's an incredibly miniscule amount - unless you're really breaking the speed limit laws. It's always been clear, though, that your disagreement with Relativity has simply been that it doesn't make sense to you.

The 1918 paper is supposed to be explaining why there is no paradox in the original SR theory. But the paradox is still there in 1918. He never got rid of it using relative motion alone.
First of all, I told you months ago that if you believed there was a paradox in SR, then you had to believe there was still a paradox in GR. That was back when you were claiming to accept GR.

BTW, in regards to your contention that "[t]he 1918 paper is supposed to be explaining why there is no paradox in the original SR theory" - says who?

[Taibak]

Using the Lorentz equation for time dilation, special relativity predicts that, for every second that passes on Earth, an observer on the Earth would see an amount of time pass equal to:

t(M31)/t(Earth) = {1 - [(140,000 m/s / 3 * 10^8 m/s)]^2}^1/2 = .99999989.


Just saying that doesn’t make it so. Lorentz invented the transformation equations to use when oscillating atoms move through fields and through ethers that behave like fields. Do you have any evidence that M31 (but not our galaxy) is moving through a field or an ether?

It doesn't matter if Lorentz invented the transformations or not - his theory of motion through fields has been shown, conclusively, to be wrong. Again, how do you explain the fact that, if Lorentz was right, the magnetic field lines of a moving object should be cut? That's something that has never been observed.

On the other hand, Einstein's theory of relativity predicts the same effect without using fields or ethers and is supported by the experimental evidence. How do you explain the fact that time dilation, as predicted by SR, is evident in the spectra of Type 1A supernovae in distant galaxies? In the extended half-lives of moving muons in pions? In the Hafele-Keating experiment? In signals sent from GPS satellites?

M31 is not moving through any appreciable fields and there is no ether. That still doesn't change the fact that it is moving. If SR is right - and the supernova spectra show that it does apply on a galactic scale - than it must apply for Andromeda.

You just keep making up excuses for the errors in SR theory. There is no evidence that all the clocks in M31 are running slow. In fact, the Doppler effect makes all the atomic clocks in M31 seem to be running fast, but that is just a Doppler illusion.

The Doppler shift has nothing to do with the rate at which clocks are running.

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks. Everybody who moves sees the distance between them and the destination shrink, but the distance between the earth and M31 is not going to shrink one bit, just because we send a tiny little rocket toward M31. You are telling fantasy stories about things that don’t happen.

When you drive to New York, how fast are you driving? For the sake of everyone on the road, I'd assume you're not travelling at a high enough speed for Lorentz contraction to be apparent. Besides, the distance between you and New York isn't what's contracted. It's the distance between New York and your starting point that's contracted.

Even so, how fast you drive doesn't change the fact that in both Einstein's and Lorentz's theories of relativity, distance is as variable as time. If Lorentz's theory is right, as you claim, a moving observer must see the distance between M31 and Earth contract while he's moving.

This same effect is predicted by special relativity and has been borne out experimentally. The measurements of pion and muon half-lives show not only that time has slowed down for the particles, but also that, in their reference frames, they've only had time to move a short distance before decaying. However, in a stationary reference frame, relative to the particles, the distance is measured to be much, MUCH, longer.

[SeanF]

Nobody in the earth's reference frame sees "time passing slowly" in M31. You are saying exactly the opposite from what is revealed through true scientific observation.
Hey, I asked you about this before and you just blew off the question (surprise, surprise). Are you actually of the opinion that the Doppler Effect we measure in M31 provides evidence that time is not running slow in that galaxy?

[Sam5]

Nobody in the earth's reference frame sees "time passing slowly" in M31. You are saying exactly the opposite from what is revealed through true scientific observation.
Hey, I asked you about this before and you just blew off the question (surprise, surprise). Are you actually of the opinion that the Doppler Effect we measure in M31 provides evidence that time is not running slow in that galaxy?

Taibak keeps saying that earth-based observers see time running slow in M31, but they do not. The only thing we see about clocks and time in M31 is the Doppler illusion that shows us a blueshift, not a redshift, which presents us with an illusion that the atomic clocks are running fast. There is no evidence that clocks are running slow in M31, and such a speculation is ridiculous. If you have any observational evidence that time or clocks are running slow in M31, please present it to us. Do you believe that the laws of physics are the same in M31 as they are here? If so, then show us some observational evidence that M31 clocks run slow, and explain why they do.

[Taibak]

The 1918 paper is supposed to be explaining why there is no paradox in the original SR theory. But the paradox is still there in 1918. He never got rid of it using relative motion alone. When he brings in acceleration and gravity fields, he is slowing down atomic clocks, just as Lorentz had predicted in his 1895 book that atomic clocks would slow down when the clocks were subjected to physical forces, which Lorentz predicted 23 years earlier.

Actually, no, he isn't. For starters, the equations that predict time dilation in general relativity are quite different than the Lorentz equations. Compare:

Lorentz time dilation (Lorentz, SR): T = t [(1- v^2/c^2)^1/2]

Gravitational time dilation (Schwarzschild, GR):
dT^2 = ( 1 - 2GM/rc^2)dt^2

If Lorentz was right and a gravitational field would produce time dilation, those two equations should be identical. They're not even close.

You are just making excuses for Einstein’s unethical manipulation of his thought experiments, which he did in 1918 to try to deceive his readers. There are no “TWO effects to consider” in the SR theory. The clocks in SR theory weren’t swaying “to and fro” and they weren’t “falling in a gravity field”. They never left the x axis. They never experienced acceleration or gravity fields. The guy is lying in the 1918 paper, and you are trying to cover up for him.

Except the 1918 paper is obviously not using strictly SR. One clock moves to a different gravitational potential which places the thought experiment. If the two clocks were at the same gravitational potential, where gravitational time dilation effects would be identical for both of them, or were in zero gravity then SR holds and the 1905 paradox is what's at work. The 1918 thought experiment is ultimately a different situation than the 1905 clock paradox because of that simple fact.

Come to think of it, you never established that the 1918 paper was dealing with the exact same paradox as the 1905 clock paradox - just that it dealt with *a* clock paradox. What was the context of the passage you quoted? What *exact* situation was Einstein seeking to explore.

As for whether or not Einstein was lying, you haven't actually produced any evidence that he was deliberately writing something false.

[Taibak]

Nobody in the earth's reference frame sees "time passing slowly" in M31. You are saying exactly the opposite from what is revealed through true scientific observation.
Hey, I asked you about this before and you just blew off the question (surprise, surprise). Are you actually of the opinion that the Doppler Effect we measure in M31 provides evidence that time is not running slow in that galaxy?

Taibak keeps saying that earth-based observers see time running slow in M31, but they do not. The only thing we see about clocks and time in M31 is the Doppler illusion that shows us a blueshift, not a redshift, which presents us with an illusion that the atomic clocks are running fast. There is no evidence that clocks are running slow in M31, and such a speculation is ridiculous. If you have any observational evidence that time or clocks are running slow in M31, please present it to us. Do you believe that the laws of physics are the same in M31 as they are here? If so, then show us some observational evidence that M31 clocks run slow, and explain why they do.

The light curves from type 1A supernovae in distant galaxies show show evidence of time dilation in agreement with the predictions of special relativity.

M31, like those distant galaxies, is moving through otherwise empty space. The only differences in their motion are direction and relative speed. Since the laws of physics hold throughout the universe, if time is observed to run slow in the distant galaxies, it MUST be running slow in M31.

Time dilation is not redily apparent in the spectrum of M31 because the Doppler shift produces an effect that's over 400,000 times greater. However, the equation used to predict the blueshift IS relativistic and takes time dilation into account.

[Sam5]

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks.
Unfortunately for you, reality is not restricted to what you think happens. The distance does shrink, but it's an incredibly miniscule amount -

You mean the earth shrinks every time I drive to New York?? Is this the reason for earthquakes and tectonic plate movement?


The 1918 paper is supposed to be explaining why there is no paradox in the original SR theory. But the paradox is still there in 1918. He never got rid of it using relative motion alone.
First of all, I told you months ago that if you believed there was a paradox in SR, then you had to believe there was still a paradox in GR. That was back when you were claiming to accept GR.



There is no clock paradox in GR, because in that theory, Einstein uses Lorentz’s original fundamental reason for an atomic clock slow-down, a force is placed on the clocks that slow down. No force (or a weaker force) is placed on the normal clocks. The normal clocks see the slow clocks tick slow, and the slow clocks see the normal clocks tick fast. No paradox.

In SR theory, both of two relatively moving observers see each other’s clocks slow down in exactly the same amount, but only one clock “lags behind” the other when they unite. Thus, a paradox.


BTW, in regards to your contention that "[t]he 1918 paper is supposed to be explaining why there is no paradox in the original SR theory" - says who?


Says Einstein: “This analysis clarifies completely the paradox you referred to.”

Also, Says Pauli: “As mentioned by Einstein Naturwissenschaften, 6 (1918) 697], this is the basis of the explanation for the clock paradox described in section #5 [of this book]. In the coordinate system K’ in which the clock C2 [U2] is permanently at rest, a gravitational field exists during the time in which its motion is retarded, and the observer in K’ can regard this field as causing the clock C2 [U2] to lose.”

[Sam5]

It doesn't matter if Lorentz invented the transformations or not - his theory of motion through fields has been shown, conclusively, to be wrong. Again, how do you explain the fact that, if Lorentz was right, the magnetic field lines of a moving object should be cut? That's something that has never been observed.

“As the satellite and tether move through the ionosphere (the very high part of the Earth's atmosphere the Shuttle flies in), they "cut" through magnetic field lines, generating high voltage, electrical currents, and plasma disturbances (you'll find explanations of theses things scattered through these pages).”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:n4e0Z5wbvigJ:liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/STS-75/tss-1r/tss-1r.html+nasa+tether+magnetic+field+lines+cut&hl=en &ie=UTF-8)



“Electrodynamic tethers work by virtue of the force a magnetic field exerts on a current-carrying wire. The phenomenon was first observed in the 19th century by André Marie Ampère, a pioneer in the study of electromagnetic phenomena. In 1895, Hendrik Lorentz summarized the phenomenon in the equation that now bears his name. The force acts on any charged particle moving through a magnetic field (including electrons moving in a wire), in a direction perpendicular to both the direction of current flow and the magnetic field vector.

As the tether cuts across the magnetic field, its bias voltage is positive at the end farthest from Earth and negative at the near end [step 2 in Fig. 2].”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:kXqbsOgNJOAJ:www.spectrum.ieee.org/pubs/spectrum/0700/nasa.html+nasa+tether+lorentz&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[Taibak]

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks.
Unfortunately for you, reality is not restricted to what you think happens. The distance does shrink, but it's an incredibly miniscule amount -

You mean the earth shrinks every time I drive to New York??

From your point of view, yes.

“As the satellite and tether move through the ionosphere (the very high part of the Earth's atmosphere the Shuttle flies in), they "cut" through magnetic field lines, generating high voltage, electrical currents, and plasma disturbances (you'll find explanations of theses things scattered through these pages).”

“Electrodynamic tethers work by virtue of the force a magnetic field exerts on a current-carrying wire. The phenomenon was first observed in the 19th century by André Marie Ampère, a pioneer in the study of electromagnetic phenomena. In 1895, Hendrik Lorentz summarized the phenomenon in the equation that now bears his name. The force acts on any charged particle moving through a magnetic field (including electrons moving in a wire), in a direction perpendicular to both the direction of current flow and the magnetic field vector.

As the tether cuts across the magnetic field, its bias voltage is positive at the end farthest from Earth and negative at the near end [step 2 in Fig. 2].”

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. Those scenarios have objects moving through the magnetic fields of another object causing disruptions. Lorentz theory says that a moving object will have cut magnetic field lines even if nothing is moving through its magnetic field. For instance, even though Earth is outside Jupiter's magnetic field, Lorentz predicts that Jupiter's field lines will still be cut, simply because Jupiter is moving relative to the Earth. However, Jupiter's magnetic field has been mapped pretty thoroughly and no such breaks have been found.

[Ut]

Just a quick, general question here for Sam...

Do you know any physics beyond what you can directly quote from 100 year old papers?

[Yannox]

The Farday Disc Generator Paradox, Inertial Frames, Aether, Absolute Space & Relativity
http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity08/FaradayDisc.html

[Sam5]

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks.
Unfortunately for you, reality is not restricted to what you think happens. The distance does shrink, but it's an incredibly miniscule amount -

You mean the earth shrinks every time I drive to New York??

From your point of view, yes.

Then why can’t I find this information in any geology books? All I can find anything like this in is crackpot relativity websites. From my pont of view, I’ve never seen the earth shrink.


“As the satellite and tether move through the ionosphere (the very high part of the Earth's atmosphere the Shuttle flies in), they "cut" through magnetic field lines, generating high voltage, electrical currents, and plasma disturbances (you'll find explanations of theses things scattered through these pages).”

“Electrodynamic tethers work by virtue of the force a magnetic field exerts on a current-carrying wire. The phenomenon was first observed in the 19th century by André Marie Ampère, a pioneer in the study of electromagnetic phenomena. In 1895, Hendrik Lorentz summarized the phenomenon in the equation that now bears his name. The force acts on any charged particle moving through a magnetic field (including electrons moving in a wire), in a direction perpendicular to both the direction of current flow and the magnetic field vector.

As the tether cuts across the magnetic field, its bias voltage is positive at the end farthest from Earth and negative at the near end [step 2 in Fig. 2].”

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. Those scenarios have objects moving through the magnetic fields of another object causing disruptions. Lorentz theory says that a moving object will have cut magnetic field lines even if nothing is moving through its magnetic field. For instance, even though Earth is outside Jupiter's magnetic field, Lorentz predicts that Jupiter's field lines will still be cut, simply because Jupiter is moving relative to the Earth. However, Jupiter's magnetic field has been mapped pretty thoroughly and no such breaks have been found.

Could you cite some real Lorentz source about this? Some book or some paper? You said:



It doesn't matter if Lorentz invented the transformations or not - his theory of motion through fields has been shown, conclusively, to be wrong. Again, how do you explain the fact that, if Lorentz was right, the magnetic field lines of a moving object should be cut? That's something that has never been observed.


And I proved you wrong.

[swansont]

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks.
Unfortunately for you, reality is not restricted to what you think happens. The distance does shrink, but it's an incredibly miniscule amount -

You mean the earth shrinks every time I drive to New York??

From your point of view, yes.

Then why can’t I find this information in any geology books? All I can find anything like this in is crackpot relativity websites. From my pont of view, I’ve never seen the earth shrink.


Why would this be in a geology book? It shrinks as measured by the observer. An observer on the earth (or the earth itself) sees no contraction. Your strawman of SR doesn't change this.

Have you ever travelled at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, relative to the earth? Nature isn't constrained to behave according to what you've experienced and can understand.

BTW, I've never seen an electron, which we all know is a particle, and yet I know they exhibit wave properties, since you can image things with them that you could never see with visible light and a microscope. Nature behaves very differently than our common experience when you get to the scale of the very small and the very fast.

[Normandy6644]

Then why can’t I find this information in any geology books? All I can find anything like this in is crackpot relativity websites. From my pont of view, I’ve never seen the earth shrink.

It's the same reason why NASA doesn't deal too much with relativistic effects when calculating satellite orbits: the effect just isn't significant enough.

The other day I was out running with my dad and for a second I sped up and went past him. I then said, "look, I'm aging more slowly than you!" Just because the effect is so miniscule that no real difference could be seen doesn't make it not true.

[swansont]

There is no clock paradox in GR, because in that theory, Einstein uses Lorentz’s original fundamental reason for an atomic clock slow-down, a force is placed on the clocks that slow down.

Where does he say that a force slows the clocks?

[Sam5]

When I drive to New York, I see the distance shrink every time, but I never actually think the distance between where I started and New York shrinks.
Unfortunately for you, reality is not restricted to what you think happens. The distance does shrink, but it's an incredibly miniscule amount -

You mean the earth shrinks every time I drive to New York??

From your point of view, yes.

Then why can’t I find this information in any geology books? All I can find anything like this in is crackpot relativity websites. From my pont of view, I’ve never seen the earth shrink.


Why would this be in a geology book? It shrinks as measured by the observer. An observer on the earth (or the earth itself) sees no contraction.


This should be in geology books if it is a real effect. If it is just an illusion, I think the Doppler theory would cover it.


Have you ever travelled at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, relative to the earth? Nature isn't constrained to behave according to what you've experienced and can understand.

I have relative to many galaxies. Didn’t you see the last Hubble photos of the superluminal galaxies that we are all traveling relative to?

They weren’t frozen, were they? And nor are we. They aren’t “time dilated” down to “zero”, are they? Nor are we.

[swansont]

Then why can’t I find this information in any geology books? All I can find anything like this in is crackpot relativity websites. From my pont of view, I’ve never seen the earth shrink.


Why would this be in a geology book? It shrinks as measured by the observer. An observer on the earth (or the earth itself) sees no contraction.


This should be in geology books if it is a real effect. If it is just an illusion, I think the Doppler theory would cover it.

I don't think geology books would mention photosynthesis, either, and that's a real effect. It's just not a geology effect. Relativity doesn't cause any geology effects.

[Sam5]

There is no clock paradox in GR, because in that theory, Einstein uses Lorentz’s original fundamental reason for an atomic clock slow-down, a force is placed on the clocks that slow down.

Where does he say that a force slows the clocks?


Lorentz first mentioned this in his 1895 book. He generally called them “Kräfte” (forces). One of them in electrodynamics theory is known today as the Lorentz Force. Some kind of Lorentz force is supposed to be what caused the NASA tether to fall behind the space shuttle after the tether snapped. These “forces” are rather mysterious and I think they have become somewhat known in quantum mechanics and electrodynamics theory. Actually, a simple magnetic “force field” is a “field” (an area) in which there is some kind of “force”.

Normally we think of space as being “empty” of matter, and pretty much a “vacuum”, and not capable of producing any resistance to motion of bodies through it, but under certain circumstances the fields of space can put up a resistance to the motion of bodies through them. For some reason, the unreeling of the NASA tether into a long line caused more of the resistance and the “Kräfte” on the tether, than when it was rolled up on a reel inside the shuttle storage bay. The Kräfte in the earth’s magnetic field caused a “drag” effect on the unreeled tether that actually slowed both the tether and the space shuttle down a little.

The tremendous significant difference between the Lorentz theory and the 1905 SR theory (which Einstein basically incorrectly copied from Lorentz theory) is that Einstein left out the important Kräfte when he wrote the Kinematical part of the SR theory, so it contained no Lorentzian Kräfte that could slow down Einstein’s clocks. I think Einstein did this because Lorentz mentioned Kräfte being placed on atoms that move through the “ether”, and in 1905 Einstein didn’t believe in the ether, so, in his mind, the cause for Lorentz’s atoms to slow down their oscillation rates while moving was just due to the “relative motion” of any clocks, rather than due to the motion of atoms through a resisting medium, since at that time Einstein didn’t believe in the “ether” and he had not yet related an “ether” to any of the “fields”.

On the other hand, from the beginning, Lorentz treated the “ether” as if it were a “field”. This seems to be the origin of Lorentz’s “speed limit of c” idea for moving bodies. Part of his early theory I think was not correct, such as the “length contraction” of the Michelson-Morley apparatus, and his “universal ether” idea, but still, Lorentz theory does work when various kinds of “fields” are considered, and motion through the fields tends to be more and more difficult at higher and higher speeds, because of those pesky “Kräfte”, that bodies moving through the fields encounter.

Einstein finally did add Kräfte to his patched-up 1918 version of the Kinematical part of his SR theory thought experiments, and that is what made the U1 clock speed up and the U2 clock slow down in the 1918 paper. And this was what he passed off as a “resolution” of his 1905 paradox.

But I have pointed out many times that the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper had no Kräfte in it. If you carefully study the Kinematical part of “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” you will find no Kräfte in it. The Kräfte does not turn up until the Electrodynamical half of the paper, when Einstein starts talking about electric and magnetic fields, but in that half, he doesn’t relate the fields or the Kräfte to the slow-down in clock rates.

Lorentz said that fields seem to put up a resistance to Körpern moving through them, especially Ponderablen Körpern. In fact, in “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”, Lorentz said, “Die durch unsere Formel 5 bestimmten Kräfte bedingen nicht nur die Bewegung der Ionen in den ponderablen Körpern, sondern können sich unter Umständen auch zu einer Wirkung vereinigen, welche die Körper selbst in Bewegung zu setzen strebt.” And I think this is something the Gravity Probe B is going to try to detect, in relation to the earth’s gravity field. We all are familiar with the “downward force” of gravity, but under Lorentz theory, a gravity field might also have some kind of “sideways force” associated with it.

[swansont]

There is no clock paradox in GR, because in that theory, Einstein uses Lorentz’s original fundamental reason for an atomic clock slow-down, a force is placed on the clocks that slow down.

Where does he say that a force slows the clocks?

... Einstein left out the important Kräfte when he wrote the Kinematical part of the SR theory
...

Einstein finally did add Kräfte to his patched-up 1918 version of the Kinematical part of his SR theory thought experiments, and that is what made the U1 clock speed up and the U2 clock slow down in the 1918 paper. And this was what he passed off as a “resolution” of his 1905 paradox.

But I have pointed out many times that the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper had no Kräfte in it. If you carefully study the Kinematical part of “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” you will find no Kräfte in it.

So basically Einstein never actually states that it's a force; this is just another example of you "channelling" Einstein for us.

[swansont]

Normally we think of space as being “empty” of matter, and pretty much a “vacuum”, and not capable of producing any resistance to motion of bodies through it, but under certain circumstances the fields of space can put up a resistance to the motion of bodies through them. For some reason, the unreeling of the NASA tether into a long line caused more of the resistance and the “Kräfte” on the tether, than when it was rolled up on a reel inside the shuttle storage bay. The Kräfte in the earth’s magnetic field caused a “drag” effect on the unreeled tether that actually slowed both the tether and the space shuttle down a little.

(emphasis added)

As has been pointed out numerous times before, this has nothing to do with the ether or SR. The force is due to relative motion of a conductor and a perpendicular magnetic field, and is a well-established phenomenon. Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.

This (http://www-ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2001/eby/introduction.html) page explains more, including the note: "Electrodynamic drag provides a passive method to rapidly reduce the orbit of a spacecraft, often by a few kilometers per day." It's in the section where they explain electrodynamic drag. No mention of ether.

[Sam5]

As has been pointed out numerous times before, this has nothing to do with the ether or SR.

I never said it had anything to do with the ether or SR. It has to do with a Lorentz force and a movement of the tether through the earth's magnetic field. I’m the one who first pointed out to you that the tether experiment has nothing to do with a “universal ether” or the SR theory.

From your link:

“A conductive tether material acts as a long wire moving though a magnetic field. This induces an electromotive force and corresponding current to move though the wire, with the surrounding plasma completing the circuit. The electromotive force, or voltage potential, depends directly on the field strength, the orbital velocity, and the tether length.”

[Sam5]

Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.


This is from the link I provided earlier: “Electric motors rely on this force: a wire loop in a magnetic field, when fed an alternating current, is made to rotate by the torque exerted by the Lorentz force. Transmission of the loop's motion to a shaft results in work.”

[Taibak]

Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.


This is from the link I provided earlier: “Electric motors rely on this force: a wire loop in a magnetic field, when fed an alternating current, is made to rotate by the torque exerted by the Lorentz force. Transmission of the loop's motion to a shaft results in work.”

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with relativity.

[swansont]

As has been pointed out numerous times before, this has nothing to do with the ether or SR.

I never said it had anything to do with the ether or SR. It has to do with a Lorentz force and a movement of the tether through the earth's magnetic field. I’m the one who first pointed out to you that the tether experiment has nothing to do with a “universal ether” or the SR theory.


And yet you bring it up in a relativity discussion, after saying

Normally we think of space as being “empty” of matter, and pretty much a “vacuum”, and not capable of producing any resistance to motion of bodies through it, but under certain circumstances the fields of space can put up a resistance to the motion of bodies through them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being in a vacuum or not, and it's not the space causing resistance. It's a red herring to include it in the discussion.

[Taibak]

Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.


This is from the link I provided earlier: “Electric motors rely on this force: a wire loop in a magnetic field, when fed an alternating current, is made to rotate by the torque exerted by the Lorentz force. Transmission of the loop's motion to a shaft results in work.”

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with relativity.

Erm... let me expand on that....

The problem with attributing relativistic effects to the Lorentz force is that, if relativity is right, everything can experience time dilation and Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. On the other hand, not everything will experience the Lorentz force. For instance, if a sneutron travelling at 75% of the speed of light and pass them through a magnetic field, the Lorentz force on the neutronium will be zero:

F(Lorentz) = q(E + vxB)

Where F(Lorentz) is the Lorentz force, q is the charge on any given neutron, E is the electric field strength, v is the velocity of the neutrons, B is the magnetic field strength, and x is the cross product operator. Since we're talking about neutrons, q is zero meaning F(Lorentz) is ALWAYS zero.

On the other hand, relativity predicts that the neutron's speed will cause time dilation and length contraction. The latter might be more intuitive in this case so let's start there. To keep it simple, let's assume that an observer at rest relative to the the EM field measure the field to be one light year across. Lorentz's theories of relativity mean that the neutron will measure the field to be shorter:

L' = L[(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2]

Where c is the speed of light in a vacuum, L' is the length of the field as measured by the neutron, and L is the length of the field as measured by the stationary observer. Plug in the numbers and you get:

L' = [1 light year][(1 - .75^2)^1/2] = .66 of a light year.

For time Lorentz's theory states:

T' = T[(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2]

T' is the amount of time that passes as measured by the neutron and T is the amount of time that passes as measured by the stationary observer. It should take an object travelling at 75% of the speed of light 16 months (a year and a third) to travel one light year and the observer will spend 16 months watching the neutron travel from one end of the field to the other. The same observer, however, will only see the neutron 'age' 10 and a half months:

T' = (16 months)[(1 - .75^2)^1/2] = 10.56 months.


So which is it? If time dilation and length contraction require a force to occur, the neutron shouldn't be experiencing these phenomena. The only force present is electromagnetism, which has no effect whatsoever on a neutral particle (F(Lorentz) = 0). On the other hand, Lorentz's theories of relativity, to say nothing of Einstein's, REQUIRE both Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and time dilation, even though the force acting on the neutron is zero. The only possible explanation is that the force is irrelevant.

[Sam5]

Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.


This is from the link I provided earlier: “Electric motors rely on this force: a wire loop in a magnetic field, when fed an alternating current, is made to rotate by the torque exerted by the Lorentz force. Transmission of the loop's motion to a shaft results in work.”

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with relativity.

I was talking about Lorentz theory. SR came from Lorentz theory but it left out "forces" and included errors.

[Sam5]

Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.


This is from the link I provided earlier: “Electric motors rely on this force: a wire loop in a magnetic field, when fed an alternating current, is made to rotate by the torque exerted by the Lorentz force. Transmission of the loop's motion to a shaft results in work.”

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with relativity.

Erm... let me expand on that....

The problem with attributing relativistic effects to the Lorentz force is that, if relativity is right, everything can experience time dilation and Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. On the other hand, not everything will experience the Lorentz force. For instance, if a sneutron travelling at 75% of the speed of light and pass them through a magnetic field, the Lorentz force on the neutronium will be zero:


You’re getting a lot of things mixed up. Lorentz theory doesn’t shrink the field when a neutron is moving through it. If anything the motion through the field might contract the neutron, but I don’t think Lorentz said anything about that, one way or the other. He talked about the contraction of atoms and the slowing down of atomic oscillation rates. Lorentz died in 1928 but neutrons weren’t discovered until around 1932.

When you speak of “relativity” you need to specify “special” or “general”.

See these links:

“Because of these uncertainties, the term neutronium is rarely found in the scientific literature.”

LINK (http://www.fact-index.com/n/ne/neutronium.html)

“Fictionally, neutronium is mentioned in at least two Star Trek episodes. In "The Doomsday Machine" (original series), the extragalactic planet killer (see photo) is supposedly composed of pure neutronium, rendering it impervious to phaser fire.”

LINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9D4C5dAv1hcJ:www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/neutronium.html+neutronium&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[Normandy6644]

Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.


This is from the link I provided earlier: “Electric motors rely on this force: a wire loop in a magnetic field, when fed an alternating current, is made to rotate by the torque exerted by the Lorentz force. Transmission of the loop's motion to a shaft results in work.”

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with relativity.

I was talking about Lorentz theory. SR came from Lorentz theory but it left out "forces" and included errors.

No it didn't. Einstein hadn't even read Lorentz's paper when he first began work on SR. He derived the transformations from first principles, not as "correction factors" that Lorentz used. SR didn't "leave out" forces, it just didn't address them. That's why we have GR.

[milli360]

No it didn't. Einstein hadn't even read Lorentz's paper when he first began work on SR. He derived the transformations from first principles, not as "correction factors" that Lorentz used. SR didn't "leave out" forces, it just didn't address them. That's why we have GR.
Sam5 has seen the footnotes at this online translation of Einstein's first SR paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#foot14), which say he had not been familiar with Lorentz's preceding memoir.

[Normandy6644]

No it didn't. Einstein hadn't even read Lorentz's paper when he first began work on SR. He derived the transformations from first principles, not as "correction factors" that Lorentz used. SR didn't "leave out" forces, it just didn't address them. That's why we have GR.
Sam5 has seen the footnotes at this online translation of Einstein's first SR paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#foot14), which say he had not been familiar with Lorentz's preceding memoir.

Right, this is essentially what I was talking about. it explains why Einstein never mentioned or cited Lorentz either.

[Sam5]

Perhaps you've used an electric motor and benefitted from this.


This is from the link I provided earlier: “Electric motors rely on this force: a wire loop in a magnetic field, when fed an alternating current, is made to rotate by the torque exerted by the Lorentz force. Transmission of the loop's motion to a shaft results in work.”

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with relativity.

I was talking about Lorentz theory. SR came from Lorentz theory but it left out "forces" and included errors.

No it didn't. Einstein hadn't even read Lorentz's paper when he first began work on SR. He derived the transformations from first principles, not as "correction factors" that Lorentz used. SR didn't "leave out" forces, it just didn't address them. That's why we have GR.


Hi,

Please don’t make stuff up.

Lorentz’s first paper on this subject was published in 1892, when Einstein was 13 years old.

Lorentz’s complete book about this stuff, including the Lorentz Transformations, “time dilation”, “length contraction,” and “relativistic Doppler effects” were published in 1895 when Einstein was 16 years old.

This Lorentz stuff was well known when Einstein tried to revise and “improve” the Lorentz theory in 1905.

Einstein even mentioned the Lorentz Transformation in his first 1905 SR paper. All you have to do is look at the 1895 Lorentz book and see that the 1905 paper was Einstein’s attempt to copy and improve it.

See Section 9 of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”:

“If we imagine the electric charges to be invariably coupled to small rigid bodies (ions, electrons), these equations are the electromagnetic basis of the Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies.” – Einstein, 1905

[Sam5]

No it didn't. Einstein hadn't even read Lorentz's paper when he first began work on SR. He derived the transformations from first principles, not as "correction factors" that Lorentz used. SR didn't "leave out" forces, it just didn't address them. That's why we have GR.
Sam5 has seen the footnotes at this online translation of Einstein's first SR paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#foot14), which say he had not been familiar with Lorentz's preceding memoir.

Right, this is essentially what I was talking about. it explains why Einstein never mentioned or cited Lorentz either.

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.

“Since--as follows from the theorem of addition of velocities --the vector [equation] is nothing else than the velocity of the electric charge, measured in the system k, we have the proof that, on the basis of our kinematical principles, the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity.” – Einstein, 1905 “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”

“However, this independence from the state of motion of the system of coordinates used, which we will call ‘the principle of relativity,’ seemed to have been suddenly called into question by the brilliant confirmations of H.A. Lorentz’s electrodynamics of moving bodies [in] H.A. Lorentz, 'Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern', Leiden, 1895.” – Einstein, 1907, “On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn From It”.

From Lorentz’s 1920 book, “The Einstein Theory of Relativity”, page 20, this quote of Einstein talking to a New York Times reporter:

“This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the theory of special relativity. Briefly, it discards absolute time and space and makes them in every instance relative to moving systems.”

[Taibak]

Erm... let me expand on that....

The problem with attributing relativistic effects to the Lorentz force is that, if relativity is right, everything can experience time dilation and Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. On the other hand, not everything will experience the Lorentz force. For instance, if a sneutron travelling at 75% of the speed of light and pass them through a magnetic field, the Lorentz force on the neutronium will be zero:

You’re getting a lot of things mixed up. Lorentz theory doesn’t shrink the field when a neutron is moving through it.

Only as far as the observer is concerned. From the neutron's point of view, the field DOES shrink.

If anything the motion through the field might contract the neutron, but I don’t think Lorentz said anything about that, one way or the other. He talked about the contraction of atoms and the slowing down of atomic oscillation rates. Lorentz died in 1928 but neutrons weren’t discovered until around 1932.

But neutrons are part of atoms. If Lorentz's theory states that atoms are contracted, then that means that atoms are contracted - regardless of whether or not Lorentz was aware of all the parts of the atom.

Anyway, if atoms contract under Lorentz theory, I can't see any reason why the contraction should stop there. The contraction should extend to the constituents of the atom, meaning that the neutron should be contracted even though it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field.

When you speak of “relativity” you need to specify “special” or “general”.

In this case, I'm talking about neither. I'm talking about Lorentz's theory of relativity. The special and general relativity refer to Einstein's theories.

See these links:

“Because of these uncertainties, the term neutronium is rarely found in the scientific literature.”

LINK (http://www.fact-index.com/n/ne/neutronium.html)

“Fictionally, neutronium is mentioned in at least two Star Trek episodes. In "The Doomsday Machine" (original series), the extragalactic planet killer (see photo) is supposedly composed of pure neutronium, rendering it impervious to phaser fire.”

LINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9D4C5dAv1hcJ:www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/neutronium.html+neutronium&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

Typo. I should have said 'neutron.'

[Sam5]

Anyway, if atoms contract under Lorentz theory, I can't see any reason why the contraction should stop there. The contraction should extend to the constituents of the atom, meaning that the neutron should be contracted even though it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field.

I said, “If anything the motion through the field might contract the neutron,”

But the field is not going to contract just because a little neutron is moving through it.

You need to give up on the SR theory. It contains too many mistakes, and it will just confuse you. And the distance between the earth and M31 does not shrink, contract, shorten, shrivel up, etc., just because we send a small rocket toward it.

[Normandy6644]

Uh, Sam, Lorentz transformations weren't published until 1903. Einstein was unaware of his work, as well as the results of the MM experiment and Poincare's work. You can say what you want, but every source i've ever seen had said the same thing.

[darkdev]

Sam5 should get his own forum. :wink:

(for organizational purposes)

[milli360]

No it didn't. Einstein hadn't even read Lorentz's paper when he first began work on SR. He derived the transformations from first principles, not as "correction factors" that Lorentz used. SR didn't "leave out" forces, it just didn't address them. That's why we have GR.
Sam5 has seen the footnotes at this online translation of Einstein's first SR paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#foot14), which say he had not been familiar with Lorentz's preceding memoir.

Right, this is essentially what I was talking about. it explains why Einstein never mentioned or cited Lorentz either.

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

[Sam5]

No it didn't. Einstein hadn't even read Lorentz's paper when he first began work on SR. He derived the transformations from first principles, not as "correction factors" that Lorentz used. SR didn't "leave out" forces, it just didn't address them. That's why we have GR.
Sam5 has seen the footnotes at this online translation of Einstein's first SR paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#foot14), which say he had not been familiar with Lorentz's preceding memoir.

Right, this is essentially what I was talking about. it explains why Einstein never mentioned or cited Lorentz either.

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

I have the German original and it does not contain the footnote. Unfortunately, by the 1920s there was quite a lot of trickery involving the 1905 SR theory. Einstein knew by 1920 that it was wrong, but he refused to admit it, and he didn’t want to acknowledge that all the critics of the 1905 theory had been right all along.

Here is his original 1905 statement about the Lorentz theory, which he was very familiar with when he wrote the SR theory. The SR theory was based on Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz theory:

“Denkt man sich die elektrischen Massen unveränderlich an kleine, starre
Körper (Ionen, Elektronen) gebunden, so sind diese Gleichungen
die elektromaguetische Grundlage der Lorentzschen Elektro-
dynamik und Optik bewegter Körper.”

[Tensor]

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

The footnotes were Einstein's and are in the original 1905 SR paper. The editors notes are from the book.

[Normandy6644]

I have the German original and it does not contain the footnote. Unfortunately, by the 1920s there was quite a lot of trickery involving the 1905 SR theory. Einstein knew by 1920 that it was wrong, but he refused to admit it, and he didn’t want to acknowledge that all the critics of the 1905 theory had been right all along.

You keep saying this and other statements like it, but where is your proof? I mean, to make such an accusation requires some kind of evidence, doesn't it? But then again, you claim that SR an and GR don't give the same answers, so why do you need evidence? You only ignore what you're presented anyway.

[Normandy6644]

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

The footnotes were Einstein's and are in the original 1905 SR paper. The editors notes are from the book.

And it's the editor who points out that "the previous work was unknown at the time to the author," or something of this sort, right? That's at least how my copy has it.

[Sam5]

Uh, Sam, Lorentz transformations weren't published until 1903. Einstein was unaware of his work, as well as the results of the MM experiment and Poincare's work. You can say what you want, but every source i've ever seen had said the same thing.


I’ve already posted a photocopy link to the Lorentz Transformation that Lorentz published in his 1895 book.

PAGE FROM LORENTZ’S 1895 BOOK (http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4dc32b3127cceb821b68ead3f0000001610)

In the old German script, p = v and V = c.

That’s on page 37. On page 38 he said, “Nimmt man nun diese Vertheilung für das System S2 und leitet daraus durch die oben besprochen Transformation ein System S1 ab, so besteht auch in diesem ein Ueberschuss positiver Ionen nur an einer gewissen Oberfläche E, während in allen inneren Punkten die electrische Kraft x verschwindet.”

Note that his “System S1” and “System S2” were the same designations that Einstien used in many of his papers. The 1905 SR theory was Eisntein’s attempt to revise and “improve” the Lorentz theory.

The 1895 book is very rare now and not many modern science writers know about it. But Einstein knew about it when he wrote his 1905 paper, and in fact in the 1905 paper he used the Lorentz Transformation equations and he referred to the Lorentz electrodynamics theory. That is why Einstein titled his paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. It was Lorentz who first started writing about the electrodynamics of moving bodies, which was well known in the field of physics by the time Einstein was in high school.

The MM experiment was one of the most famous physics experiments of the late 19th Century, and Einstein certainly knew about it when he was in high school. What you have been reading is cultist propaganda sources and urban legend websites.

[Sam5]

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

The footnotes were Einstein's and are in the original 1905 SR paper. The editors notes are from the book.



The footnote is not in the original, and it is not in Anna Beck’s translation of the original in, “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,” Volume 2.

Her first footnote comes at the end of the third paragraph of the 1st Section of the Kinematic Part of the paper, which is the same as in Eintein’s original, and it does not refer to Lorentz.

You’ve been hoodwinked all these years.

[Normandy6644]

Uh, Sam, Lorentz transformations weren't published until 1903. Einstein was unaware of his work, as well as the results of the MM experiment and Poincare's work. You can say what you want, but every source i've ever seen had said the same thing.


I’ve already posted a photocopy link to the Lorentz Transformation that Lorentz published in his 1895 book.

PAGE FROM LORENTZ’S 1895 BOOK (http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4dc32b3127cceb821b68ead3f0000001610)

In the old German script, p = v and V = c.

That’s on page 37. On page 38 he said, “Nimmt man nun diese Vertheilung für das System S2 und leitet daraus durch die oben besprochen Transformation ein System S1 ab, so besteht auch in diesem ein Ueberschuss positiver Ionen nur an einer gewissen Oberfläche E, während in allen inneren Punkten die electrische Kraft x verschwindet.”

Note that his “System S1” and “System S2” were the same designations that Einstien used in many of his papers. The 1905 SR theory was Eisntein’s attempt to revise and “improve” the Lorentz theory.

The 1895 book is very rare now and not many modern science writers know about it. But Einstein knew about it when he wrote his 1905 paper, and in fact in the 1905 paper he used the Lorentz Transformation equations and he referred to the Lorentz electrodynamics theory. That is why Einstein titled his paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. It was Lorentz who first started writing about the electrodynamics of moving bodies, which was well known in the field of physics by the time Einstein was in high school.

No one disagrees with this (I hope). Einstein, I would imagine since I didn't actually know him personally, most likely knew about Lorentzian Electrodynamics, but not Lorentz's initial foray into what would become SR. That's the point here.

The MM experiment was one of the most famous physics experiments of the late 19th Century, and Einstein certainly knew about it when he was in high school. What you have been reading is cultist propaganda sources and urban legend websites.

We're talking science here. If you make a statement like that, back it up with evidence. Until you do so, it's meaningless.

[Sam5]

I have the German original and it does not contain the footnote. Unfortunately, by the 1920s there was quite a lot of trickery involving the 1905 SR theory. Einstein knew by 1920 that it was wrong, but he refused to admit it, and he didn’t want to acknowledge that all the critics of the 1905 theory had been right all along.

You keep saying this and other statements like it, but where is your proof? I mean, to make such an accusation requires some kind of evidence, doesn't it? But then again, you claim that SR an and GR don't give the same answers, so why do you need evidence? You only ignore what you're presented anyway.

I’ve already explained the “proof” too you. It is contained in the Lorentz book and Einstein’s 1918 “patch up” of his erroneous 1905 theory. He had to add Lorentzian “forces” to the thought experiments in 1918 to try to correct the 1905 clock paradox which resulted when he had clocks change rates with no forces placed on them, and when he had both observers see each other’s clocks slow down exactly the same amount, but only one clock “lags behind” the other when the two unite. That’s what caused the 1905 paradox.

[Sam5]

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

The footnotes were Einstein's and are in the original 1905 SR paper. The editors notes are from the book.

And it's the editor who points out that "the previous work was unknown at the time to the author," or something of this sort, right? That's at least how my copy has it.


Einstein mentions the Lorentz electrodynamics theory in his 1905 SR paper. Geepers! How can you claim that Einstein didn’t know about it when he used Lorentz’s equations and he specifically mentioned Lorentz’s electrodynamics theory in the paper?

You are grasping for straws.

Face it, you’ve been hoodwinked.

[Normandy6644]

I have the German original and it does not contain the footnote. Unfortunately, by the 1920s there was quite a lot of trickery involving the 1905 SR theory. Einstein knew by 1920 that it was wrong, but he refused to admit it, and he didn’t want to acknowledge that all the critics of the 1905 theory had been right all along.

You keep saying this and other statements like it, but where is your proof? I mean, to make such an accusation requires some kind of evidence, doesn't it? But then again, you claim that SR an and GR don't give the same answers, so why do you need evidence? You only ignore what you're presented anyway.

I’ve already explained the “proof” too you. It is contained in the Lorentz book and Einstein’s 1918 “patch up” of his erroneous 1905 theory. He had to add Lorentzian “forces” to the thought experiments in 1918 to try to correct the 1905 clock paradox which resulted when he had clocks change rates with no forces placed on them, and when he had both observers see each other’s clocks slow down exactly the same amount, but only one clock “lags behind” the other when the two unite. That’s what caused the 1905 paradox.

What will it take for you to understand that GR is an extension of SR? I've shown this to you mathematically, others have expressed it in more words. Just what will it take?

[Sam5]

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

The footnotes were Einstein's and are in the original 1905 SR paper. The editors notes are from the book.

And it's the editor who points out that "the previous work was unknown at the time to the author," or something of this sort, right? That's at least how my copy has it.


Einstein mentions the Lorentz electrodynamics theory in his 1905 SR paper. Geepers! How can you claim that Einstein didn’t know about it when he used Lorentz’s equations and he specifically mentioned Lorentz’s electrodynamics theory in the paper?

You are grasping for straws.

Face it, you’ve been hoodwinked.

[Normandy6644]

Come on fellas, this is science not fiction. Haven’t you ever read Einstein’s 1905 SR paper? If not, then go read it and stop making stuff up.
That link is to the 1905 paper. Or, at least, the English translation of the paper, published in the 20's I think. I'm not sure who wrote the footnote.

The footnotes were Einstein's and are in the original 1905 SR paper. The editors notes are from the book.

And it's the editor who points out that "the previous work was unknown at the time to the author," or something of this sort, right? That's at least how my copy has it.


Einstein mentions the Lorentz electrodynamics theory in his 1905 SR paper. Geepers! How can you claim that Einstein didn’t know about it when he used Lorentz’s equations and he specifically mentioned Lorentz’s electrodynamics theory in the paper?

You are grasping for straws.

Face it, you’ve been hoodwinked.

Read my other post. I am well aware that Einstein knew of Lorentzian Electrodyamics. This is in fact, NOT SR. It was Einstein, not Lorentz, who derived the Lorentz Transformations (which were well known, but not understood since they were more or less ad hoc) from first principles and turned a bunch of ideas into a sound theory that has held up under experiments.

Face it, you've been berrytwingled.

[Sam5]

Uh, Sam, Lorentz transformations weren't published until 1903. Einstein was unaware of his work, as well as the results of the MM experiment and Poincare's work. You can say what you want, but every source i've ever seen had said the same thing.


I’ve already posted a photocopy link to the Lorentz Transformation that Lorentz published in his 1895 book.

PAGE FROM LORENTZ’S 1895 BOOK (http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4dc32b3127cceb821b68ead3f0000001610)

In the old German script, p = v and V = c.

That’s on page 37. On page 38 he said, “Nimmt man nun diese Vertheilung für das System S2 und leitet daraus durch die oben besprochen Transformation ein System S1 ab, so besteht auch in diesem ein Ueberschuss positiver Ionen nur an einer gewissen Oberfläche E, während in allen inneren Punkten die electrische Kraft x verschwindet.”

Note that his “System S1” and “System S2” were the same designations that Einstien used in many of his papers. The 1905 SR theory was Eisntein’s attempt to revise and “improve” the Lorentz theory.

The 1895 book is very rare now and not many modern science writers know about it. But Einstein knew about it when he wrote his 1905 paper, and in fact in the 1905 paper he used the Lorentz Transformation equations and he referred to the Lorentz electrodynamics theory. That is why Einstein titled his paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. It was Lorentz who first started writing about the electrodynamics of moving bodies, which was well known in the field of physics by the time Einstein was in high school.

No one disagrees with this (I hope). Einstein, I would imagine since I didn't actually know him personally, most likely knew about Lorentzian Electrodynamics, but not Lorentz's initial foray into what would become SR. That's the point here.

That’s not true. Einstein’s sections in his 1905 paper follow some of the same topics as some of Lorentz’s sections in his 1895 book. The Electrodynamic part of the 1905 paper is almost a direct copy of some of the sections of the 1895 Lorentz book. Lorentz's book was about the electrodynamics of moving bodies and so was Einstein's 1905 SR theory.

In Lorentz’s 1920 book, he has a quote from an Einstein interview with the New York Times, in which Einstein said, “This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the theory of special relativity. Briefly, it discards absolute time and space and makes them in every instance relative to moving systems.”

The truth is that Lorentz invented the theory, starting in 1892, when Einstein was 13 years old. His 1895 electrodynamics relativity book was well known, and it is easy to see that Einstein copied parts of it and ideas from it. The problem is, Einstein left out the “forces” that physically changed the rates of Lorentz’s atomic clocks in the 1895 book, and that’s why the Kinematical part of Einstein’s theory does not work out. That’s why Einstein had to change it in 1918. By then, he was collaborating with Lorentz, and Lorentz helped him out.

If you don’t want to face up to this, then you can believe in whatever urban legend you want to believe in.

[Sam5]

Read my other post. I am well aware that Einstein knew of Lorentzian Electrodyamics. This is in fact, NOT SR. It was Einstein, not Lorentz, who derived the Lorentz Transformations
If Einstein had derived the transformations, they would have been called the “Einstein Transformations”, not the “Lorentz Transformations”. Lorentz published them and called them “transformations” in his 1895 book, when Einstein was just 16 years old.

It is the Lorentz theory that has held up. He was the first person to say that moving atomic clocks would slow down their oscillation rates under certain conditions, when they experienced certain physical forces.

Einstein came along and said his “wristwatch” and “balance wheel clocks” would change rates because of only “relative motion”. LOL!

Finally, Einstein had to change that and go back to the original Lorentz concept in his 1918 patch-up of his 1905 theory.

This was known years ago, but during the past 30 years Einstein cultists have tried to give all the credit to Einstein and leave Lorentz out of the story. And that modern mass media version is what you have fallen for.

[Normandy6644]

That’s not true. Einstein’s sections in his 1905 paper follow some of the same topics as some of Lorentz’s sections in his 1895 book. The Electrodynamic part of the 1905 paper is almost a direct copy of some of the sections of the 1895 Lorentz book. Lorentz's book was about the electrodynamics of moving bodies and so was Einstein's 1905 SR theory.

I KNOW!!!. Lorentz's ideas on what would become SR did not get published until 1903. I'm not talking about his electrodynamics. The Lorentz force (F=qv x B + E) had been known to all modern physicists at the time. Electrodynamics is not all of SR.

In Lorentz’s 1920 book, he has a quote from an Einstein interview with the New York Times, in which Einstein said, “This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the theory of special relativity. Briefly, it discards absolute time and space and makes them in every instance relative to moving systems.”

I know this too. That's great, and Lorentz all acknowledged Einstein's "brilliant theories" in some personal letter a few years later. So what? I'm not denying the contributions of Lorentz and Poincare and others to SR, I'm just saying that Einstein was the one who put it all together. Do you agree?

The truth is that Lorentz invented the theory, starting in 1892, when Einstein was 13 years old. His 1895 electrodynamics relativity book was well known, and it is easy to see that Einstein copied parts of it and ideas from it. The problem is, Einstein left out the “forces” that physically changed the rates of Lorentz’s atomic clocks in the 1895 book, and that’s why the Kinematical part of Einstein’s theory does not work out. That’s why Einstein had to change it in 1918. By then, he was collaborating with Lorentz, and Lorentz helped him out.

Of course Einstein used some of Lorentz's ideas, this is how physics works. Ideas stem from the ideas of others and are eventually expanded upon and improved. Einstein left out forces in 1905 because he was just beginning the theory. Einstein didn't change anything in 1918, he expanded and improved what was already done. By that time, he had the necessary mathematical tools to develop a theory that included non-inertial frames. Other scientists contributed here too. Why does Einstein get the credit? Because in the end he put it all together. Not only did Lorentz not "help Einstein out," he didn't fully understand everything until a few years later, after Einstein had explained GR more thoroughly. Go back and read Einstein's 1916 paper "Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity" and you tell me you can pick it all up right away.

If you don’t want to face up to this, then you can believe in whatever urban legend you want to believe in.

It's not an urban legend Sam, it's fact. Besides, I thought you wanted to talk about physics, not history? And yet here we are.

[Sam5]

Einstein didn't change anything in 1918, he expanded and improved what was already done.

Do you have a copy of the 1918 paper?

If you do, then you will know that he added gravity fields to the SR theory and also acceleration effects, in an attempt to correct his clock paradox error, after having said in his 1916 book and in other papers that the SR theory did not contain any gravity fields or acceleration.

It is so obvious what he was doing in the 1918 paper, in an attempt to try to cover up his errors in his 1905 SR theory.

You’ve just become a “fan” of his, and you can’t accept the fact that he actually did that.

Well, welcome to the real world.

[Normandy6644]

Einstein didn't change anything in 1918, he expanded and improved what was already done.

Do you have a copy of the 1918 paper?

If you do, then you will know that he added gravity fields to the SR theory and also acceleration effects, in an attempt to correct his clock paradox error, after having said in his 1916 book and in other papers that the SR theory did not contain any gravity fields or acceleration.

It is so obvious what he was doing in the 1918 paper, in an attempt to try to cover up his errors in his 1905 SR theory.

Complete interpretation. Not science. I have yet to see an error in SR, so why don't you provide one? Show me where SR is wrong, and GR is right.

You’ve just become a “fan” of his, and you can’t accept the fact that he actually did that.

Well, welcome to the real world.

I'm no "fan," except a fan of science. If you or anyone else were to show where SR is wrong, I'd gladly accept it. But, being a "fan" of science, I need some good evidence to the contrary. Live in your dream world, because as Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'll be waiting.

[Taibak]

Sam5: If time dilation and length contraction depend on forces, how come the equations that govern them (and, as you point out, were developed by Lorentz) don't contain any force terms? They contain speeds, c, time, and length, but NO force terms. Heck, they don't even contain any accelerations. If those phenomena are caused by a force, that should be reflected in the equations.

Consider the following thought experiment: two identical spherical objects are orbiting a large, dense, electrically neutral planet with no magnetic field. The planet is large enough that an observer standing on its surface sees the planet's surface as flat, much as someone driving through Indiana will see the surface of the Earth as flat. As such, you can safely ignore centripital forces for a small period of time. The objects are both moving at half the speed of light, relative to the ground, and do not change their speed. However, one object is orbiting one km above the surface, the other is orbiting ten km above the surface. Basic Newtonian physics predicts that the force of gravity acting on the higher object is 100 times weaker than the force acting on the lower object. However, according to Lorentz's theory, the observer on the ground will see time pass slower for BOTH particles as per the equation:

t(objects) = t(ground)[(1 - v^2/c^2)]^1/2

Again, if Lorentz's 1895 theory is right, that equation should hold. However, it doesn't seem to care about any forces. Sam5, how do you explain that fact? Is the equation that Lorentz proposed to explain the situation wrong? Or does Lorentz's theory hold true regardless of the strength of the field - which means that the theory holds true even if the field's strength is zero?

[Sam5]

Einstein didn't change anything in 1918, he expanded and improved what was already done.

Do you have a copy of the 1918 paper?

If you do, then you will know that he added gravity fields to the SR theory and also acceleration effects, in an attempt to correct his clock paradox error, after having said in his 1916 book and in other papers that the SR theory did not contain any gravity fields or acceleration.

It is so obvious what he was doing in the 1918 paper, in an attempt to try to cover up his errors in his 1905 SR theory.

Complete interpretation. Not science. I have yet to see an error in SR, so why don't you provide one? Show me where SR is wrong, and GR is right.

Well, apparently some people just can’t see the errors. You must be one of those.

The most obvious error is that since there is no “absolute space” in the theory, his two “systems” are just moving “relatively”. No one can say if one is actually “moving” while the other is “stationary”, since the observers who travel with each system see their own system as being “stationary” and the other one as “moving”.

So, both systems are equal, and they are moving only “relatively”.

He tries to give preference to one of the systems, and that is the K system which he imagines himself (and his readers) stationary within. So, that makes him (and his readers) think of the k system as the “moving” one.

But, the theory itself makes it clear that every observer who is fixed inside the k system, sees their system as “stationary” and the other system as moving. So all a sensible person has to do to test the theory is imagine himself fixed inside the k system. So then they see the K system as the one that is “moving”.

So, here we have a completely symmetrical situation. He even says in the paper that, “It is clear that the same results hold good of bodies at rest in the ‘stationary’ system, viewed from a system in uniform motion.” He even puts the word “stationary” in quotes, because he knows that no one can really tell which system is “stationary” and which is “moving”, since they are both “stationary” to the observers that are fixed within them, and it is the other system that seems to be “moving”.

In the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment, he synchronizes the clocks in the two system and he makes them synchronous. This means they are set at the same time and are running at the same rate, before the relative motion begins.

Then he starts the relative motion, and of course all the observers in the k system are supposed to see the clock in the K system slow down at exactly the same rate that the K observers see the k clock slow down. He moves the two frames toward each other. The K observers see the k system move, while the k observers see the K system move. Both observers see each other’s clocks slow down.

But at the end of the experiment, only one of the clocks “lags behind” the other, and this is the paradox, and this is why he calls this a “peculiar consequence”.

This is the famous “clock paradox”, and this is what most of the physicists in Europe started howling about, because it is such an obvious error, a stupid mistake, and an unsolvable paradox.

Also, he uses only mechanical clocks, and of course just “relative motion” will not slow down any kind of clock, and not mechanical ones either. He leaves out all forces, accelerative effects, and gravity fields, so there is nothing and no physical force that could possibly slow down the mechanical clocks.

Clocks require some kind of force placed on them before they will slow down.

So, for 13 years he had to try to double-talk his way around this error and this paradox, especially when he gave speeches at universities and had question and answer sessions afterwards.

The attacks against his SR theory were so great by 1918, he felt he need to try to publish a paper that would distract from the errors, and that’s when he added the gravity fields and the acceleration effects to the thought experiments, which he had said for years did not exist in SR theory and were not considered in the SR theory. He said that in his 1916 paper and his book.

I have read enough of his papers and books to know that he said there was “no ether” in 1905, then in 1918 and 1920 he said there “is an ether”. He said that “relative motion” caused the U2 clock to lag behind the U1 clock in 1905, but in 1918 he said it was due to acceleration and gravity. He said there was geometric “length contraction” due only to relative motion in 1905, then in 1907 he said that there was no such thing a “length contraction” due only to relative motion. But in his 1916 book he lied and said again that there was “length contraction” due only to “relative motion”.

By 1911 he realized that just as Lorentz had said in 1895, atomic clocks would slow down when certain forces were placed on them, and so he had atomic clocks slowing down in his 1911 theory when gravitational forces and accelerataive forces were placed on them. This was basically a return to the Lorentz principle, 16 years after Lorentz had first published it. In 1905 he said that light speed in space was “constant”, but in 1911 and 1916 he said it slowed down when it passed through gravity fields.

In his 1918 paper, he did such odd manipulations with gravity, such as turning the gravity fields on and off like with a switch, and in an attempt to try to anticipate what the critics would say about that, he said, “First I have to point out that the distinction of real verses non-real is not very productive.” So here he was admitting that trying to decide what he was saying that was real and not-real in his theories, should not even be considered and was meaningless. This is because he flip-flopped on so many of the issues, he wanted to cover all his bases, so he could say that some effect was not real in one lecture, and real in another lecture, or real or not real whenever he got on the spot with one of his critics. I’ve never read any other physicist say that in any other paper. The guy was really conning his readers in that 1918 paper.

In his 1916 GR paper, he said that universal space was “curved” and that a light beam would traverse the entire universe and return to its source. But in 1932 he had to write a paper saying that wasn’t true at all. He said in 1916 that all the stars were “fixed”, but later he realized they were not. He is credited with “predicting” the BB theory, but it was actually Newton who predicted it, while Einstein actually denied it and said all the stars were “fixed”. He tried to take credit for the idea that light would bend when passing an astronomical body, but it was Newton who first predicted that in his “Optics” book of 1704. Einstein actually read about the idea in Newton’s book.

Today, NASA uses Newton theory and Newtonian equations to calculate space craft trajectories. They use Newtonian telescopes, but they don’t use Einstein refrigerators, which never worked very well. Einstein is the most over-hyped guy in all of physics, and most of this hype has come about just within the past 30 years.

[Tensor]

Well Sam5, you have claimed that you don't understand all the questions. So below are the questions we've asked of you (I've been gone for a couple of days, if there are any others please feel free to add to them). So, please tell us which ones you don't understand and answer the ones you do. I think everyone here would be agreeable to wait until you have answered them. Taibak, swansont, Sean, Normandy, any objections to waiting for Sam5 to answer?

Both the special and general theories of relativity have been shown to agree with every experimental test to which they've yet been subjected. Why should we scrap theories that work so well? Similarly, Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanics are also in strong agreement with experiment and that's based on Einstein's 1905 paper.

If Dr. Su's theory is right, the error in the Bragg diffraction angles should be approximately one degree. By his own admission, the error is over 40 degrees. Explain this discrepency and explain why we should believe a theory that predicts a result 40 times smaller than what's observed, espescially when relativity, as outlined in the 1905 and 1916 papers, produces the correct results?

Taken the last point a step further, you make a big deal about Einstein making and correcting mistakes en route to developing the definitive version of his theories and see this as evidence that relativity as a whole is wrong. On the other hand, Dr. Su's theories contain a glaring, uncorrected error and you insist on the theory's validity. Both made mistakes and admitted them. Why is this a problem for Einstein and not for Su? Are the rules of evidence different for them?

Your expertise with clocks - does that extend to clocks moving at greater than roughly half the speed of light relative to a stationary observer? If not, how can you claim to have first hand experience with observing time dilation when the effects can be mathematically shown to be negligible at low speeds?

Is it possible that the 'wristwatches' and 'balance-wheel clocks' Einstein refers to in the 1905 paper were idealisations and not actual clocks? If so, can those timepieces be assumed to function as perfect clocks that keep time with 100% precision regardless of whatever mechanical effects they may experience?

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.

Really? Do you mean frozen water, as in ice? If you do, could you please explain where all the thermal energy has gone?

If the ether moves with the earth, how do you explain the presence of stellar aberration? Shouldn't a fixed ether not give aberration?

If you don't feel like answering, that's fine. IF you don't understand the math behind relativity, that's fine. But to claim it's wrong without showing us where the math is wrong or you can't show where Lorentz matches observations and SR doesn't makes your claims invalid. So, if you make a claim that SR is wrong and Lorentz is correct, I'll post a link to this page showing you haven't proved your claims with either math or observations and that they have no validity.

[Sam5]

Sam5: If time dilation and length contraction depend on forces, how come the equations that govern them (and, as you point out, were developed by Lorentz) don't contain any force terms? They contain speeds, c, time, and length, but NO force terms. Heck, they don't even contain any accelerations. If those phenomena are caused by a force, that should be reflected in the equations.

Lorentz had equations for the forces throughout his book and other papers. What the famous Transformation does is apply those forces in a certain way, based on velocity, so that they increase with the speed of the body, and the maximum force is experienced at v = c relative to the field. This causes the so-called “speed limit of c”.

[Normandy6644]

Well, apparently some people just can’t see the errors. You must be one of those.

it's a good thing we have people so scientifically well-versed as yourself to interpret what apparently the entire scientific community has misunderstood for so many years. You deserve a medal.

I think everyone here would be agreeable to wait until you have answered them. Taibak, swansont, Sean, Normandy, any objections to waiting for Sam5 to answer?

No problem, just add one more to the list of questions:

I know this too. That's great, and Lorentz all acknowledged Einstein's "brilliant theories" in some personal letter a few years later. So what? I'm not denying the contributions of Lorentz and Poincare and others to SR, I'm just saying that Einstein was the one who put it all together. Do you agree?

[Sam5]

But to claim it's wrong without showing us where the math is wrong or you can't show where Lorentz matches observations and SR doesn't makes your claims invalid.

It’s very simple. If “relative motion” does not cause clocks to slow down, because there are no forces placed on the clocks, then the best equation in the world is meaningless. But if that same equation is used in Lorentz theory, and if a field puts up a resistance to an atomic clock moving through it, and if that resistance force slows down the oscillation rates of the atoms in the clock, then the equation does apply. We can say it is a valid equation in both cases, but in the first case, with no force, it does not apply, but in the second case, with forces, it does apply. I think I’ve told you this a few dozen times.

If you say that you will pull one elephant out of one hat, and another elephant out of another hat, and 1 + 1 = 2 elephants, then the equation is fine, but you can not pull any elephants out of any hats.

I’m talking about conceptual ideas that are very simple, but you don’t seem to be able to understand them. This is frustrating for me. And another thing that is frustrating is that you are trying very hard not to understand them. I worked with different kinds of clocks all my life, and "relative motion" never changed the rates of any of them. They always required a "force" in order to change their rates. Einstein did not know that in 1905, but he learned it by 1911.

[Sam5]

Tensor,

Can you show me any clock that has ever changed rates without a force being placed on it or taken away from it?

Even in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the East and West clocks had to feel some kind of “force”, or they would not have known that they were going East for a while and then West for a while.

[Sam5]

Well, apparently some people just can’t see the errors. You must be one of those.

it's a good thing we have people so scientifically well-versed as yourself to interpret what apparently the entire scientific community has misunderstood for so many years. You deserve a medal.


Thank you. But I'm a journalist. No physicist has been able to conduct this type of investigation. It took a journalist to do it. A physicist would not want to let the world know that another physicist lied so much in his cover-up papers. No physicist could ever say openly in a mainstream journal that Einstein's 1918 paper was the biggest fradulent science paper ever written.

[Sam5]

So below are the questions we've asked of you

I’ve answered just about every one of your questions today, and it took most of my day to compose the answers. Several answers have taken me more than an hour to write. I am not going to answer long lists of questions.

If you don’t understand what I’ve said today, you won’t understand anything I would say in your long lists of questions. Anyway, I’ve already answered some of the questions several times before. But most people here never answer any of my questions.

I’m not Mr. Science, or Ask Sam. I’ve told you the whole story straight. Either believe it or don’t.

[Taibak]

Sam5: If time dilation and length contraction depend on forces, how come the equations that govern them (and, as you point out, were developed by Lorentz) don't contain any force terms? They contain speeds, c, time, and length, but NO force terms. Heck, they don't even contain any accelerations. If those phenomena are caused by a force, that should be reflected in the equations.

Lorentz had equations for the forces throughout his book and other papers. What the famous Transformation does is apply those forces in a certain way, based on velocity, so that they increase with the speed of the body, and the maximum force is experienced at v = c relative to the field. This causes the so-called “speed limit of c”.

If that's so, it should be easy to derive an equation for the transformations that's based on the forces directly. Would you mind doing so?

Also, forces are dependent on velocity changing. In the experiment in question, we're looking at a situation that is, essentially, objects moving in a straight line at a constant speed. There is no change in velocity, acceleration equals zero. As a result, Newton's second law shows that the force equals zero.

Lastly, you still haven't addressed my argument that if time dilation is caused by a field exerting a force on a moving object then the strength of the field must be taken into account. The Lorentz transformations can't be based solely on velocity if a field is required.

[Taibak]

Thank you. But I'm a journalist. No physicist has been able to conduct this type of investigation. It took a journalist to do it. A physicist would not want to let the world know that another physicist lied so much in his cover-up papers. No physicist could ever say openly in a mainstream journal that Einstein's 1918 paper was the biggest fradulent science paper ever written.


I’ve answered just about every one of your questions today, and it took most of my day to compose the answers. Several answers have taken me more than an hour to write. I am not going to answer long lists of questions.

If you don’t understand what I’ve said today, you won’t understand anything I would say in your long lists of questions. Anyway, I’ve already answered some of the questions several times before. But most people here never answer any of my questions.

I’m not Mr. Science, or Ask Sam. I’ve told you the whole story straight. Either believe it or don’t.

SOme questions based on these statements.

First, if physicists are so reluctant to expose other physicists' lies, how do you explain the irreperable damage done to the reputations of the scientists who originally proposed cold fusion?

Second, if you refuse to answer scientific questions we pose to your theories, why should we believe you?

Lastly, is it possible to understand an argument and still disagree with it? If so, can a claimant dismiss his critics as people who misunderstand his theories without also refusing to take part in the debate essential to the scientific method?

[Yannox]

swanson wrote:
the reason for that was that the locally stationary ether had already been ruled out by stellar aberration measurements.

There is an equally valid explanation: that the star & the light from it is moving relative to a stationary aether (& Earth!). The amount of tilt will be exactly the same.

[AstroSmurf]

Your summation of the twin "paradox" is still incorrect, Sam5.

In the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment, he synchronizes the clocks in the two system and he makes them synchronous. This means they are set at the same time and are running at the same rate, before the relative motion begins.

Then he starts the relative motion, and of course all the observers in the k system are supposed to see the clock in the K system slow down at exactly the same rate that the K observers see the k clock slow down. He moves the two frames toward each other. The K observers see the k system move, while the k observers see the K system move. Both observers see each other’s clocks slow down.
The clocks are synchronised only in the "stationary" K frame. In the "moving" k frame, they aren't! This is one consequence of SR that I think you've missed, Sam5 - simultaneity is relative! The only time when two events can be synchronous in every frame of reference is when they're also happening at the same place; i.e, they're essentially the same event. The two clocks in Einstein's original example are placed some distance apart, so they can't be synchronised in both K and k!

So, to continue the thought experiment, in K, the moving clock moves towards the stationary one, and at the end, the moving one has counted fewer ticks and lags behind. In k, the clocks aren't synchronised from the beginning - the stationary one (note, this is the one we called the moving one before) is lagging quite a bit behind the moving one (again, the opposite) when the experiment starts. Since the moving one is ticking slower, the stationary one is catching up, but it won't quite have gotten there when they meet. In the end, observations in both frames agree on what the clocks read when they meet, they just disagree wildly about the initial conditions.

I draw your attention to my syntax here - I try to avoid terms like "slow down" "speed up" and so forth - since SR does not cover acceleration, the physical objects are all moving in straight lines (or being stationary, depending on your POV) and thus, there isn't actually anything happening to them. Rather, things "are running slow" - meaning, eg a clock ran slow yesterday, it's running slow today, and it'll be running slow tomorrow. Nothing's happening to the system, we've just chosen a slice of time for our experiment for convenience.

To actually see a change happening, you need to 1) compare the situations as viewed from two different frames of reference, which is all we do in SR, or 2) apply a force to one of the objects, which isn't covered in SR - GR describes this very well, and also describes effects due to the resulting acceleration. If you conduct your experiment at times when acceleration has ceased, the equations in GR reduce to those in SR.

As for your revisionist view of how mainstream physicists viewed him - certainly, there was disagreement, but for the most part, physics came to accept his theories since they were as successful as they were. That's the ultimate litmus test - either a theory agrees with reality, or it's destined to remain a historical curiosity.

And really, "Einsteinian refrigerators" - well, since we all agree water would not freeze while moving at near-c, what would be the point? But I'll refrain from arguing this further since you obviously don't understand the mechanisms behind crystallisation, thermal equilibrium and all the rest of thermodynamics.

[swansont]

swanson wrote:
the reason for that was that the locally stationary ether had already been ruled out by stellar aberration measurements.

There is an equally valid explanation: that the star & the light from it is moving relative to a stationary aether (& Earth!). The amount of tilt will be exactly the same.

Yes, it requires a stationary earth. 'nuff said.

[swansont]

Well, apparently some people just can’t see the errors. You must be one of those.

it's a good thing we have people so scientifically well-versed as yourself to interpret what apparently the entire scientific community has misunderstood for so many years. You deserve a medal.


Thank you. But I'm a journalist. No physicist has been able to conduct this type of investigation. It took a journalist to do it. A physicist would not want to let the world know that another physicist lied so much in his cover-up papers. No physicist could ever say openly in a mainstream journal that Einstein's 1918 paper was the biggest fradulent science paper ever written.

I guess journalism school doesn't cover sarcasm. Anyway, that's some ego you've got, Sam, to think that you alone know the truth. Fortunately for the rest of us, "find three sources that agree, then publish" is not how science is done. To say that "it took a journalist to do it" says perhaps more than you meant it to. Any competent scientist wouldn't go out to the internet, Google for any article or site that had the buzzwords he was looking for, and indicriminately prop up those sources as supporting his position. As you seem to have done - I really found the Bonse-Hart interferometer cite particularly amusing, since it was clear you had no idea why that didn't support your thesis. All you saw was that it gave the answer you wanted to hear.

I guess it also takes a journalist to provide a lengthy answer to any random comment, say, "No comment" when asked relevant science questions, and then use "lack of time" as an excuse for not answering. Your answers are also a veritable treasure-trove of logical fallacies, but that's not, I think, directly related to being a journalist.

[Tensor]

But to claim it's wrong without showing us where the math is wrong or you can't show where Lorentz matches observations and SR doesn't makes your claims invalid.

It’s very simple. If “relative motion” does not cause clocks to slow down, because there are no forces placed on the clocks, then the best equation in the world is meaningless. But if that same equation is used in Lorentz theory, and if a field puts up a resistance to an atomic clock moving through it, and if that resistance force slows down the oscillation rates of the atoms in the clock, then the equation does apply.

Your observational proof of this? The problem with what you wrote above is when you use the equation in SR, it happens to match our observations. When you use in in Lorentz theory, it doens't match our observations. Repeating the question. Please show us where SR doesn't match our observations and Lorentz does.


We can say it is a valid equation in both cases, but in the first case, with no force, it does not apply, but in the second case, with forces, it does apply. I think I’ve told you this a few dozen times.

Yes, a few dozen times at least, but that doesn't make it rigth. It may be a valid equation in both cases, but in the first case, with no force it matches our observations, the second with a force, it doesn't. So that makes Lorentz wrong and SR correct, where SR and Lorentz are valid, unless you care to show us where Lorentz matches our observations and SR doesn't, like we've asked you a few dozen times.


If you say that you will pull one elephant out of one hat, and another elephant out of another hat, and 1 + 1 = 2 elephants, then the equation is fine, but you can not pull any elephants out of any hats.

Not relevant. I thought you wanted to talk physics.

I worked with different kinds of clocks all my life, and "relative motion" never changed the rates of any of them. They always required a "force" in order to change their rates. Einstein did not know that in 1905, but he learned it by 1911.

Care to explain when you and your clocks were traveling at a large fraction of the speed of light?

[SeanF]

The most obvious error is that since there is no “absolute space” in the theory, his two “systems” are just moving “relatively”. No one can say if one is actually “moving” while the other is “stationary”, since the observers who travel with each system see their own system as being “stationary” and the other one as “moving”.

So, both systems are equal, and they are moving only “relatively”.

He tries to give preference to one of the systems, and that is the K system which he imagines himself (and his readers) stationary within. So, that makes him (and his readers) think of the k system as the “moving” one.

But, the theory itself makes it clear that every observer who is fixed inside the k system, sees their system as “stationary” and the other system as moving. So all a sensible person has to do to test the theory is imagine himself fixed inside the k system. So then they see the K system as the one that is “moving”.

So, here we have a completely symmetrical situation. He even says in the paper that, “It is clear that the same results hold good of bodies at rest in the ‘stationary’ system, viewed from a system in uniform motion.” He even puts the word “stationary” in quotes, because he knows that no one can really tell which system is “stationary” and which is “moving”, since they are both “stationary” to the observers that are fixed within them, and it is the other system that seems to be “moving”.

In the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment, he synchronizes the clocks in the two system and he makes them synchronous. This means they are set at the same time and are running at the same rate, before the relative motion begins.

Then he starts the relative motion, and of course all the observers in the k system are supposed to see the clock in the K system slow down at exactly the same rate that the K observers see the k clock slow down. He moves the two frames toward each other. The K observers see the k system move, while the k observers see the K system move. Both observers see each other’s clocks slow down.

But at the end of the experiment, only one of the clocks “lags behind” the other, and this is the paradox, and this is why he calls this a “peculiar consequence”.

This is the famous “clock paradox”, and this is what most of the physicists in Europe started howling about, because it is such an obvious error, a stupid mistake, and an unsolvable paradox.

It's too obvious. You need to understand what's going on in order to understand why it's not a paradox.

In Einstein's original experiment, just put a "place-holder" clock at point A that will stay the same distance from the other clock. Call it A'. All three clocks are synchronized, and then the relative motion begins for A to make its way from A' to B (or vice versa).

If A' and B are still in their original reference frame and A is now moving relatively to the original, then A' and B will maintain their synchronization and A will lag behind B when they meet.

However, if A stays in the original reference frame and A' and B are now moving relatively, then A' and B will no longer be synchronized in their new reference frame. In this case, B will lag behind A when they meet.

This is all very clear in the 1905 paper. It's why Einstein specifically sets up the "peculiar consequence" by defining points A and B as points in the K frame and having one clock remain at B. It is therefore defined that it is this clock that does not change reference frames. Whether K is considered stationary or in motion makes no difference. All that matters is that one clock is specified as being in relative motion to K and the other clock is specified as not.

No physicist could ever say openly in a mainstream journal that Einstein's 1918 paper was the biggest fradulent science paper ever written.
But way back in December 2004 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9731&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=765), Sam5 said:

He made the 1905 mistakes, he corrected the mistakes in 1911 and 1918, other early 20th Century physicists saw his mistakes and accepted his corrections.
Change your tune much, Sam5?

You could at least acknowledge that you were wrong in your original assertion that the so-called "paradox" in the 1905 paper was removed in the later papers, since you're now admitting it wasn't.

(And does that make the "other early 20th Century physicists" who "accepted his corrections" part of his cover-up, or were they just not as smart as you?)

[Normandy6644]

I'm still mightily impressed that all of this can be done without appealing to a single mathematical expression. But since we're moving away from physics and into investigative journalism now, I guess it doesn't matter.

[SeanF]

I'm still mightily impressed that all of this can be done without appealing to a single mathematical expression. But since we're moving away from physics and into investigative journalism now, I guess it doesn't matter.

This can't be done without the math, and, quite frankly, that's why Sam5's having such difficulty with it.

[Tensor]

So below are the questions we've asked of you

I’ve answered just about every one of your questions today, and it took most of my day to compose the answers. Several answers have taken me more than an hour to write.

Vague references to what you think is happening to the equations when you were asked for the specific equation that is wrong, is not answering the question. You didn't include any equations in your answers. The elephant and hat equation doesn't count.

I am not going to answer long lists of questions.

Of course you won't. Becuase in each case, the question, or the answer will show your ideas to be without merit. Or, in the case of how the math works, show that you don't know how it works, and therefore your ideas are invalid. Let's face it, if you can't show where the math, which matches observation, is wrong, then we know your claims that it is wrong, are completely invalid.

If you don’t understand what I’ve said today, you won’t understand anything I would say in your long lists of questions. Anyway, I’ve already answered some of the questions several times before.

The problem Sam5 is that your explanations don't match the equations or observational evidence. So, if you want to claim that your understanding is correct, you need to produce the observational evidence and/or the equations that are wrong. It comes down to either the evidence and/or the equations are wrong or you are completely misunderstanding the explanations of what the math in Relativtiy is saying. Since you haven't provided any evidence that observation and/or the equations are wrong, the only thing left is you don't understand what you are talking about, when it comes to relativity. Which also makes your claims invalid.

But most people here never answer any of my questions.

Be specific please. Which questions, when.

I’m not Mr. Science, or Ask Sam.

Well, if you are making claims, you better have answers when others show your ideas to be invalid.

I’ve told you the whole story straight. Either believe it or don’t.

Well that's easy. Since you can't produce any observational or mathematical evidence to support your story, that makes it a work of fiction. So I don't believe it.

[Sam5]

Your summation of the twin "paradox" is still incorrect, Sam5.

In the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment, he synchronizes the clocks in the two system and he makes them synchronous. This means they are set at the same time and are running at the same rate, before the relative motion begins.

Then he starts the relative motion, and of course all the observers in the k system are supposed to see the clock in the K system slow down at exactly the same rate that the K observers see the k clock slow down. He moves the two frames toward each other. The K observers see the k system move, while the k observers see the K system move. Both observers see each other’s clocks slow down.


The clocks are synchronised only in the "stationary" K frame. In the "moving" k frame, they aren't! This is one consequence of SR that I think you've missed, Sam5


Re-read the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment. There are only two clocks, one in the K system and one in the k system. Both clocks are synchronous and synchronized while both systems are stationary, before any relative motion begins. The k and K systems are fixed along the k/K axes and the two clocks are running at the same rate before the relative motion begins. Then when the relative motion begins, according to the terms of the theory, the k observers will see the K system “move” and the K clock tick rate running slow, while the K observers will see the k system “move” and the k clock tick rate running slow. This symmetry causes the paradox when only one of the clocks “lags behind” the other when they unite.

To try to solve this paradox, in 1918 Einstein had to add accelerative forces and gravity fields to break the symmetry by placing more force on one clock than the other.


This is the same paradox that turns up when someone claims all the clocks in M31 are running “slow” when compared to our clocks. Under SR theory, all the people in M31 would claim that our clocks are running “slow” when compared to theirs. Well, our clocks can’t be running slow for them and fast for us, and their clocks can’t be running fast for them and slow for us. Our clocks can not run fast and slow at the same time. Observational evidence disproves SR theory, since we see light from the atoms of the stars in M31 as being blueshifted, not redshifted, ie appearing to run fast because of the classical Doppler effect, but this is just an illusion and is not real. The clocks will run in M31 based on the laws of physics that are at work inside M31, and their rates have nothing at all to do with how fast M31 and we are moving “relative” to each other. No industry on earth uses the idiotic SR theory, and most scientists on earth don’t even think about it or consider it. Most scientists on earth totally ignore it. Only a few “theorists” continue to babble about it.

[Sam5]

There is an equally valid explanation: that the star & the light from it is moving relative to a stationary aether (& Earth!). The amount of tilt will be exactly the same.

The latest “ether” theory being worked on today is based generally on the local gravity fields.

All astronomical bodies generate their own local gravity fields that are most powerful near the surface (and several thousand miles from the surface) of each body. This is why, if we fall out of an airplane, we fall toward the earth and not toward the sun.

If the gravity fields somehow act like a light-speed regulating medium, or if they contain something that acts like a speed-regulating medium, then each astronomical body could be said to have a “local ether” centered on the center of the body, out to distances of several thousand miles. Beyond that distance, the fields of other astronomical bodies would “blend”, and the blended field would be centered on the center of gravity between two or more astronomical bodies in deep space.

[Sam5]

Also, forces are dependent on velocity changing. In the experiment in question, we're looking at a situation that is, essentially, objects moving in a straight line at a constant speed. There is no change in velocity, acceleration equals zero. As a result, Newton's second law shows that the force equals zero.


You need to get a copy of Lorentz’s book. It will answer your questions. I don’t feel inclined to photocopy all 138 pages of it and post them here. The “force” is a “Lorentz force”. It is a resistance to motion that is put up by the fields through which atoms move. In Newton’s era they did not have any electrodynamics theories or electrodynamic-based atomic theories. Most of this stuff was discovered in the 19th century. It is fairly advanced and high-tech. This is why NASA was not in a position to test Lorentz theory with the tether until more than a hundred years after Lorentz predicted the effect. Maybe you can get one of your physics professors to explain it to you. Maybe they will loan you their copy of the Lorentz book.


Lastly, you still haven't addressed my argument that if time dilation is caused by a field exerting a force on a moving object then the strength of the field must be taken into account. The Lorentz transformations can't be based solely on velocity if a field is required.


Sure, I've addressed that many times, but I suppose you didn't understand what I was saying. This is why I’ve been saying that the Lorentz “speed limit of c” probably applies inside a strong field only, such as here at the earth. But since the earth’s fields and our galaxy’s fields are not strong at distances of 13 billion light years, the lack of our strong field at those distances would most likely not place any “speed limit” on the distant galaxies, relative to us. This would account for why the galaxies seem to be moving at more than “c” relative to us, but they seem to be restricted to less than “c” relative to their own nearby local group of galaxies. Seems that the mainstreamers haven’t figured this out yet.

[swansont]

All astronomical bodies generate their own local gravity fields that are most powerful near the surface (and several thousand miles from the surface) of each body. This is why, if we fall out of an airplane, we fall toward the earth and not toward the sun.

If the gravity fields somehow act like a light-speed regulating medium, or if they contain something that acts like a speed-regulating medium, then each astronomical body could be said to have a “local ether” centered on the center of the body, out to distances of several thousand miles. Beyond that distance, the fields of other astronomical bodies would “blend”, and the blended field would be centered on the center of gravity between two or more astronomical bodies in deep space.

All you need to do is work out the "somehow." Trivial, I'm sure. Come up with the details and a way to test the predictions. Until you do that, you have nothing, from a scientific standpoint.

But the presence of atomic clocks on satellites in geosynchronous orbit, which use the same relativistic corrections as those in lower orbits, would seem to disprove your current "blending" hypothesis.

[Sam5]

It’s very simple. If “relative motion” does not cause clocks to slow down, because there are no forces placed on the clocks, then the best equation in the world is meaningless. But if that same equation is used in Lorentz theory, and if a field puts up a resistance to an atomic clock moving through it, and if that resistance force slows down the oscillation rates of the atoms in the clock, then the equation does apply.

Your observational proof of this? The problem with what you wrote above is when you use the equation in SR, it happens to match our observations.

I’ve asked you and others here to show me any kind of clock that slows down without any force change taking place in the timing mechanism of the clock. And no one has been able to do it. You have believed for many years that “relative motion” alone can slow down a clock, but you can show no examples of that ever happening to real clocks. You’ve believed in a science fiction fantasy all these years.

[Sam5]

All you need to do is work out the "somehow." Trivial, I'm sure. Come up with the details and a way to test the predictions. Until you do that, you have nothing, from a scientific standpoint.

But the presence of atomic clocks on satellites in geosynchronous orbit, which use the same relativistic corrections as those in lower orbits, would seem to disprove your current "blending" hypothesis.

Study the Lagrange Point distances.

[Normandy6644]

Also, forces are dependent on velocity changing. In the experiment in question, we're looking at a situation that is, essentially, objects moving in a straight line at a constant speed. There is no change in velocity, acceleration equals zero. As a result, Newton's second law shows that the force equals zero.

You need to get a copy of Lorentz’s book. It will answer your questions. I don’t feel inclined to photocopy all 138 pages of it and post them here. The “force” is a “Lorentz force”. It is a resistance to motion that is put up by the fields through which atoms move

All forces, no matter what the situation, obey Newton's second law that says F=m(dv/dt). This is how you can find the radius of a particle moving through a magnetic field. The magnetic force component is F=qv X B, where q= charge of particle, v = velocity, and B is the magnetic field strength. Since this will obey Newton's second law, and the particle will be moving in a circle, the force is also F=mv^2/r. Consequently qvB=mv^2/r an thus r=mv/qB. This was our introductory physics lesson for the day on why, as Taibak said, the forces will all be dependent on the change in velocity. No change, no force.

As for the "Lorentz force," it is defined as F=q(E+v X B). It explains how a particle will act under the influence of both electric and magnetic fields. I think you're confusing your definitions.

[TheAtomium]

I’ve asked you and others here to show me any kind of clock that slows down without any force change taking place in the timing mechanism of the clock. And no one has been able to do it. You have believed for many years that “relative motion” alone can slow down a clock, but you can show no examples of that ever happening to real clocks. You’ve believed in a science fiction fantasy all these years.

Here is a link (http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html) - both GR and SR at play here. Notice that these 'fudge-factors' are based on predictions from GR and SR, yet the cumulative time-dilation prediction is correct. This would suggest that SR and GR are also both correct.

You see? Nothing in the SR prediction besides the fact that the satellite is moving with respect to us. No ether, no forces, no doppler effect, and no gravity - just motion - yet the prediction of SR is correct.

[Sam5]

This was our introductory physics lesson for the day on why, as Taibak said, the forces will all be dependent on the change in velocity. No change, no force.

You need to consider the place and the field strength in that place, and the velocity relative to the local field strength.

[Sam5]

Here is a link (http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html) - both GR and SR at play here. Notice that these 'fudge-factors' are based on predictions from GR and SR, yet the cumulative time-dilation prediction is correct. This would suggest that SR and GR are also both correct.


I asked you to show me a clock that slows down due only to “relative motion” with no “forces” involved, and you link me to a website that just promotes “relativity” in general terms. I can find all those websites myself.

It was Lorentz that first predicted atomic clocks would tick at different rates due to motion through fields and the amount of acceleration they experienced. But his theory uses “forces” to slow down the clocks, and that’s why his theory works. It was not Einstein who invented this, it was Lorentz.

[TheAtomium]

Here is a link (http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html) - both GR and SR at play here. Notice that these 'fudge-factors' are based on predictions from GR and SR, yet the cumulative time-dilation prediction is correct. This would suggest that SR and GR are also both correct.


I asked you to show me a clock that slows down due only to “relative motion” with no “forces” involved, and you link me to a website that just promotes “relativity” in general terms. I can find all those websites myself.

#-o Did you even read the page?
It clearly mentions the effects of SR (relative motion) and GR (including forces), and talks about them seperately.

The cumulative prediction is correct - therefore SR and GR's individual predictions are correct. The SR prediction completely ignores everything besides the GPS systems motion relative to us. When combined with an utterly seperate GR prediction, taking into account mass and forces, we get the correct cumulative time dilation.

If you can't see that this validates SR and the idea of time-dilation based purely on relative motion, then there is no point arguing with you. I'd also like you to show where my reasoning is incorrect, if you have a problem with it.

[swansont]

No industry on earth uses the idiotic SR theory, and most scientists on earth don’t even think about it or consider it. Most scientists on earth totally ignore it. Only a few “theorists” continue to babble about it.

You keep saying that nobody uses relativity Sam. I asked you before if you thought you knew more physicists than I did in the appropriate field, whereupon you ignored me.

"There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in . The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."

from http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html, Neil Ashby's relativity site.

I'm calling your bluff again. I think anybody putting clocks in space, and the related industries, uses relativity. Most scientists may ignore it, but only because it has nothing at all to do with their jobs, not because they have doubts about its veracity.

[Tensor]

Your observational proof of this? The problem with what you wrote above is when you use the equation in SR, it happens to match our observations.

You have believed for many years that “relative motion” alone can slow down a clock, but you can show no examples of that ever happening to real clocks.

Sure I can, the H-K experiment. But, the fact that you don't accept that as proof, does not mean that it isn't an example. The Muon breakdown is also a good example, but again, you don't accept it. If you want to reject both of these as an example, please explain why the predicted amount of slowdown (Using SR) matches the experimentally measured slowdown, within experimental limits, in both. If you cannot show the prediction or the measurements to be wrong, your claims are invalid.

You’ve believed in a science fiction fantasy all these years.

You, have yet to produce any evidence (not your understanding of it, which most of us here believe is wrong) but solid evidence or mathematical support for your understanding. Since you have, so far, presented no facts or support, your version is fiction.

[SeanF]

Re-read the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment. There are only two clocks, one in the K system and one in the k system.
You reread the first "peculiar consequence." There are only two clocks, but they are both in the K system. Then one of the clocks is moved into the k system.

Both clocks are synchronous and synchronized while both systems are stationary, before any relative motion begins.
Both systems are never stationary. If they were, they'd be the same system.

The k and K systems are fixed along the k/K axes and the two clocks are running at the same rate before the relative motion begins. Then when the relative motion begins, according to the terms of the theory, the k observers will see the K system “move” and the K clock tick rate running slow, while the K observers will see the k system “move” and the k clock tick rate running slow. This symmetry causes the paradox when only one of the clocks “lags behind” the other when they unite.

No, because only one of them is still in the K system. That's why it's the other one that lags behind.

To try to solve this paradox, in 1918 Einstein had to add accelerative forces and gravity fields to break the symmetry by placing more force on one clock than the other.
Hmm - are you presenting the 1918 paper as valid again? Or is it still "the biggest fradulent science paper ever written?"

Observational evidence disproves SR theory, since we see light from the atoms of the stars in M31 as being blueshifted, not redshifted, ie appearing to run fast because of the classical Doppler effect, but this is just an illusion and is not real.
If you think that this observation disproves SR, then I'm afraid you really don't understand SR. SR predicts that we should see a blueshift in M31.

No industry on earth uses the idiotic SR theory, and most scientists on earth don’t even think about it or consider it. Most scientists on earth totally ignore it. Only a few “theorists” continue to babble about it.
Careful, Sam5. People have gotten kicked off this board for rude ad hominems like this.

[Sam5]

Here is a link (http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html) - both GR and SR at play here. Notice that these 'fudge-factors' are based on predictions from GR and SR, yet the cumulative time-dilation prediction is correct. This would suggest that SR and GR are also both correct.


I asked you to show me a clock that slows down due only to “relative motion” with no “forces” involved, and you link me to a website that just promotes “relativity” in general terms. I can find all those websites myself.

#-o Did you even read the page?
It clearly mentions the effects of SR (relative motion) and GR (including forces), and talks about them seperately.

The cumulative prediction is correct - therefore SR and GR's individual predictions are correct. The SR prediction completely ignores everything besides the GPS systems motion relative to us.


How do you suppose the atoms inside the Hafele-Keating flying clocks knew when they were flying East and West? Do you think the pilots of the airplanes told them? Do you think the atoms took a peek out the airplane windows and said, “Well, the sun is to our left, so we must be flying West now. It’s time for us to speed up our oscillation rates!”

[TheAtomium]

Here is a link (http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html) - both GR and SR at play here. Notice that these 'fudge-factors' are based on predictions from GR and SR, yet the cumulative time-dilation prediction is correct. This would suggest that SR and GR are also both correct.


I asked you to show me a clock that slows down due only to “relative motion” with no “forces” involved, and you link me to a website that just promotes “relativity” in general terms. I can find all those websites myself.

#-o Did you even read the page?
It clearly mentions the effects of SR (relative motion) and GR (including forces), and talks about them seperately.

The cumulative prediction is correct - therefore SR and GR's individual predictions are correct. The SR prediction completely ignores everything besides the GPS systems motion relative to us.


How do you suppose the atoms inside the Hafele-Keating flying clocks knew when they were flying East and West? Do you think the pilots of the airplanes told them? Do you think the atoms took a peek out the airplane windows and said, “Well, the sun is to our left, so we must be flying West now. It’s time for us to speed up our oscillation rates!”

I didnt ask about that. Show the floor in the above webpage, or admit that you are wrong.

[Normandy6644]

This was our introductory physics lesson for the day on why, as Taibak said, the forces will all be dependent on the change in velocity. No change, no force.

You need to consider the place and the field strength in that place, and the velocity relative to the local field strength.

Go take a basic physics course. The magnetic field strength only matters when you have a moving charge, hence the F= qv x B. The electric field strength comes into play for a stationary charge, but when there is no velocity the problem becomes one of potentials.

[Sam5]

How do you suppose the atoms inside the Hafele-Keating flying clocks knew when they were flying East and West? Do you think the pilots of the airplanes told them? Do you think the atoms took a peek out the airplane windows and said, “Well, the sun is to our left, so we must be flying West now. It’s time for us to speed up our oscillation rates!”

I didnt ask about that. Show the floor in the above webpage, or admit that you are wrong.

Why don’t you sit around and try to figure out how East moving atoms inside atomic clocks know they are moving East, and how West moving atoms inside atomic clocks know they are moving West.

You are familiar with the Hafele-Keating experiment, aren't you?

[Sam5]

SR predicts that we should see a blueshift in M31.


No, 1843 Doppler theory predicted we would see a blueshift in the light from M31. One can not “predict” something that someone already predicted 62 years earlier.

[Sam5]

Go take a basic physics course.


In the Hafele-Keating flying clocks experiment, how do you suppose the East moving atoms inside the atomic clocks knew they were moving East, and how did the West moving atoms inside the same atomic clocks know they were moving West?

[Normandy6644]

SR predicts that we should see a blueshift in M31.


No, 1843 Doppler theory predicted we would see a blueshift in the light from M31. One can not “predict” something that someone already predicted 62 years earlier.

In 1843 M31 was not known to be outside of this galaxy. Red and Blue-Shifts weren't even understood until many years later. It's not a matter of SR "predicting" what would be understood otherwise, it's all about compatibility.

[Sam5]

You keep saying that nobody uses relativity Sam. I asked you before if you thought you knew more physicists than I did in the appropriate field, whereupon you ignored me..

I said “SR theory”.

The gravity potential related rates are GR theory, and the East/West rate shifts are Lorentz theory.

[Normandy6644]

Go take a basic physics course.


In the Hafele-Keating flying clocks experiment, how do you suppose the East moving atoms inside the atomic clocks knew they were moving East, and how did the West moving atoms inside the same atomic clocks know they were moving West?

Is this the best you can do? I mention some very specific definitions and equations, and your response completely ignores these and brings up some vague personal feelings of atoms in an experiment? Is my definition of the Lorentz force correct? What about my use of the term "force"? Why don't you stick to what we're talking about instead of changing the subject.

[SeanF]

SR predicts that we should see a blueshift in M31.


No, 1843 Doppler theory predicted we would see a blueshift in the light from M31. One can not “predict” something that someone already predicted 62 years earlier.

You implied that if SR were true, we would not see a blueshift in M31, and you're wrong. Applying SR theory to a galaxy moving towards us at high velocity does not result in an expected redshift.

(BTW, that entire post of mine and this is all you could find to respond to? That's telling.)

[Sam5]

SR predicts that we should see a blueshift in M31.


No, 1843 Doppler theory predicted we would see a blueshift in the light from M31. One can not “predict” something that someone already predicted 62 years earlier.

In 1843 M31 was not known to be outside of this galaxy. Red and Blue-Shifts weren't even understood until many years later.

LINK TO SOURCE (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:YtToATcrficJ:www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Doppler.html+christian+doppler&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)


“However two years before Bolzano wrote this, Doppler had presented his most famous brilliant idea to the Royal Bohemian Society. On the 25 May 1842 Doppler presented the paper On the coloured light of the double stars and certain other stars of the heavens. The minutes of the meeting reported on Doppler's lecture [10]:-

Mr Doppler talked about a wonderful phenomenon of the coloured light of the double stars and some other stars in the heavens. He sought the explanation of this striking phenomenon in formulating a new general theory, which included in itself as an integral part the theory of Bradley.

The paper presented for the first time the Doppler principle which relates the frequency of a source to its velocity relative to an observer. Doppler derived the principle in a few lines treating both light and sound as longitudinal waves in the ether and matter, respectively. Doppler was incorrect regarding light being a longitudinal wave. In fact Fresnel had already published his theory that light was a transverse wave but, although Doppler had read Fresnel's work, he did not accept it. However the error does not really affect the result of Doppler's principle. Doppler also was wrong when he tried to illustrate his theory with an application to the colours of double stars. Although Doppler was correct in saying that his principle would change the colours of double stars, depending on which star was approaching or receding from the Earth, the effect is too small to be significant.

Doppler does, however, make a remarkable prediction in his paper:-

It is almost to be accepted with certainty that this will in the not too distant future offer astronomers a welcome means to determine the movements and distances of such stars which, because of their unmeasurable distances from us and the consequent smallness of the parallactic angles, until this moment hardly presented the hope of such measurements and determinations.”

[Sam5]

SR predicts that we should see a blueshift in M31.


No, 1843 Doppler theory predicted we would see a blueshift in the light from M31. One can not “predict” something that someone already predicted 62 years earlier.

You implied that if SR were true, we would not see a blueshift in M31, and you're wrong. Applying SR theory to a galaxy moving towards us at high velocity does not result in an expected redshift.


What I said was that all the clocks in M31 will not “slow down” their tick rates only because M31 is moving relative to our galaxy. I said that the rates of the clocks inside M31 will be controlled by the laws of physics and the local physics and physical conditions inside M31.

I also said that the only observational evidence we have of atomic clocks inside M31 show that they appear to be running a little fast, but this is an illusion caused by the Doppler effect.

Do you have any observational evidence that all the clocks in M31 are running slow?

I’ve got to go now and get some work done.

[swansont]

You keep saying that nobody uses relativity Sam. I asked you before if you thought you knew more physicists than I did in the appropriate field, whereupon you ignored me..

I said “SR theory”.

The gravity potential related rates are GR theory, and the East/West rate shifts are Lorentz theory.

Yes, you said theory, not equations. These physicists use SR theory, even though they contain what are known as the Lorentz contraction equations. Lorentz's theory used the preferred frame of reference ether, and was discarded when it was shown that his ether did not exist (specifically that we were neither at rest nor moving with respect to it). The equations give the right answer. When I was teaching we called this "answer by accident" and it gains you no points. Einstein's theory, however, used the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames as a basis, and that has been confirmed.

So it is SR (and GR) theory, not Lorentz theory, that is being used.

[Normandy6644]

SR predicts that we should see a blueshift in M31.


No, 1843 Doppler theory predicted we would see a blueshift in the light from M31. One can not “predict” something that someone already predicted 62 years earlier.

In 1843 M31 was not known to be outside of this galaxy. Red and Blue-Shifts weren't even understood until many years later.

LINK TO SOURCE (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:YtToATcrficJ:www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Doppler.html+christian+doppler&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)..etc (snip)



And?? What does this have to do with the fact that at the time of Doppler, M31 was a "nebula" and wasn't known to be as far away as it is until 1929? You've successfully steered the topic away from everything we've been discussing and the questions that were asked of you. If you're not going to answer them, just say so. At least I won't have my expectations up.

[swansont]

I asked you to show me a clock that slows down due only to “relative motion” with no “forces” involved, and you link me to a website that just promotes “relativity” in general terms. I can find all those websites myself.


Demonstrate the force that slows down the clocks, then. Which specific field are you talking about?

[SeanF]

You implied that if SR were true, we would not see a blueshift in M31, and you're wrong. Applying SR theory to a galaxy moving towards us at high velocity does not result in an expected redshift.
What I said was that all the clocks in M31 will not “slow down” their tick rates only because M31 is moving relative to our galaxy. I said that the rates of the clocks inside M31 will be controlled by the laws of physics and the local physics and physical conditions inside M31.

I also said that the only observational evidence we have of atomic clocks inside M31 show that they appear to be running a little fast, but this is an illusion caused by the Doppler effect.
What you said was:

Observational evidence disproves SR theory, since we see light from the atoms of the stars in M31 as being blueshifted, not redshifted.
Your implication there is that if SR is true, we should see a redshift in M31. You are wrong.

Do you have any observational evidence that all the clocks in M31 are running slow?
Without a way to directly measure the relative velocity of M31, there is no way to know if the observed redshift is correct for non-SR Doppler or for SR Doppler. Therefore, the observed redshift can neither prove nor disprove SR.

I’ve got to go now and get some work done.
When you've got some time, reread that "peculiar consequence" again. There's no change in the relative motion of the systems - the clock changes from one system to another.

[swansont]

All you need to do is work out the "somehow." Trivial, I'm sure. Come up with the details and a way to test the predictions. Until you do that, you have nothing, from a scientific standpoint.

But the presence of atomic clocks on satellites in geosynchronous orbit, which use the same relativistic corrections as those in lower orbits, would seem to disprove your current "blending" hypothesis.

Study the Lagrange Point distances.

What about the Lagrange Point distances? You have to be more specific in your predictions. It's your hypothesis. Does it fall off like 1/r^2? Then you have to explain why the SR corrections work for all satellite altitudes. Does it stay constant and then fall off? Explain why.

Oh, and explain how stellar aberration is still consistent with the model as well.

[swansont]

I’ve asked you and others here to show me any kind of clock that slows down without any force change taking place in the timing mechanism of the clock. And no one has been able to do it. You have believed for many years that “relative motion” alone can slow down a clock, but you can show no examples of that ever happening to real clocks. You’ve believed in a science fiction fantasy all these years.


Time itself, as measured by the observer, slows down. This isn't new ground here. There is no force on the clock, and nobody has claimed that there was, except you.

[TheAtomium]

Why don’t you sit around and try to figure out how East moving atoms inside atomic clocks know they are moving East, and how West moving atoms inside atomic clocks know they are moving West.

You are familiar with the Hafele-Keating experiment, aren't you?
Stop diverting away from the subject.

You asked for an example of a real clock being affected by SR, and I gave you one. If you think there is an error in my example, please explain what it is.

The fact that the GPS system moves in a circle, or is under the influence of gravity is irrelevant, so don't even go there. The GR portion of their calculations takes this into account, leaving SR with nothing to work with but relative velocity. Once again, the fact that GR + SR = correct dilation estimate shows that SR, in all it's simplicity, is correct.

Please show me exactly where I am going wrong here, or admit you just dont know. Any other answer and I will take it that you know you are wrong.

[TheAtomium]

Go take a basic physics course.


In the Hafele-Keating flying clocks experiment, how do you suppose the East moving atoms inside the atomic clocks knew they were moving East, and how did the West moving atoms inside the same atomic clocks know they were moving West?

The experiment in question appears to have been severely flawed (http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm)

[Celestial Mechanic]

In the Hafele-Keating flying clocks experiment, [Snip!]

The experiment in question appears to have been severely flawed (http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm)
Even if the original HK experiment is "flawed", GPS amounts to a continuous and continuing HK-like experiment. (Granted, all the satellites orbit direct, but IIRC the orbits are inclined and take the satellites over different latitudes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this!)

[Taibak]

Also, forces are dependent on velocity changing. In the experiment in question, we're looking at a situation that is, essentially, objects moving in a straight line at a constant speed. There is no change in velocity, acceleration equals zero. As a result, Newton's second law shows that the force equals zero.

You need to get a copy of Lorentz’s book. It will answer your questions. I don’t feel inclined to photocopy all 138 pages of it and post them here.

Actually, you don't need to do this. You simply need to interpret Lorentz's theories and explain how they answer my question. You should be able to do that in a paragraph, maybe two.

The “force” is a “Lorentz force”. It is a resistance to motion that is put up by the fields through which atoms move.

The term 'Lorentz force' refers specifically to the force that a charged particle experiences when moving through a magnetic field. Its equation is:

F(Lorentz) = q(E + v x B)

where q is the charge on the particle, E is the strength of the electric field, v is the particle's velocity, B is the strength of the magnetic field, and x is the cross-product operator. However, the conditions of my thought experiment (an electrically neutral planet without a magnetic field) dictate that, in this case, both E and B are equal to zero. Therefore F(Lorentz) = q(0 + 0) = 0. The Lorentz force simply is not present.

In Newton’s era they did not have any electrodynamics theories or electrodynamic-based atomic theories. Most of this stuff was discovered in the 19th century. It is fairly advanced and high-tech.

Doesn't matter if Newton knew about electrodynamics or not. Newton's second law of motion, F = ma, holds true for *all* forces. Keep in mind also that in that experiment the particles are neither changing their speed nor their direction, making their acceleration zero. If a is zero, F *must* be zero.

However, the Lorentz transformations STILL predict time dilation and length contraction, even if v doesn't change.

This is why NASA was not in a position to test Lorentz theory with the tether until more than a hundred years after Lorentz predicted the effect. Maybe you can get one of your physics professors to explain it to you. Maybe they will loan you their copy of the Lorentz book.

Sorry, but you've just constructed a straw man here. Dragging a metal wire through a magnetic field induces a current - that's just the law of inductance. It is also completely irrelevant to the thought experiment I proposed.


Lastly, you still haven't addressed my argument that if time dilation is caused by a field exerting a force on a moving object then the strength of the field must be taken into account. The Lorentz transformations can't be based solely on velocity if a field is required.

Sure, I've addressed that many times, but I suppose you didn't understand what I was saying. This is why I’ve been saying that the Lorentz “speed limit of c” probably applies inside a strong field only, such as here at the earth. But since the earth’s fields and our galaxy’s fields are not strong at distances of 13 billion light years, the lack of our strong field at those distances would most likely not place any “speed limit” on the distant galaxies, relative to us. This would account for why the galaxies seem to be moving at more than “c” relative to us, but they seem to be restricted to less than “c” relative to their own nearby local group of galaxies. Seems that the mainstreamers haven’t figured this out yet.

Again, irrelevant. I understand what you're saying completely - that the presence of fields regulates the speed of light and that in turn somehow affects the rate at which time and space are measured. I also think what you're saying is completely and utterly wrong.

Regardless, you're changing horses and NOT addressing my original question. The situation I asked you about has nothing to do with fields on a galactic scale, distances of 13 billion light years, or superluminal galaxies. My argument was:

Consider the following thought experiment: two identical spherical objects are orbiting a large, dense, electrically neutral planet with no magnetic field. The planet is large enough that an observer standing on its surface sees the planet's surface as flat, much as someone driving through Indiana will see the surface of the Earth as flat. As such, you can safely ignore centripital forces for a small period of time. The objects are both moving at half the speed of light, relative to the ground, and do not change their speed. However, one object is orbiting one km above the surface, the other is orbiting ten km above the surface. Basic Newtonian physics predicts that the force of gravity acting on the higher object is 100 times weaker than the force acting on the lower object. However, according to Lorentz's theory, the observer on the ground will see time pass slower for BOTH particles as per the equation:

t(objects) = t(ground)[(1 - v^2/c^2)]^1/2

Again, if Lorentz's 1895 theory is right, that equation should hold. However, it doesn't seem to care about any forces. Sam5, how do you explain that fact? Is the equation that Lorentz proposed to explain the situation wrong? Or does Lorentz's theory hold true regardless of the strength of the field - which means that the theory holds true even if the field's strength is zero?

If the Lorentz transformation takes forces into account, than a force should be represented somewhere in the equation. The closest you have is a speed. Moreover, the conditions of the experiment dictate that the only field present is a gravitational field - the planet doesn't have an electromagnetic field - which is 100 times stronger for the object travelling 10 m off the ground than the object travelling 1 m off the ground. The equation for a gravitational field is:

S = GM/r^2

Where r is the distance from the center of mass of the object creating the field (in this case, the planet - since we're only concerned about relative field strengths, you don't need to know the radius of the planet), M is the mass of the planet, G is the universal gravitational constant, and S is the strength of the field.

To prove that the gravitational field affects time dilation, you, somehow, need to work that equation into the Lorentz transformations. Since the Lorentz transformations don't contain ANY terms that depend on S, r, M, or G, I don't see how this can be done.


This was our introductory physics lesson for the day on why, as Taibak said, the forces will all be dependent on the change in velocity. No change, no force.

You need to consider the place and the field strength in that place, and the velocity relative to the local field strength.

That is, in fact, EXACTLY what I've challenged you to do. Show me how the relative strength of the gravitational field affects the Lorentz transformations for the two objects. Either way, Normandy is right - no change in velocity means no force.

No industry on earth uses the idiotic SR theory, and most scientists on earth don’t even think about it or consider it. Most scientists on earth totally ignore it. Only a few “theorists” continue to babble about it.

Ad hominum aside, the aerospace industry routinely uses both SR and GR to track certain fast moving objects.

Astronomers across the planet use SR to explain phenomena ranging from how pions and muons manage to reach the Earth's surface from the upper atmosphere (they should decay long before they reach the surface) to how the light from distant supernovae dissipate.

The engineers who design and build GPS units must account for SR effects resulting from the relative motion of the GPS satellites.

Particle physicists rely on SR - and by extension relativistic quantum mechanics (based explicitly on SR) to explain the behavior of fast-moving particles.

Other than those, there are very few, if any, industries that have any reason to take SR into effect - they don't deal with objects moving fast enough. That, however, should not be taken as evidence against the theory. By comparison, I know of no industries that take quantum electrodynamics into effect, other than pure research, and yet QED is the most successful theory out there when it comes to matching prediction with experiment.

Observational evidence disproves SR theory, since we see light from the atoms of the stars in M31 as being blueshifted, not redshifted, ie appearing to run fast because of the classical Doppler effect, but this is just an illusion and is not real.

See here (http://courses.washington.edu/ph123acs/part2dopplershift.html) for a derivation of the equation for the Doppler effect from the Lorentz transformation with time. The final equation for light emitted by an object APPROACHING the Earth is:

f' = f [(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2

Where f' is the frequency of the light when it reaches the Earth, f is the frequency of the light when it was emitted from M31, and v is the speed of M31, measured relative to the Earth, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. As an aside, note that if the object were receeding from the Earth, the term inside the square brackets would be (1+v/c)/(1-v/c).

As I stated before, M31 is approaching the Earth at roughly 140,000 m/s. For the sake of argument, let's use the H-alpha transition of the hydrogen atom, which produces light that has a frequency of 2.18 * 10^-15 Hz, and use that as our value for f. Plugging the numbers into the equation gives:

f' = [2.18 * 10^-15 Hz][(1 - 140,000 m/s / 3 * 10^8 m/s)/(1 + 140,000 m/s / 3 * 10^8 m/s)]^1/2

Crunching the numbers shows that, f' = 2.21 * 10^-15 Hz. Since f' > f, the relativistic Doppler effect, as derived from the Lorentz equations, predicts a blueshift, and not a redshift.


As always, feel free to check my math for any errors.


Edited to add 'or superluminal galaxies' and 'As always, feel free to check my math for any errors.' Edited again to change a 'm/2' to a 'm/s.'

Hey, at least I got my tags right this time!

[Normandy6644]

The “force” is a “Lorentz force”. It is a resistance to motion that is put up by the fields through which atoms move.

The term 'Lorentz force' refers specifically to the force that a charged particle experiences when moving through a magnetic field. Its equation is:

F(Lorentz) = q(E + v x B)

where q is the charge on the particle, E is the strength of the electric field, v is the particle's velocity, B is the strength of the magnetic field, and x is the cross-product operator.

I think we've shown him this 3 or 4 times now. Here you go Sam, another physics lesson that will include the real Lorentz force as well as show you what happens when the force is not present.

Consider a particle moving under the influence of a magnetic and electric field in opposite directions. If there is no net force on the particle, what is it's velocity?

Here we have the Lorentz force F=qE - qv x B (minus because the electric field and magnetic fields are in opposite directions). If there is no net force (i.e, dv/dt=0 and v is constant), then qE+qvB (since the particle is moving perpendicular to the magnetic field, so sin 90 = 1) = 0. Sorry, let me write that out again.

F=qE-qvB=0
Thus qE=qvB and finally v=E/B. Thus in any experiment when the magnetic and electric fields cancel each other (i.e., no net force), the velocity is always the electric field divided by the magnetic field. This concludes our physics lesson for the day on the Lorentz force and a particle moving with constant velocity. :D

[AstroSmurf]

Folks, remember that relativistic Doppler shift contains a direction-independant component as well...

f' = f * ( 1 - vr / c) / sqrt ( 1 - |v|² / c² )

The first factor contains the radial component of v, i.e, it's direction-dependant, but the second one only relies on the length of the velocity vector, i.e. the speed. The first is predicted by standard Doppler shift, but the second factor directly implies time dilation as a real effect.

I'm butting out of the debate now. As long as Sam5 feels free to handwave away any inconvenient or embarrassing experimental results, no amount of evidence will change his mind. And since he's still fighting straw men, SR isn't even touched by his "attacks". Things may change once he starts looking at the real theory, not his misconception of it.

Call me if something interesting comes up. [-(

[Taibak]

Folks, remember that relativistic Doppler shift contains a direction-independant component as well...

f' = f * ( 1 - vr / c) / sqrt ( 1 - |v|² / c² )

The first factor contains the radial component of v, i.e, it's direction-dependant, but the second one only relies on the length of the velocity vector, i.e. the speed. The first is predicted by standard Doppler shift, but the second factor directly implies time dilation as a real effect.


I'm not sure we're using different equations here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ( 1 - vr / c) reduces to:

sqrt( 1 - v/c)sqrt(1 - v/c).

I would argue that converting vr to a speed results in a sign change to account for direction. It also results in the subscript being dropped as redundant (|vr| = v). Thus leaving us with sqrt(1+v/c)sqrt(1+v/c). Similarly, sqrt ( 1 - |v|² / c² ) reduces to:

sqrt(1 - v/c)sqrt(1 + v/c).

Dividing the two gives us:

sqrt( 1 - v/c)sqrt(1 - v/c) / sqrt(1 - v/c)sqrt(1 + v/c).

As long as v does not equal c, that reduces to:

sqrt(1 - v/c) / sqrt(1 + v/c).

Which, notation aside, is the term from my equation.

[daver]

I'm not sure we're using different equations here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ( 1 - vr / c) reduces to:

sqrt( 1 - v/c)sqrt(1 - v/c).


you left off a square. sqrt(1-beta**2) == sqrt(1-beta)*sqrt(1+beta).

[Taibak]

I'm not sure we're using different equations here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ( 1 - vr / c) reduces to:

sqrt( 1 - v/c)sqrt(1 - v/c).


you left off a square. sqrt(1-beta**2) == sqrt(1-beta)*sqrt(1+beta).

Actually, that part of the derivation is dealing with the vr term of AstroSmurf's equation. Nothing there is squared. Since x = sqrt(x * x), I think I'm safe.

[Normandy6644]

I'm not sure we're using different equations here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ( 1 - vr / c) reduces to:

sqrt( 1 - v/c)sqrt(1 - v/c).


you left off a square. sqrt(1-beta**2) == sqrt(1-beta)*sqrt(1+beta).

Actually, that part of the derivation is dealing with the vr term of AstroSmurf's equation. Nothing there is squared. Since x = sqrt(x * x), I think I'm safe.

I think what he's saying is that if you have sqrt(1-v/c)*sqrt(1+v/c) you get

sqrt[(1-v/c)*(1+v/c)]=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about though.

[Taibak]

I'm not sure we're using different equations here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ( 1 - vr / c) reduces to:

sqrt( 1 - v/c)sqrt(1 - v/c).


you left off a square. sqrt(1-beta**2) == sqrt(1-beta)*sqrt(1+beta).

Actually, that part of the derivation is dealing with the vr term of AstroSmurf's equation. Nothing there is squared. Since x = sqrt(x * x), I think I'm safe.

I think what he's saying is that if you have sqrt(1-v/c)*sqrt(1+v/c) you get

sqrt[(1-v/c)*(1+v/c)]=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about though.

I agree. Daver would be correct if I were factoring the numerator of AstroSmurf's equation. I'm not - I'm rewriting it as the square root of its own square (x = sqrt(x^2)).

[Taibak]

LINK TO SOURCE (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:YtToATcrficJ:www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Doppler.html+christian+doppler&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)


Both the link and your quotes from this article are astoundingly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're not writing a biography of Doppler - we're debating the merits of relativity. However, your choice of this as evidence is incredibly revealing. Not only does this not address the issue at hand, the text you quoted obscures the success of Doppler's theory. Yes, the Earth's revolution causes redshifts and blueshifts in starlight that are extremely difficult to detect. However, that does not change the fact that the Doppler equations don't care about whether or not a wave is transverse or longitudinal, nor doees it change the fact that the classical Doppler shift has been verified repeatedly for systems with a relative motion of less than 10% the speed of light.

More importantly, these quotes provide no scientific evidence whatsoever. Heck, that page doesn't even provide the equations that govern the Doppler shift! It's a cute biography of Doppler's life, but fails on three important counts: it contains no experimental evidence whatsoever, it never demonstrates the math, and it never even makes a clear statement as to the validity of Doppler's theories. Therefore, as evidence in a scientific debate, this page is junk.

[daver]

Nothing there is squared. Since x = sqrt(x * x), I think I'm safe.
Yep, my mistake. I need better glasses or a larger font.

[Normandy6644]

I'm not sure we're using different equations here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ( 1 - vr / c) reduces to:

sqrt( 1 - v/c)sqrt(1 - v/c).


you left off a square. sqrt(1-beta**2) == sqrt(1-beta)*sqrt(1+beta).

Actually, that part of the derivation is dealing with the vr term of AstroSmurf's equation. Nothing there is squared. Since x = sqrt(x * x), I think I'm safe.

I think what he's saying is that if you have sqrt(1-v/c)*sqrt(1+v/c) you get

sqrt[(1-v/c)*(1+v/c)]=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about though.

I agree. Daver would be correct if I were factoring the numerator of AstroSmurf's equation. I'm not - I'm rewriting it as the square root of its own square (x = sqrt(x^2)).

Ah, gotcha. All is well in the mathematical world. 8)

[Sam5]

we're debating the merits of relativity

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate. Anyway, Einstein revoked it in 1911.

All this math debate is amusing. Lol.

Got to get back to work.

[Normandy6644]

we're debating the merits of relativity

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate. Anyway, Einstein revoked it in 1911.

Einstein never revoked the constancy postulate. It's still a factor today. Give it up.

All this math debate is amusing. Lol.

I'm sure it is. Much like watching a couple flirt in Japanese when all you speak is English.

[Taibak]

we're debating the merits of relativity

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate. Anyway, Einstein revoked it in 1911.

I'm not even going to dignify that question with an answer. We're debating relativity and NOT the classical Doppler effect. You're changing horses, trying to obscure the issue at hand. If you have an argument that the Doppler shift somehow invalidates the constancy postulate, make it. However, if you do, be prepared to PROVE your argument. Cribbing 90 year old papers isn't going to prove that, linking to someone's biography isn't going to prove it. You'll need to either show math that supports your argument, show some experimental evidence, OR logically demonstrate how your result follows from other well-established physical laws.

And, as we've pointed out repeatedly, you still haven't explained why we should consider the 1911 paper to be valid when it's universally considered to have been replaced by the 1916 paper.

All this math debate is amusing. Lol.

I'm sure it is. I also noticed that you're not disagreeing with my proof that the relativistic Doppler shift predicts that the light we receive from M31 is blueshifted, nor are you disagreeing with my proof that the Lorentz force for a particle moving solely through a gravitational field is zero.

[Normandy6644]

...nor are you disagreeing with my proof that the Lorentz force for a particle moving solely through a gravitational field is zero

I was wondering, can you say this with complete certainty? This is a complete tangent (not that we're not experienced with them or anything :lol: ), but based on the Quantum Uncertainty principle, would the electromagnetic field at any point be more than zero? I mean if we're considering a particle in motion with a known velocity, the fields would certainly be present (otherwise they would be known, which can't happen), although completely negligible. I might be way off on this, since I haven't studied enough QM yet, but it's just a thought. not that it changes any of your arguments assuming no Lorentz force.

[Edit]

PM me if you feel this is too far off topic.

[Taibak]

...nor are you disagreeing with my proof that the Lorentz force for a particle moving solely through a gravitational field is zero

I was wondering, can you say this with complete certainty? This is a complete tangent (not that we're not experienced with them or anything :lol: ), but based on the Quantum Uncertainty principle, would the electromagnetic field at any point be more than zero? I mean if we're considering a particle in motion with a known velocity, the fields would certainly be present (otherwise they would be known, which can't happen), although completely negligible. I might be way off on this, since I haven't studied enough QM yet, but it's just a thought. not that it changes any of your arguments assuming no Lorentz force.

[Edit]

PM me if you feel this is too far off topic.

Well, quantum mechanics being quantum mechanics, I can't say that with complete certainty. However, we're not talking about a process taking place on a scale small enough to consider quantum. On a macroscopic scale, there is no EM field. It's roughly the same reason why we don't randomly see the Earth pick up an electric charge. Also, if, say, a random fluctuation produces an electron and a positron, they'll annihiliate each other so fast that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents us from directly detecting their existence. Either way, quantum effects aren't going to produce an EM field that will be anywhere near noticeable enough to impact my little thought experiment. :)

[Sam5]

we're debating the merits of relativity


Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work.


I'm not even going to dignify that question with an answer.


LOL! I knew you wouldn’t know the answer!

We're debating relativity and NOT the classical Doppler effect.

The relativistic Doppler effect incorporates the classical Doppler effects. You must know and understand the classical Doppler effects, and their two causes, before you can go on to discuss the relativistic Doppler effect, which first was mentioned in Lorentz’s 1895 book.

[Sam5]

I also noticed that you're not disagreeing with my proof that the relativistic Doppler shift predicts that the light we receive from M31 is blueshifted,

Doh. Doppler already predicted it 62 years earlier. That issue was settled before Einstein was born.

[swansont]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate.

How does this jibe with the observation of binary stars, which shows that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source?

[Tensor]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work.

Gee Sam5, if you have to have the Doppler effect explained, maybe that's why you don't understand relativity.


I'm not even going to dignify that question with an answer.


LOL! I knew you wouldn’t know the answer!


Gee Sam5, is that why your not answering any of our questions, because you don't know. Well that explains your understanding of Relativity. In Taibak's case though, his refusal makes sense. You have a habit of bringing up ideas that have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Well, the doppler effect has nothing to do with whether Relativity is wrong or not. Unless......



If you have an argument that the Doppler shift somehow invalidates the constancy postulate, make it. However, if you do, be prepared to PROVE your argument. Cribbing 90 year old papers isn't going to prove that, linking to someone's biography isn't going to prove it. You'll need to either show math that supports your argument, show some experimental evidence, OR logically demonstrate how your result follows from other well-established physical laws.

[Tensor]

All this math debate is amusing. Lol.

Like someone watching a magician. The person has no idea what is going on, but the magician does.

Got to get back to work.

I thought you were retired.

[SeanF]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? . . . The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate.

How do you figure that (that one of the causes of Doppler disproves the constant speed of light)?

By the way, did you re-read that "peculiar consequence" yet? The systems don't change.

[captain swoop]

Why are you bothering with this?

remember you can lead a horse to water

[Sam5]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate.

How does this jibe with the observation of binary stars, which shows that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source?

The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source. A propagating medium is required for this effect. The propagating medium in between the binaries and the earth controls the speed of the light as it travels through space from the binaries to the earth.

[Normandy6644]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate.

How does this jibe with the observation of binary stars, which shows that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source?

The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source. A propagating medium is required for this effect. The propagating medium in between the binaries and the earth controls the speed of the light as it travels through space from the binaries to the earth.

You can't just state something like this and expect everyone to throw their hands up and say, "oh now I get it!" You need some kind of experimental evidence that backs that claim up. Otherwise it means nothing.

[Sam5]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work.

Gee Sam5, if you have to have the Doppler effect explained, maybe that's why you don't understand relativity.

Gee, Tensor, I know it, and I’ve already explained it several times already. I asked you if you could explain it, but you refused to answer the question.

[milli360]

Why are you bothering with this?
Ask the Steves (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=248735&highlight=steve#248735) :)
The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source.

In a different sense. The speed of sound in the medium is independent of the source--but the speed of sound will be directional, measured at a moving source.

A propagating medium is required for this effect.
For the sound effect?

[swansont]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate.

How does this jibe with the observation of binary stars, which shows that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source?

The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source. A propagating medium is required for this effect. The propagating medium in between the binaries and the earth controls the speed of the light as it travels through space from the binaries to the earth.

Which brings us back to the ether. Which can't be stationary with respect to the earth, nor can the earth be moving through it, without contradicting observations that test those hypotheses. How does your ether know to be moving with the earth when we test for that, and to be stationary for the other tests?

And how does "the speed of light has to be a constant because of the medium" disprove the postulate that the speed of light is a constant?

[Taibak]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work. One of the causes explains why we see a redshift and a blueshift when the earth moves away from and toward a sun-fixed star during the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. The second cause alone disproves the 1905 “constancy” postulate.

How does this jibe with the observation of binary stars, which shows that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source?

The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source. A propagating medium is required for this effect. The propagating medium in between the binaries and the earth controls the speed of the light as it travels through space from the binaries to the earth.

Which brings us back to the ether. Which can't be stationary with respect to the earth, nor can the earth be moving through it, without contradicting observations that test those hypotheses. How does your ether know to be moving with the earth when we test for that, and to be stationary for the other tests?

And how does "the speed of light has to be a constant because of the medium" disprove the postulate that the speed of light is a constant?

Agreed, particularly when the medium we're talking about is a vacuum!

And this still doesn't change the fact that the Lorentz force doesn't cause time dilation AND the fact that the relativistic Doppler effect says that light from M31 is blueshifted.

[Sam5]

The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source. A propagating medium is required for this effect. The propagating medium in between the binaries and the earth controls the speed of the light as it travels through space from the binaries to the earth.

You can't just state something like this and expect everyone to throw their hands up and say, "oh now I get it!" You need some kind of experimental evidence that backs that claim up. Otherwise it means nothing.

I’ve explained this several times already. The so-called “fast light” emitted by an oncoming binary never overtakes the “slow light” emitted earlier by a receding binary. Thus, there must be something in the space between the binaries and the earth that regulates the speed of the light (coming from both binaries) to “c” in the space between us and the binaries.

Try working it out on graph paper, with the grid of the paper representing the light-speed regulating “medium”, and maybe you will get it.

[Sam5]

Agreed, particularly when the medium we're talking about is a vacuum!



Don’t forget the “fields” of space. They are everywhere, even in the vacuum.

Got to go and get back to work.

[swansont]

Agreed, particularly when the medium we're talking about is a vacuum!



Don’t forget the “fields” of space. They are everywhere, even in the vacuum.


To which "fields" do you refer? Are fields that are mentioned in quotation marks different than ones which are not?

Recent discussions have involved electric and magnetic fields. There are not interchangeable with gravitational fields. You need to be more specific.

[Taibak]

The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source. A propagating medium is required for this effect. The propagating medium in between the binaries and the earth controls the speed of the light as it travels through space from the binaries to the earth.

You can't just state something like this and expect everyone to throw their hands up and say, "oh now I get it!" You need some kind of experimental evidence that backs that claim up. Otherwise it means nothing.

I’ve explained this several times already. The so-called “fast light” emitted by an oncoming binary never overtakes the “slow light” emitted earlier by a receding binary. Thus, there must be something in the space between the binaries and the earth that regulates the speed of the light (coming from both binaries) to “c” in the space between us and the binaries.

Or it means that the speed of light in vacuo is always 2.998 * 10^8 m/s, regardless of how things are moving.

As for the a medium that regulates the speed of light, like swansont said, all the evidence says that it doesn't exist. The Michaelson-Morely experiment proves that the Earth is not moving through an ether. The existence of stellar aberration proves that the Earth is not at rest relative to the ether. If an ether exists, the Earth must be either moving through it or at rest relative to it, since neither is true there can not be an ether.

Try working it out on graph paper, with the grid of the paper representing the light-speed regulating “medium”, and maybe you will get it.

Why would I want to? If the experimental evidence shows that the medium doesn't exist, why should we be concerned with a theory that says it does?

[SeanF]

Try working it out on graph paper, with the grid of the paper representing the light-speed regulating “medium”, and maybe you will get it.

Just because graph paper gives you the same result doesn't mean that space must work like graph paper.

You've got a real problem with this kind of thinking. Like, when discussing Relativistic time differences, you start going on about cryogenically frozen fetuses not traveling at huge velocities. It's meaningless.

Just because one cause produces a particular effect does not mean that all similar effects must be produced by similar causes.

You insist on talking about how other causes could produce the observed effects and insist that that somehow proves that Relativity couldn't produce them . . . [-(

(BTW, did you re-read the "peculiar consequence" yet?)

[Flaney]

C had never been sync'd to A or B. If they had, there would be an offset ascribed to GR when accelerated to its speed.

As A observes C approach, the apparent clock reading it sees in C is 'old' but the rate of the reading speeds up until C's apparent clock shows a bias equal to the slowdown induced by GR acceleration for its change in velocity. So A or C needs to adjust their clock when they pass. B notes the discrepancy with C equal to the GR effect, or differences its clock with A's (including the light delay) to record the same GR effect.

Fine, so let's not worry about C being synched to either A or B. It's not important. When A passes C, the two clocks merely look at each other and determine how far off they are. For the simplicity of argument, let's say at the moment they pass, C is exactly 5 minutes behind A. Fair enough?

When C passes B, it will be more than 5 minutes behind B, even though A and B still see each other as synchronized. There was no acceleration while C was travelling from A to B, but it will still be farther behind.

Let's say A and C show 1100 seconds on their clocks when they pass. While C was approaching A, its clock showed a time offset with a faster rate. So when C was 300 light seconds away approaching at 0.5c, A's clock reads 500 seconds and the time A sees on C's clock is 200 seconds. For every second passing for A's clock, A sees C's clock advancing 1.5 seconds.
As soon as they cross, A will see C's clock advance 0.5 seconds for every second on its(A's) clock. Now if B is 60 light seconds downstream, A will read 1040 seconds on B's clock the instant A and C cross. The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.
The apparent clock rate is a function of relative speed and the bias/offset a function of distance.

Note that no observer can measure directly the light it emits, so c+v or c-v is irrelevent.

[darkdev]

Is time dilation attributed to acceleration or velocity?

[TheAtomium]

While reading this I wondered wether Sam5 could be thinking of the 'quantum foam' that some believe permeates space? I had a look around on Google, but couldn't find anything conclusive about what quantum foam was or wether it really existed...can anyone shed any light on this? Sam5, do you think this quantum foam could be the ether you are talking about?

[SeanF]

Let's say A and C show 1100 seconds on their clocks when they pass. While C was approaching A, its clock showed a time offset with a faster rate. So when C was 300 light seconds away approaching at 0.5c, A's clock reads 500 seconds and the time A sees on C's clock is 200 seconds. For every second passing for A's clock, A sees C's clock advancing 1.5 seconds.
As soon as they cross, A will see C's clock advance 0.5 seconds for every second on its(A's) clock. Now if B is 60 light seconds downstream, A will read 1040 seconds on B's clock the instant A and C cross. The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.
The apparent clock rate is a function of relative speed and the bias/offset a function of distance.

Try again. 1160-1100 is 60 seconds. You've got C traveling 60 light-seconds at 0.5c, but only taking 60 seconds to do so. Something's not right.

[SeanF]

Is time dilation attributed to acceleration or velocity?

Are you asking in general, or in regards to a specific set-up? In general, both cause time dilation. In the "peculiar consequence" of Einstein's original 1905 paper, there is no acceleration per se, so the dilation is all velocity.

[darkdev]

I ask because I've seen arguments in some threads about velocity not equating to time dilation, but at .9c it does... I thought both do, but I wanted to be sure.

[Ricimer]

yes, both relative velocity and acceleration (gravitational or otherwise) can cause time dilation.

[Lunatik]

Also, forces are dependent on velocity changing. In the experiment in question, we're looking at a situation that is, essentially, objects moving in a straight line at a constant speed. There is no change in velocity, acceleration equals zero. As a result, Newton's second law shows that the force equals zero.

You need to get a copy of Lorentz’s book. It will answer your questions. I don’t feel inclined to photocopy all 138 pages of it and post them here.

Actually, you don't need to do this. You simply need to interpret Lorentz's theories and explain how they answer my question. You should be able to do that in a paragraph, maybe two.

The “force” is a “Lorentz force”. It is a resistance to motion that is put up by the fields through which atoms move.

The term 'Lorentz force' refers specifically to the force that a charged particle experiences when moving through a magnetic field. Its equation is:

F(Lorentz) = q(E + v x B)

where q is the charge on the particle, E is the strength of the electric field, v is the particle's velocity, B is the strength of the magnetic field, and x is the cross-product operator. However, the conditions of my thought experiment (an electrically neutral planet without a magnetic field) dictate that, in this case, both E and B are equal to zero. Therefore F(Lorentz) = q(0 + 0) = 0. The Lorentz force simply is not present.

In Newton’s era they did not have any electrodynamics theories or electrodynamic-based atomic theories. Most of this stuff was discovered in the 19th century. It is fairly advanced and high-tech.

Doesn't matter if Newton knew about electrodynamics or not. Newton's second law of motion, F = ma, holds true for *all* forces. Keep in mind also that in that experiment the particles are neither changing their speed nor their direction, making their acceleration zero. If a is zero, F *must* be zero.

However, the Lorentz transformations STILL predict time dilation and length contraction, even if v doesn't change.

snip...
Lastly, you still haven't addressed my argument that if time dilation is caused by a field exerting a force on a moving object then the strength of the field must be taken into account. The Lorentz transformations can't be based solely on velocity if a field is required.

Sure, I've addressed that many times, but I suppose you didn't understand what I was saying. This is why I’ve been saying that the Lorentz “speed limit of c” probably applies inside a strong field only, such as here at the earth. But since the earth’s fields and our galaxy’s fields are not strong at distances of 13 billion light years, the lack of our strong field at those distances would most likely not place any “speed limit” on the distant galaxies, relative to us. This would account for why the galaxies seem to be moving at more than “c” relative to us, but they seem to be restricted to less than “c” relative to their own nearby local group of galaxies. Seems that the mainstreamers haven’t figured this out yet.

Again, irrelevant. I understand what you're saying completely - that the presence of fields regulates the speed of light and that in turn somehow affects the rate at which time and space are measured. I also think what you're saying is completely and utterly wrong.

snip...

If the Lorentz transformation takes forces into account, than a force should be represented somewhere in the equation. The closest you have is a speed. Moreover, the conditions of the experiment dictate that the only field present is a gravitational field - the planet doesn't have an electromagnetic field - which is 100 times stronger for the object travelling 10 m off the ground than the object travelling 1 m off the ground. The equation for a gravitational field is:

S = GM/r^2

Where r is the distance from the center of mass of the object creating the field (in this case, the planet - since we're only concerned about relative field strengths, you don't need to know the radius of the planet), M is the mass of the planet, G is the universal gravitational constant, and S is the strength of the field.

To prove that the gravitational field affects time dilation, you, somehow, need to work that equation into the Lorentz transformations. Since the Lorentz transformations don't contain ANY terms that depend on S, r, M, or G, I don't see how this can be done.

...snip...

You need to consider the place and the field strength in that place, and the velocity relative to the local field strength.

That is, in fact, EXACTLY what I've challenged you to do. Show me how the relative strength of the gravitational field affects the Lorentz transformations for the two objects. Either way, Normandy is right - no change in velocity means no force.

No industry on earth uses the idiotic SR theory, and most scientists on earth don’t even think about it or consider it. Most scientists on earth totally ignore it. Only a few “theorists” continue to babble about it.

Ad hominum aside, the aerospace industry routinely uses both SR and GR to track certain fast moving objects.

Astronomers across the planet use SR to explain phenomena ranging from how pions and muons manage to reach the Earth's surface from the upper atmosphere (they should decay long before they reach the surface) to how the light from distant supernovae dissipate.

The engineers who design and build GPS units must account for SR effects resulting from the relative motion of the GPS satellites.

Particle physicists rely on SR - and by extension relativistic quantum mechanics (based explicitly on SR) to explain the behavior of fast-moving particles.

Other than those, there are very few, if any, industries that have any reason to take SR into effect - they don't deal with objects moving fast enough. That, however, should not be taken as evidence against the theory. By comparison, I know of no industries that take quantum electrodynamics into effect, other than pure research, and yet QED is the most successful theory out there when it comes to matching prediction with experiment.

Observational evidence disproves SR theory, since we see light from the atoms of the stars in M31 as being blueshifted, not redshifted, ie appearing to run fast because of the classical Doppler effect, but this is just an illusion and is not real.

See here (http://courses.washington.edu/ph123acs/part2dopplershift.html) for a derivation of the equation for the Doppler effect from the Lorentz transformation with time. The final equation for light emitted by an object APPROACHING the Earth is:

f' = f [(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2

Where f' is the frequency of the light when it reaches the Earth, f is the frequency of the light when it was emitted from M31, and v is the speed of M31, measured relative to the Earth, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. As an aside, note that if the object were receeding from the Earth, the term inside the square brackets would be (1+v/c)/(1-v/c).

As I stated before, M31 is approaching the Earth at roughly 140,000 m/s. For the sake of argument, let's use the H-alpha transition of the hydrogen atom, which produces light that has a frequency of 2.18 * 10^-15 Hz, and use that as our value for f. Plugging the numbers into the equation gives:

f' = [2.18 * 10^-15 Hz][(1 - 140,000 m/s / 3 * 10^8 m/s)/(1 + 140,000 m/s / 3 * 10^8 m/s)]^1/2

Crunching the numbers shows that, f' = 2.21 * 10^-15 Hz. Since f' > f, the relativistic Doppler effect, as derived from the Lorentz equations, predicts a blueshift, and not a redshift.

As always, feel free to check my math for any errors. :lol:

* * * * * *
I think I understand what Sam is trying to say here: The math for Lorentz transformation equates with observed 'slowing' clocks traveling through a gravitational force field, but neither proves the other, since the results of 'slowing' time are for different reasons: The Lorentz math says time will dilate, but does not incorporate forces in it; Atomic clocks traveling through gravitational field will slow, but not necessarily for reasons of Lorentz transformation. So these are in essence two parallels that are plausible but do not connect, so neither can be used to validate the other, since they are complementary but not convertible.

So in the Taibak-Sam5 interchange above, both are right in terms of where they're coming from, but neither is actually touching on the content of the other, since these 'plausible parallels' do not touch, though their effects equate. Under such conditions, this debate could go on forever, just like two parallels, without ever truly communicating along the way. As Taibak wrote: Taibak:
To prove that the gravitational field affects time dilation, you, somehow, need to work that equation into the Lorentz transformations. Since the Lorentz transformations don't contain ANY terms that depend on S, r, M, or G, I don't see how this can be done. This is the crux of it, that Lorentz does not have Force (G, M, S) in it, but the results act as if it did; while the GP-B frame dragging effect in a gravity field, if proven, would still show time dilation, but this could be due to effects due to Force, and not SR/GR. Of course, if GP-B proves this to be true, this might be the connect between these two parallels. This would be most important for validating General Relativity, at least in theory.

So to prove that "the gravitational field affects time dilation" without resorting to the Lorentz transformation math may mean that we need a more direct theory of why gravity does this. Of course, if GP-B should prove NO frame dragging, then we're frustrated back to the beginning all over again. :cry:

[Flaney]

Let's say A and C show 1100 seconds on their clocks when they pass. While C was approaching A, its clock showed a time offset with a faster rate. So when C was 300 light seconds away approaching at 0.5c, A's clock reads 500 seconds and the time A sees on C's clock is 200 seconds. For every second passing for A's clock, A sees C's clock advancing 1.5 seconds.
As soon as they cross, A will see C's clock advance 0.5 seconds for every second on its(A's) clock. Now if B is 60 light seconds downstream, A will read 1040 seconds on B's clock the instant A and C cross. The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.
The apparent clock rate is a function of relative speed and the bias/offset a function of distance.

Try again. 1160-1100 is 60 seconds. You've got C traveling 60 light-seconds at 0.5c, but only taking 60 seconds to do so. Something's not right.

The time on A's clock is 1220 seconds when C crosses B, 120 seconds for C to travel 60 light seconds at 0.5c. You are timing the signal speed.

[SeanF]

Let's say A and C show 1100 seconds on their clocks when they pass. While C was approaching A, its clock showed a time offset with a faster rate. So when C was 300 light seconds away approaching at 0.5c, A's clock reads 500 seconds and the time A sees on C's clock is 200 seconds. For every second passing for A's clock, A sees C's clock advancing 1.5 seconds.
As soon as they cross, A will see C's clock advance 0.5 seconds for every second on its(A's) clock. Now if B is 60 light seconds downstream, A will read 1040 seconds on B's clock the instant A and C cross. The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.
The apparent clock rate is a function of relative speed and the bias/offset a function of distance.

Try again. 1160-1100 is 60 seconds. You've got C traveling 60 light-seconds at 0.5c, but only taking 60 seconds to do so. Something's not right.

The time on A's clock is 1220 seconds when C crosses B, 120 seconds for C to travel 60 light seconds at 0.5c. You are timing the signal speed.

Okay, I need you to clarify your last sentence, please:

The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.

What exactly do you mean here?

{I edited this message about six times before I posted it, because I kept typing things like, "Do you mean . . . " and I really just want you to tell me what you mean.} 8-[

[swansont]

If the experimental evidence shows that the medium doesn't exist, why should we be concerned with a theory that says it does?

Indeed. It becomes yet another beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact. Rather, it became that a hundred years ago.

[Flaney]

Okay, I need you to clarify your last sentence, please:

The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.

What exactly do you mean here?

{I edited this message about six times before I posted it, because I kept typing things like, "Do you mean . . . " and I really just want you to tell me what you mean.} 8-[

A is observing the apparent times on the clocks for C and B. Since B is not moving relative to A, its clock simply shows a time offset by 60 seconds. When A's clock reads 1100, B's clock shows 1040 at A. Their rates are the same.
When C crosses A, The clocks of C and A both read 1100. C continues to B and arrives 120 seconds later (viewed by A). A's clock reads 1220, while both C and B show apparent times of 1160. Thus C's clock appears to run slow by 0.5 from A's point of view.

[SeanF]

Okay, I need you to clarify your last sentence, please:

The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.

What exactly do you mean here?

{I edited this message about six times before I posted it, because I kept typing things like, "Do you mean . . . " and I really just want you to tell me what you mean.} 8-[

A is observing the apparent times on the clocks for C and B. Since B is not moving relative to A, its clock simply shows a time offset by 60 seconds. When A's clock reads 1100, B's clock shows 1040 at A. Their rates are the same.
When C crosses A, The clocks of C and A both read 1100. C continues to B and arrives 120 seconds later (viewed by A). A's clock reads 1220, while both C and B show apparent times of 1160. Thus C's clock appears to run slow by 0.5 from A's point of view.

You're saying that A will "see" C=1160 and "see" B=1160 at the same time? That's still not right.

(The following paragraph assumes there is no Relativistic time-dilation)
If C=1100 when A and C pass, then C=1160 occurs only 60 seconds later, at the same time as A=1160. That means C is only 30 light-seconds away (60 seconds at 0.5c) when it sends C=1160. A would then "see" C=1160 30 seconds after that (30 light-seconds at c), which would be a total of 90 seconds after passing: A=1190. A won't "see" B=1160 until A=1220, an additional 30 seconds later.

[Flaney]

Okay, I need you to clarify your last sentence, please:

The times that A sees on the clock for B and C will be the same when C crosses B 120 seconds later: C=1160, B=1160.

What exactly do you mean here?

{I edited this message about six times before I posted it, because I kept typing things like, "Do you mean . . . " and I really just want you to tell me what you mean.} 8-[

A is observing the apparent times on the clocks for C and B. Since B is not moving relative to A, its clock simply shows a time offset by 60 seconds. When A's clock reads 1100, B's clock shows 1040 at A. Their rates are the same.
When C crosses A, The clocks of C and A both read 1100. C continues to B and arrives 120 seconds later (viewed by A). A's clock reads 1220, while both C and B show apparent times of 1160. Thus C's clock appears to run slow by 0.5 from A's point of view.

You're saying that A will "see" C=1160 and "see" B=1160 at the same time? That's still not right.

(The following paragraph assumes there is no Relativistic time-dilation)
If C=1100 when A and C pass, then C=1160 occurs only 60 seconds later, at the same time as A=1160. That means C is only 30 light-seconds away (60 seconds at 0.5c) when it sends C=1160. A would then "see" C=1160 30 seconds after that (30 light-seconds at c), which would be a total of 90 seconds after passing: A=1190. A won't "see" B=1160 until A=1220, an additional 30 seconds later.

And add the propagation delay of 60 seconds.
If C=1100 when A and C pass, then C=1160 occurs only 60 seconds later, at the same time as A=1160

[Lunatik]

While reading this I wondered wether Sam5 could be thinking of the 'quantum foam' that some believe permeates space? I had a look around on Google, but couldn't find anything conclusive about what quantum foam was or wether it really existed...can anyone shed any light on this? Sam5, do you think this quantum foam could be the ether you are talking about?
See http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html Zero Point Energy, where they talk of "the ordinary world of matter and energy is like a foam atop the quantum vacuum sea", as a starting point.

[Ricimer]

As Taibak wrote: Taibak:
To prove that the gravitational field affects time dilation, you, somehow, need to work that equation into the Lorentz transformations. Since the Lorentz transformations don't contain ANY terms that depend on S, r, M, or G, I don't see how this can be done. This is the crux of it, that Lorentz does not have Force (G, M, S) in it, but the results act as if it did; while the GP-B frame dragging effect in a gravity field, if proven, would still show time dilation, but this could be due to effects due to Force, and not SR/GR. Of course, if GP-B proves this to be true, this might be the connect between these two parallels. This would be most important for validating General Relativity, at least in theory.

Actually, that's not the "crux of it". The point is, the Lorentzian (and SR) transformations have time dilation in absence of gravity. It isn't mimicing gravity, or acting as if there was gravity. The time dilation they describe happens independent of gravity. That's what Taibak is trying to show. You have two sources of time dilation, that of relative motion, and that due to gravity. They work differently, for different reasons.

He's also showing that GR describes gravitational time dilation, but relative motion time dilation (its 'general' relativity, not 'gravitational' relativity). This can easily be shown when you use the GR equations, but put the gravity and acceleration terms to zero (showing a zero-gravity, zero-acceleration case) and you get out SR predictions.

In short: The results don't act as if you had gravity, because the terms aren't there, and the results will be different.

[Normandy6644]

The speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source. A propagating medium is required for this effect. The propagating medium in between the binaries and the earth controls the speed of the light as it travels through space from the binaries to the earth.

You can't just state something like this and expect everyone to throw their hands up and say, "oh now I get it!" You need some kind of experimental evidence that backs that claim up. Otherwise it means nothing.

I’ve explained this several times already. The so-called “fast light” emitted by an oncoming binary never overtakes the “slow light” emitted earlier by a receding binary. Thus, there must be something in the space between the binaries and the earth that regulates the speed of the light (coming from both binaries) to “c” in the space between us and the binaries.

Try working it out on graph paper, with the grid of the paper representing the light-speed regulating “medium”, and maybe you will get it.

If you re-read (or just read) my post, you will note that I'm asking you for EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that shows the existence of this medium, not just your ideas on how to justify it.

[Sam5]

I'm asking you for EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that shows the existence of this medium,

Well, there’s the observational evidence of the light coming from the binaries. We can’t send a rocket to a binary to conduct an experiment. However, Shapiro sent radar signals to Venus, and when they bounced back and passed near the sun, they slowed down as they passed the sun, indicating a medium near the sun that slowed down the speed of the light.

How do you explain the light from the approaching binary not ever catching up with and passing the light emitted earlier by the receding binary? I mean, how would you explain the physical processes involved?

[Musashi]

Are you sure the radar slowed down and didn't just take a longer path?

[Ricimer]

How do you explain it? Without a medium?

Simple, light moves at speed C, and requires no external medium (no aether). Yes, thats odd for a wave, actually, light is unique in that way. The reason we say there is no medium is all experiments that try to detect it come up not only empty handed, but with evidence saying it isn't there.

[Normandy6644]

I'm asking you for EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that shows the existence of this medium,

Well, there’s the observational evidence of the light coming from the binaries. We can’t send a rocket to a binary to conduct an experiment. However, Shapiro sent radar signals to Venus, and when they bounced back and passed near the sun, they slowed down as they passed the sun, indicating a medium near the sun that slowed down the speed of the light.

How do you explain the light from the approaching binary not ever catching up with and passing the light emitted earlier by the receding binary? I mean, how would you explain the physical processes involved?

Well, if the stars are different distances from earth of course the light from the farther one will arrive here after the first one. The light won't "speed up" because that would violate (gasp!) the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum. What do you think would happen?

[Tensor]

Why are you bothering with this?

remember you can lead a horse to water

That's true Captain, but what about the other horses that may come here and believe what this horse is saying?

[freddo]

Horses of this sort should not lead herds.

[Tensor]

Do you know the two main causes of the classical Doppler effects? Maybe you could describe how they work.

Gee Sam5, if you have to have the Doppler effect explained, maybe that's why you don't understand relativity.

Gee, Tensor, I know it, and I’ve already explained it several times already. I asked you if you could explain it, but you refused to answer the question.

No, I answered it about eight pages ago.

[Tensor]

Agreed, particularly when the medium we're talking about is a vacuum!



Don’t forget the “fields” of space. They are everywhere, even in the vacuum.

You keep saying this, but have yet to specify what fields. Gravity? EM? Strong?

Got to go and get back to work.

You said you were retired.

[Sam5]

I'm asking you for EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that shows the existence of this medium,

Well, there’s the observational evidence of the light coming from the binaries. We can’t send a rocket to a binary to conduct an experiment. However, Shapiro sent radar signals to Venus, and when they bounced back and passed near the sun, they slowed down as they passed the sun, indicating a medium near the sun that slowed down the speed of the light.

How do you explain the light from the approaching binary not ever catching up with and passing the light emitted earlier by the receding binary? I mean, how would you explain the physical processes involved?

Well, if the stars are different distances from earth of course the light from the farther one will arrive here after the first one.


The problem is the two revolving binaries change positions and alternate between being the farthest one from the earth. Since they are revolving around each other, first one is nearer the earth and then it becomes the one that is farther from the earth. But there is no evidence that the light from one ever overtakes and passes the light from the other. This is what indicates that there is some kind of light-speed regulating “medium” in between the revolving stars and the earth, and this medium regulates the speed of their light while the light travels through deep space toward the earth.



The light won't "speed up" because that would violate (gasp!) the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum. What do you think would happen?

The problem with this idea is that if two rapidly revolving binaries are moving (revolving) through the vacuum, then should the light they emit be emitted at “c” relative to the stars that emit the light, or “c” relative to the distant earth? It can’t be “c” relative to both the stars and the earth at the same time.

If you consider the light to be regulated to “c” relative to the vacuum of space, then space must be “fixed” and can not be expanding, and in order for the light emitted by the binaries to be emitted at “c” relative to the vacuum of space, then the binaries must emit the light at different rates relative to themselves, since they are moving through space.

If you say that the light they emit is emitted into the vacuum at “c”, relative to the surfaces of the stars that emit the light, then the speed of the light can’t be “c” relative to both stars at the same time, because one star is moving in one direction while the other star is moving in the opposite direction.

My opinion is that they emit the light that eventually enters a deep-space “medium” that is part of the space between the stars and the sun and earth. I don’t know if this medium is the fields of that space, or specifically the gravity fields, or what, but I believe it must exist. So, at whatever rate the light is emitted by the individual stars, the light speed through deep space soon becomes regulated to "c" (or whatever) by the medium of deep space in that area of our galaxy.

[Normandy6644]

I'm asking you for EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that shows the existence of this medium,

Well, there’s the observational evidence of the light coming from the binaries. We can’t send a rocket to a binary to conduct an experiment. However, Shapiro sent radar signals to Venus, and when they bounced back and passed near the sun, they slowed down as they passed the sun, indicating a medium near the sun that slowed down the speed of the light.

How do you explain the light from the approaching binary not ever catching up with and passing the light emitted earlier by the receding binary? I mean, how would you explain the physical processes involved?

Well, if the stars are different distances from earth of course the light from the farther one will arrive here after the first one.


The problem is the two revolving binaries change positions and alternate between being the farthest one from the earth. Since they are revolving around each other, first one is nearer the earth and then it becomes the one that is farther from the earth. But there is no evidence that the light from one ever overtakes and passes the light from the other. This is what indicates that there is some kind of light-speed regulating “medium” in between the revolving stars and the earth, and this medium regulates the speed of their light while the light travels through deep space toward the earth.

I think you must be misunderstanding something here. Your wording is off or something. The idea is that if you have a binary star system and are observing their emitted photons here on earth, you will see one star blueshifted and one redshifted, right? These are spectroscopic binaries. They've been around for a long time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the light from one "overtaking" light from the other. If you treat each star individually, then (depending on the orientation of their orbit plane towards earth) you will see one set that appears to be moving toward earth, and one away. So, given all this, I'm not sure what your point is or what you're trying to say. Maybe rewording will help?



The light won't "speed up" because that would violate (gasp!) the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum. What do you think would happen?

The problem with this idea is that if two rapidly revolving binaries are moving (revolving) through the vacuum, then should the light they emit be emitted at “c” relative to the stars that emit the light, or “c” relative to the distant earth? It can’t be “c” relative to both the stars and the earth at the same time.

Why not? That's the whole point of SR, in a sense. it says that no matter which frame you are observing from, you will see the light emitted at "c."

If you consider the light to be regulated to “c” relative to the vacuum of space, then space must be “fixed” and can not be expanding, and in order for the light emitted by the binaries to be emitted at “c” relative to the vacuum of space, then the binaries must emit the light at different rates relative to themselves, since they are moving through space.

Why must you fix space in order for the speed of light to be constant? All of your conclusions seem to be based on a medium through which the light would travel. As we've said, this has never been observed, nor have any of the effects you're describing.

If you say that the light they emit is emitted into the vacuum at “c”, relative to the surfaces of the stars that emit the light, then the speed of the light can’t be “c” relative to both stars at the same time, because one star is moving in one direction while the other star is moving in the opposite direction.

Again, basic postulate of SR. No other, no change in velocity.

My opinion is that they emit the light that eventually enters a deep-space “medium” that is part of the space between the stars and the sun and earth. I don’t know if this medium is the fields of that space, or specifically the gravity fields, or what, but I believe it must exist. So, at whatever rate the light is emitted by the individual stars, the light speed through deep space soon becomes regulated to "c" (or whatever) by the medium of deep space in that area of our galaxy.

You're adding a "medium" where there doesn't need to be one. Everything you have described is explained in SR. There is no "deep space regulator" that "fixes" any variable EM wave to the speed of c. All EM waves travel at c in a vacuum, and will appear so no matter what frame you observe them from. Besides, how would this "medium" know to correct for every speed variable? it seems like it must be some kind of "smart-ether" than can automatically calculate the speed that the light is travelling and then adjust it so that it appears to be travelling at c. Like I said, there is no need for any of this. It's making a beautiful fact (c being constant) to be needlessly complex.

[Sam5]

I think you must be misunderstanding something here. Your wording is off or something. The idea is that if you have a binary star system and are observing their emitted photons here on earth, you will see one star blueshifted and one redshifted, right? These are spectroscopic binaries. They've been around for a long time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the light from one "overtaking" light from the other. If you treat each star individually, then (depending on the orientation of their orbit plane towards earth) you will see one set that appears to be moving toward earth, and one away. So, given all this, I'm not sure what your point is or what you're trying to say. Maybe rewording will help?

Well, this is a little complicated. When we “observe” light from binaries, the photons are at us. They look like they are at the binaries, but they are not. They left the binaries ages ago, so when we see the photons, they are entering our eyes or our telescopes or our spectroscopes here at the earth.

There seems to be enough evidence that the spectroscopes receive the light from both binaries at about “c” here on earth. So how can that happen, if the some of the light came here from an advancing binary, and some of it came from a receding binary? Something in between us and the binaries must have regulated the speed of the light from both binaries to “c” somewhere along the way.

If there were no light speed regulating medium, if the light leaves the advancing binary at “c” relative to its surface, then those photons, when emitted, are traveling at c + v relative to the earth when they are emitted. And if the light from the receding binary is emitted at “c” relative to that binary, then that light is moving toward the earth, when emitted, at c – v. So how can both sets of photons arrive at the earth traveling at “c” relative to the earth? A classical Doppler propagating medium is requried for that to happen.

Just imagine two revolving sound sources. They emit the sound while they are moving away from us and toward us, but the sound reaches us at 1,100 fps from both sources. It is the medium of the air that regulates the speed of the sound in the space between the revolving sources and us.

You’ve probably read about physicists talking about long stretched-out lengthened light waves (redshifted waves), and short compressed light waves (blueshifted waves). A medium is required for that to occur. The medium, not the moving star, controls the speed of the light through space. For example, when the binary is moving toward us, its wavelengths are compressed near the star, and when that binary moves away from us its waves are stretched-out near the star. Well, the waves that have already been emitted, let’s say months earlier, their speed is being regulated by the deep-space medium through which they travel, so if they were originally compressed in the medium, then they stay compressed as they travel through space. The star’s motion no longer has any influence on the wavelength or the speed of the light through deep space.

Depending on where we are and where the star is when we receive its photons that were emitted years ago, and compressed years ago, does not matter. Those old compressed waves travel through deep space compressed, regardless of the subsequent motion of the star, and it is some kind of “medium” in space that regulates the speed of the old compressed light waves/photons in space. This is simply the classical Doppler Law applied to light, and all observational evidence that I can think of suggests that we can apply that Law to the light.






The light won't "speed up" because that would violate (gasp!) the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum. What do you think would happen?



The problem with this idea is that if two rapidly revolving binaries are moving (revolving) through the vacuum, then should the light they emit be emitted at “c” relative to the stars that emit the light, or “c” relative to the distant earth? It can’t be “c” relative to both the stars and the earth at the same time.

Why not? That's the whole point of SR, in a sense. it says that no matter which frame you are observing from, you will see the light emitted at "c."

I think the general modified rule today is that you will "measure" the local photon speed to be "c". This only indicates a local earth-centered propagating medium. It doesn't mean that light will travel through all areas of space at "c". In 1905 Einstein didn't know about the fast-moving revolving binaries.

[Sam5]

Why must you fix space in order for the speed of light to be constant? All of your conclusions seem to be based on a medium through which the light would travel. As we've said, this has never been observed, nor have any of the effects you're describing.



That’s not true. That’s just what you’ve read in some books and on some websites. A light wave can not be “stretched out” or “compressed” in space without a medium. That’s simply a Doppler Law of nature. And this is observed. There is plenty of observational evidence of this.

The Doppler Law considers a wave/photon to be sort of “deposited” into the medium, and it is the medium that controls the speed and the wavelength “stretching” or “compressing”.

Think of it like this, you squeeze one second’s worth of toothpaste onto a moving conveyor belt. You are standing beside the belt. Let’s say your daub of toothpaste is one inch long. Ok, now you move in the direction away from which the belt is moving, and you will notice that your one second daub of toothpaste has now stretched to 1 1/2 inches. The moving belt is an analogy of the light propagating medium. After the toothpaste leaves the tube, only the moving belt controls it speed in space. The daub of toothpaste is long when you are moving because of your motion relative to the belt. Once the light wave/photon is deposited into the medium, the medium controls its speed in space. A star's motion relative to the medium is what stretches out the wavelength in space.

[freddo]

That’s not true. That’s just what you’ve read in some books and on some websites. A light wave can not be “stretched out” or “compressed” in space without a medium.
But instead of books and websites, your rebuttal is merely your say so... :roll:

[Sam5]

If you say that the light they emit is emitted into the vacuum at “c”, relative to the surfaces of the stars that emit the light, then the speed of the light can’t be “c” relative to both stars at the same time, because one star is moving in one direction while the other star is moving in the opposite direction.

Again, basic postulate of SR. No other, no change in velocity.

Einstein revoked the 1905 postulate in 1911, so you had might as well forget about it.

I don’t understand why you can’t understand that if two stars are moving away from each other, the light they emit at their surfaces can not travel at “c” relative to both stars at the same time. It’s impossible. Like I said, work this out on some graph paper, and you will see what I’m talking about.

The fact that light can leave a moving star surface at “c” and can, years later arrive at the surface of another moving star at “c” is a completely different phenomenon. The light changes speed in space. It changes from “c” relative to the emitter to “c” relative to the receiver, and that is because light speed in space is NOT constant.

But when the light is emitted by one moving star, at the moment of emission, those newly emitted photons are NOT traveling at “c” relative to the other moving star.

[Taibak]

*Snip*

* * * * * *
I think I understand what Sam is trying to say here: The math for Lorentz transformation equates with observed 'slowing' clocks traveling through a gravitational force field, but neither proves the other, since the results of 'slowing' time are for different reasons: The Lorentz math says time will dilate, but does not incorporate forces in it; Atomic clocks traveling through gravitational field will slow, but not necessarily for reasons of Lorentz transformation. So these are in essence two parallels that are plausible but do not connect, so neither can be used to validate the other, since they are complementary but not convertible.

So in the Taibak-Sam5 interchange above, both are right in terms of where they're coming from, but neither is actually touching on the content of the other, since these 'plausible parallels' do not touch, though their effects equate. Under such conditions, this debate could go on forever, just like two parallels, without ever truly communicating along the way. As Taibak wrote: Taibak:
To prove that the gravitational field affects time dilation, you, somehow, need to work that equation into the Lorentz transformations. Since the Lorentz transformations don't contain ANY terms that depend on S, r, M, or G, I don't see how this can be done. This is the crux of it, that Lorentz does not have Force (G, M, S) in it, but the results act as if it did; while the GP-B frame dragging effect in a gravity field, if proven, would still show time dilation, but this could be due to effects due to Force, and not SR/GR. Of course, if GP-B proves this to be true, this might be the connect between these two parallels. This would be most important for validating General Relativity, at least in theory.

So to prove that "the gravitational field affects time dilation" without resorting to the Lorentz transformation math may mean that we need a more direct theory of why gravity does this. Of course, if GP-B should prove NO frame dragging, then we're frustrated back to the beginning all over again. :cry:[/quote]

You're overlooking a very important element of my argument. If the Lorentz transformation depends on the strength of a gravitational field in any way, then that strength MUST be reflected, somehow, in the equation. If, for instance, time dilation increases as field strength increases, then that proportionality needs to be in the equation. You could use the Lorentz equations if you're observing an object orbiting a neutron star, or if you're observing an object moving through deep space. If they have the same speed, the equations will produce the same result. As Ricimer pointed out, gravitational time dilation is a different phenomenon. It produces the same effect as Lorentz time dilation, but has a very different cause.