Einstien's Relativity Error

[Sam5]

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:

freddo, if you don’t understand what I’m explaining here in detail, then you’d might as well not read any more of my posts.

I don’t make sarcastic remarks to you on other threads that you are posting on, and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

[Sam5]

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.


Ahh, I think I know what you are talking about, and I think you might be right.

And as a matter of fact, I don’t think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equation in his gravitational redshift theory. His own equation about the slowing down of atomic clock rates in a strong gravity field was based on the strength of the gravity field, but I don’t think it was based on the Lorentz Transformation equation. He used the Lorentz Transformation in the SR theory, but I don’t think he used it in his gravity theory regarding clock rate slowdowns.

I think he used the earth’s field strength at the surface as being “0”, and his initial equation for an atomic clock slowing down in a stronger gravity field as:

f = f’ (1 + Φ /c^2)

With f being the oscillating frequency of an atom at the earth, and f’ being the oscillating frequency of the same kind of atom in a strong gravity field. And with Φ being "the negative difference of gravitational potential between the surface of the sun and the earth".

[Taibak]

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.

Not necessarily. There are actually two possible explanations. One is that there exists a medium that somehow regulates the speed of light. The other is that the speed of light is, somehow, a constant.

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.

A better opening statement would have been 'If there were no light speed regulating medium AND if the speed of light was not constant.' That way you allow for all the possibilities, even the counter-intuitive ones. It may sound like I'm nitpicking here, but that is not my intent. I'm saying that we need to be open to ALL the possibilities, even the ones that seem improbable.


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.

True, but this analogy fails due to a fundamental difference between light and sound. Sound waves require a medium - they're the result of particles knocking into each other. Light, however, does not. Light is an oscillating electromagnetic field. Since EM fields can exist - and oscillate - in a vacuum, light can propagate without a medium.


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.

Not true. A medium is ONLY required for the Doppler effect if the wave requires a medium.


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.

You would be right, except for what I mentioned at the top of this post - that there are two possible explanations. If there's an ether, then it will cause more than just the Doppler shift. Unfortunately, the Michaelson-Morely experiment and the existence of stellar aberration show that those other effects don't happen and therefore show that the ether does not exist. That just leaves the possibility that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of how they're moving. Yes, that is a bizarre, counter intuitive idea. However, there is no reason why the laws of nature should conform to human intuition. Either way, if you allow for the speed of light to be a constant, you get an entirely new theory as to how nature works and that theory explains everything that an ether would.


Einstein revoked the 1905 postulate in 1911, so you had might as well forget about it.

You still haven't explained why we should accept the 1911 paper as valid.


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.

I have. However, I have also studied Maxwell's equations which predict that electromagnetic radiation (light) ALWAYS travels at 2.998 * 10^8 m/s. Since Maxwell's equations do an excellent job of explaining electromagnetism and fit the experimental evidence quite well, they should not be dismissed quite so easily. With that in mind and since the ether has been proven to not exist, the logical thing to do is to accept that the speed of light is constant for all observers.

That brings us full circle. The constancy of the speed of light for all observers was the second possibility I mentioned at the start of this post. Once you accept that, you're left with special relativity, a theory that explains everything an ether could without having to rely on something that can be proved not to exist.

[Taibak]

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.


Ahh, I think I know what you are talking about, and I think you might be right.

And as a matter of fact, I don’t think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equation in his gravitational redshift theory. His own equation about the slowing down of atomic clock rates in a strong gravity field was based on the strength of the gravity field, but I don’t think it was based on the Lorentz Transformation equation. He used the Lorentz Transformation in the SR theory, but I don’t think he used it in his gravity theory regarding clock rate slowdowns.

I think he used the earth’s field strength at the surface as being “0”, and his initial equation for an atomic clock slowing down in a stronger gravity field as:

f = f’ (1 + Φ /c^2)

With f being the oscillating frequency of an atom at the earth, and f’ being the oscillating frequency of the same kind of atom in a strong gravity field. And with Φ being "the negative difference of gravitational potential between the surface of the sun and the earth".

Okay... now we're getting somewhere. :D

Yes, that is the equation for gravitational time dilation. However, keep in mind that applies to gravity ONLY. It doesn't say anything about what happens if a particle is moving.

Also, remember that he's using atomic oscillations as his clock. According to quantum mechanics, the gravitational field does not directly effect how fast the atom oscillates, a phenomenon that depends only on the passage of time and the energy state of the atom. Gravity has no effect whatsoever on an atom's energy state. Therefore, if the equation you gave is true and f depends on Φ, gravity MUST be slowing down time.

[freddo]

freddo, if you don’t understand what I’m explaining here in detail, then you’d might as well not read any more of my posts.
I understand full well Sam5 that you do not understand what you are pontificating about. You've invented this lovely little history about Einstein - I've watched you creep from using him as a crutch and merely criticizing the 1905 paper. Now you're apparently trying to demonise him in general, implying he is a fraud.

All this to push your agenda of ether.

[swansont]

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 only conclusion you can draw from this is that the light speed is independent of the motion of the source. The explanation for this is separate.

One explanation is that there is an ether that regulates the speed. But in using that explanation, you make predictions about how this ether must behave, and you test this. Stellar aberration tells us the ether must be fixed in space, and we are moving through it. Michelson-Morley tells us we are not moving through it. Thus, the ether fails the test. We discard it.

Another explanation is that the speed of light is just constant, and light requires no medium. This has certain consequences, as laid out in SR.

[Yannox]

Or that the Earth & Aether are fixed, and its the stars that are doing the moving. By definition of Relativity, you are obliged to accept this an equally valid explanation.

[SeanF]

(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.

What propagation delay of 60 seconds? The propagation delay for a signal sent from C to A will be dependent on when it is sent (more directly, dependent on how far C is from A when the signal is sent). At T=1160, C is only 30 light-seconds away from A. Therefore, the propagation delay for this signal and this signal only is exactly 30 seconds, and it arrives at A at T=1190.

At T=1160, B is a full 60 light-seconds away from A. Therefore, the propagation delay for this signal is a full 60 seconds.

Therefore, if B=1160 and C=1160 are transmitted at the same time, they will not both arrive at A at the same time; C=1160 will arrive 30 seconds earlier.

[Normandy6644]

Or that the Earth & Aether are fixed, and its the stars that are doing the moving. By definition of Relativity, you are obliged to accept this an equally valid explanation.

I think you have to talk about one frame or the other, you can't just pick what "stuff" you want to put in your stationary frame. it's not like I can say, "ok Earth, the ether, and sirius A are fixed and everything else is in motion."

[swansont]

Or that the Earth & Aether are fixed, and its the stars that are doing the moving. By definition of Relativity, you are obliged to accept this an equally valid explanation.

I think you have to talk about one frame or the other, you can't just pick what "stuff" you want to put in your stationary frame. it's not like I can say, "ok Earth, the ether, and sirius A are fixed and everything else is in motion."

Well, you can, up to the point where you run out of degrees of freedom. But a fixed-earth, fixed-ether coordinate system runs into other contradictions. You can't focus so tightly that your answer is valid only if you ignore the rest of physics.

[Sam5]

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.


Ahh, I think I know what you are talking about, and I think you might be right.

And as a matter of fact, I don’t think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equation in his gravitational redshift theory. His own equation about the slowing down of atomic clock rates in a strong gravity field was based on the strength of the gravity field, but I don’t think it was based on the Lorentz Transformation equation. He used the Lorentz Transformation in the SR theory, but I don’t think he used it in his gravity theory regarding clock rate slowdowns.

I think he used the earth’s field strength at the surface as being “0”, and his initial equation for an atomic clock slowing down in a stronger gravity field as:

f = f’ (1 + Φ /c^2)

With f being the oscillating frequency of an atom at the earth, and f’ being the oscillating frequency of the same kind of atom in a strong gravity field. And with Φ being "the negative difference of gravitational potential between the surface of the sun and the earth".

Okay... now we're getting somewhere. :D

Yes, that is the equation for gravitational time dilation. However, keep in mind that applies to gravity ONLY. It doesn't say anything about what happens if a particle is moving.

Also, remember that he's using atomic oscillations as his clock. According to quantum mechanics, the gravitational field does not directly effect how fast the atom oscillates, a phenomenon that depends only on the passage of time and the energy state of the atom. Gravity has no effect whatsoever on an atom's energy state. Therefore, if the equation you gave is true and f depends on Φ, gravity MUST be slowing down time.


Then I think maybe qm theory should be adjusted somewhat. The gravity field obviously slows down the oscillation rate of the atom, thus it oscillates more slowly and emits light of a lower frequency in a stronger gravity field. And remember, in this same stronger gravity field, a pendulum clock speeds up.

As I mentioned earlier, it is Lorentz theory that talked about the slowdown of atoms due to motion through fields.

This seems to be the main distinction between Lorentz theory and GR theory. SR theory was an attempt to change Lorentz theory to a time slowdown due to “relative motion” only, but by 1918 Einstein realized that such a thing didn’t work, and so he had to add the acceleration and the gravity to slow down atomic clocks.

I think we should get away from the idea that only atomic oscillation rates represent the only “true time” in the universe. I will point out again, in massive stars where there is an atomic “time dilation” and a gravitational redshift, the temperatures are hotter, indicating a faster molecular vibration rate, and the stars live out their lifespans more quickly, suggesting that “time” for the massive stars is “speeding up”, not “slowing down”.

If as you say that gravity does not affect the “energy state” of an atom, why would the oscillation rates slow down in a gravity field. Maybe it takes more energy for them to oscillate rapidly in a gravity field.

[Sam5]

Taibak,

I’ve noticed on some websites and in some books, they say that the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is totally “fixed”, but they also say that cesium clocks “slow down” in a strong gravity field, indicating that “time itself” slows down in a strong gravity field.

Well, if the cesium oscillation rates “slow down” in a strong gravity field, then the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is not “fixed”.

I think some people are just fascinated with thinking of the concept that “time itself” slows down. So, they would rather say that in a gravity field “time itself” slows down than to simply say “cesium oscillation rates slow down” in a gravity field. If cesium atoms’ oscillation rates were indeed “fixed”, forever and ever, everywhere, under all conditions, then cesium clocks and cesium oscillation rates would not slow down in a gravity field.

[captain swoop]

Taibak,

I’ve noticed on some websites and in some books, they say that the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is totally “fixed”, but they also say that cesium clocks “slow down” in a strong gravity field, indicating that “time itself” slows down in a strong gravity field.

Well, if the cesium oscillation rates “slow down” in a strong gravity field, then the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is not “fixed”.

I think some people are just fascinated with thinking of the concept that “time itself” slows down. So, they would rather say that in a gravity field “time itself” slows down than to simply say “cesium oscillation rates slow down” in a gravity field. If cesium atoms’ oscillation rates were indeed “fixed”, forever and ever, everywhere, under all conditions, then cesium clocks and cesium oscillation rates would not slow down in a gravity field.


Aaarg!

If you werein the gravity field with the atoms they wouldn't appear to be 'slowed down'!! Can't you get it?

[Sam5]

One explanation is that there is an ether that regulates the speed. But in using that explanation, you make predictions about how this ether must behave, and you test this. Stellar aberration tells us the ether must be fixed in space, and we are moving through it. Michelson-Morley tells us we are not moving through it. Thus, the ether fails the test. We discard it.


No, it works something like this:

Stellar light is coming in from outside the earth’s local ether. It makes a transition from the sun’s local ether to the earth’s ether and because the earth is moving, it bends the light a little when the light comes in perpendicular to our line of motion. When it comes in parallel to our line of motion, we see the light as being redshifted or blueshifted. The MM light source was on the earth, so they saw no speed change or aberration, because that light did not come in from a different relatively moving ether.




Another explanation is that the speed of light is just constant, and light requires no medium. This has certain consequences, as laid out in SR.


It can't be "constant" everywhere, relative to all observers, since all the observers are moving. It can be somewhat "constant" in a local ether, in the local area of space through which the photons are traveling.

[Sam5]

Taibak,

I’ve noticed on some websites and in some books, they say that the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is totally “fixed”, but they also say that cesium clocks “slow down” in a strong gravity field, indicating that “time itself” slows down in a strong gravity field.

Well, if the cesium oscillation rates “slow down” in a strong gravity field, then the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is not “fixed”.

I think some people are just fascinated with thinking of the concept that “time itself” slows down. So, they would rather say that in a gravity field “time itself” slows down than to simply say “cesium oscillation rates slow down” in a gravity field. If cesium atoms’ oscillation rates were indeed “fixed”, forever and ever, everywhere, under all conditions, then cesium clocks and cesium oscillation rates would not slow down in a gravity field.


Aaarg!

If you werein the gravity field with the atoms they wouldn't appear to be 'slowed down'!! Can't you get it?

Akkk!

We are all in the gravity fields with a bunch of atoms humming at different rates. Cesium atoms vibrate more rapidly in Denver than they do at Santa Monica. I don’t see all of “time itself” running fast in Denver. Ask swansont why the US atomic time standard is calculated out for “sea level”.

[Sam5]

You've invented this lovely little history about Einstein

I didn’t invent his 1918 paper. I didn’t invent his 1905 claim that SR contains no gravity or acceleration effects. I’m not the one who added gravity and acceleration effects to his 1918 paper. He did it. All I’ve done is point out that the 1918 paper exists, and in it’s he’s telling a different story than the one he told in 1905. If you have a problem with that, then blame him, not me.

[SeanF]

You've invented this lovely little history about Einstein
I didn’t invent his 1918 paper.
You invented the idea that he removed relative motion as a cause for time dilation.

[Sam5]

Not necessarily. There are actually two possible explanations. One is that there exists a medium that somehow regulates the speed of light. The other is that the speed of light is, somehow, a constant.
.

A “constant” relative to what?

A “constant” relative to the earth? Then the universe would be geocentric and all light waves would travel everywhere in the universe so that they are always “c” relative to the earth. So when light is emitted from a distant radially moving galaxy, the light would not be “c” relative to the stars inside the galaxy but “c” relative to the earth. I don’t believe in geocentricity.

You need to learn to understand the two main causes of the Doppler effects, wave lengthening and compression in a medium due to an emitter moving through the medium, and relative wave speed relative to an observer moving through the medium.

[Sam5]

Taibak,


Let me ask you this, when an observer is riding on an open car at the end of a moving train, he hears the normal pitch of the train whistle, so how many Doppler effects are at work in this situation?

None?
1?
2?
3?
7?
36?
124?

[SeanF]

Taibak,


Let me ask you this, when an observer is riding on an open car at the end of a moving train, he hears the normal pitch of the train whistle, so how many Doppler effects are at work in this situation?

None?
1?
2?
3?
7?
36?
124?

None. The definition of Doppler Effect (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Doppler%20Effect):

"A change in the observed frequency of a wave, as of sound or light, occurring when the source and observer are in motion relative to each other, with the frequency increasing when the source and observer approach each other and decreasing when they move apart."

There is no relative motion, and certainly no observed change in frequency, so there's no effect.

The second sentence of that definition is:

"The motion of the source causes a real shift in frequency of the wave, while the motion of the observer produces only an apparent shift in frequency."

(Which isn't really Relativity-correct) Did you perhaps mean to ask how many shifts are at work?

[Sam5]

You've invented this lovely little history about Einstein
I didn’t invent his 1918 paper.
You invented the idea that he removed relative motion as a cause for time dilation.

No I didn’t. In 1918 he said it was gravity and acceleration that causes the U2 clock to lag behind the U1 clock.

In 1905 he said it was only relative motion that caused one mechanical clock to lag behind the other one.

As a matter of fact, in the 1918 paper he has the U1 clock “lagging behind” the U2 clock due to “relative motion” (thus agreeing that the 1905 thought experiment contained a paradox), but since he is trying to solve the clock paradox riddle of 1905, he had to add the gravity fields and acceleration to make the U2 clock slow down more than the U1 clock.

When I find these rare papers and I quote them and report what they say, and when he changed his mind from one paper to the next, you blame me because he changed his mind.

[Sam5]

Taibak,


Let me ask you this, when an observer is riding on an open car at the end of a moving train, he hears the normal pitch of the train whistle, so how many Doppler effects are at work in this situation?

None?
1?
2?
3?
7?
36?
124?

None. The definition of Doppler Effect (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Doppler%20Effect):

"A change in the observed frequency of a wave, as of sound or light, occurring when the source and observer are in motion relative to each other, with the frequency increasing when the source and observer approach each other and decreasing when they move apart."

There is no relative motion, and certainly no observed change in frequency, so there's no effect.




Nope, there are two Doppler effects at work in that situation.

1) The sound waves are stretched out behind the whistle that is moving through the air.

2) The moving observer encounters the sound waves at faster than the speed of sound in air, so he encounters the stretched out waves at V + v, rather than at V.

The second Doppler effect cancels out the first, but the two effects are taking place at the same time.

This is a law of nature that you don’t seem to be familiar with.

[Sam5]

The second sentence of that definition is:

"The motion of the source causes a real shift in frequency of the wave, while the motion of the observer produces only an apparent shift in frequency."




This is not correct.

Most modern definitions I’ve read about the Doppler effects are not correct.

The motion of the source does not change the frequency of the waves emitted by the whistle.

If the whistle emits 1,000 Hz while the train is stationary, it also emits 1,000 Hz while the train is moving.

[Flaney]

(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.

What propagation delay of 60 seconds? The propagation delay for a signal sent from C to A will be dependent on when it is sent (more directly, dependent on how far C is from A when the signal is sent). At T=1160, C is only 30 light-seconds away from A. Therefore, the propagation delay for this signal and this signal only is exactly 30 seconds, and it arrives at A at T=1190.

At T=1160, B is a full 60 light-seconds away from A. Therefore, the propagation delay for this signal is a full 60 seconds.

Therefore, if B=1160 and C=1160 are transmitted at the same time, they will not both arrive at A at the same time; C=1160 will arrive 30 seconds earlier.

The time A sees on B's clock is:
Tb = Ta - 60
The time A sees on C's clock is: [approaching A]
Tc = Ta - D/c + v/c(Ta - Ta0) -> D= 300 ls @ Ta0 = 500 for C moving toward A at 0.5c
Tc = (1.5)Ta - 550 [approaching A]
---
The time A sees on C's clock is: [after passing A]
Tc = Ta - D/c -v/c(Ta - Tac) -> D= 0 ls @ Tac = 1100 for C moving away at 0.5c
Tc = (0.5)Ta + 550 [after passing A]
At Ta =1100, the Tc clock shows 1100; Tb clock shows 1040.
-------
It takes 120 seconds for C to cross 60 ls to B.
Tc = (0.5)(1100+120) +550 = 1160 viewed by A when C crosses B.
Tb = 1100+120 -60 = 1160 viewed by A when C crosses B

The B clock agrees that it took C 120 seconds to cross (1160-1040).
Again when C crosses, the times of both clocks "show" the same times at A.

A views C's clock running 1.5 fast when approaching, and 0.5 slow when receeding. This clock rate variation is solely due to relative motion. The actual time on all clocks is exactly the same, ticking at the same constant rate.

[swansont]

One explanation is that there is an ether that regulates the speed. But in using that explanation, you make predictions about how this ether must behave, and you test this. Stellar aberration tells us the ether must be fixed in space, and we are moving through it. Michelson-Morley tells us we are not moving through it. Thus, the ether fails the test. We discard it.


No, it works something like this:

Stellar light is coming in from outside the earth’s local ether. It makes a transition from the sun’s local ether to the earth’s ether and because the earth is moving, it bends the light a little when the light comes in perpendicular to our line of motion. When it comes in parallel to our line of motion, we see the light as being redshifted or blueshifted. The MM light source was on the earth, so they saw no speed change or aberration, because that light did not come in from a different relatively moving ether.

"it works something like this" is an unacceptable substitute for equations. I want to know exactly how it behaves. Hand-waving is for stage magicians. Every time you "fix" your ether explanation, some new problem crops up, like a fitted sheet that's too small for the bed. As long as you look at only one corner it looks like you're fine. Math gives the big picture, and shows the problems. The problem with the varying ether that may or may not solve stellar aberration is it's going to predict a clock rate factor that varies with position (presumably with g, but you won't or can't give details), but that factor doesn't show up in the equations that are known to work! So, at least out to geosynchronous orbit, there is no "relatively moving ether." Why would the ether be constant to there, and then start changing?




Another explanation is that the speed of light is just constant, and light requires no medium. This has certain consequences, as laid out in SR.


It can't be "constant" everywhere, relative to all observers, since all the observers are moving. It can be somewhat "constant" in a local ether, in the local area of space through which the photons are traveling.

Why can't it be constant everywhere? Because you don't like it? If you set that as a condition, you find out that the resulting equations actually predict the behavior of real, physical objects! Anybody with intellectual honesty is compelled to consider that c is, in fact, a constant to all observers. The universe doesn't behave according to your preconceived notions. It is not compelled to do so. Get over it already.

[Sam5]

Why can't it be constant everywhere

Because when we move toward a star that is fixed relative to the sun, the velocity of the starlight relative to us is c + v, and thus we see a blueshift. And when we are moving away from the star, the velocity of the starlight relative to us is c – v, and we see a redshift. Don’t blame me for that.

[Tensor]

The second sentence of that definition is:

"The motion of the source causes a real shift in frequency of the wave, while the motion of the observer produces only an apparent shift in frequency."




This is not correct.

Most modern definitions I’ve read about the Doppler effects are not correct.

The motion of the source does not change the frequency of the waves emitted by the whistle.

If the whistle emits 1,000 Hz while the train is stationary, it also emits 1,000 Hz while the train is moving.

But Sam5, in the post just above this you said:

Nope, there are two Doppler effects at work in that situation.

1) The sound waves are stretched out behind the whistle that is moving through the air.

2) The moving observer encounters the sound waves at faster than the speed of sound in air, so he encounters the stretched out waves at V + v, rather than at V.

The second Doppler effect cancels out the first, but the two effects are taking place at the same time.

Which is what Sean said and was Sean's point. The motion of the train changes the frequency of the whistle. That the observer on the end of the train hears the correct frequency is due to the observers motion. An observer not in relative motion on the side of the tracks, would hear a lower frequency.

[swansont]

Then I think maybe qm theory should be adjusted somewhat. The gravity field obviously slows down the oscillation rate of the atom, thus it oscillates more slowly and emits light of a lower frequency in a stronger gravity field. And remember, in this same stronger gravity field, a pendulum clock speeds up.

...

If as you say that gravity does not affect the “energy state” of an atom, why would the oscillation rates slow down in a gravity field. Maybe it takes more energy for them to oscillate rapidly in a gravity field.

We have solved the equations that describe atomic oscillations as well as pendula. We've tested them and they work. That's how we know gravity doesn't do these things. If gravity affected the oscillation rate, shouldn't it be a constant frequency change, since it's acting on the electron no matter what atom is used, or which transition? Why is the fractional frequency change independent of the type of atom or the oscillation rate?

[swansont]

Why can't it be constant everywhere

Because when we move toward a star that is fixed relative to the sun, the velocity of the starlight relative to us is c + v, and thus we see a blueshift. And when we are moving away from the star, the velocity of the starlight relative to us is c – v, and we see a redshift. Don’t blame me for that.

But how can that be, if the earth isn't moving through the ether, and the ether regulates the speed of the light to be c? That implies the light is going c when it hits us. You've just predicted that we should see no shifting at all, or that we're moving with respect to an ether. You can't promise both - this is science, not politics.

[Sam5]

The motion of the train changes the frequency of the whistle.


The motion of the train does not change the frequency of the whistle.

1,000 Hz are emitted by the whistle whether the train is stationary or moving.


That the observer on the end of the train hears the correct frequency is due to the observers motion. An observer not in relative motion on the side of the tracks, would hear a lower frequency.

Doppler effects can appear to change the frequency as observed by the observer. But this is an illusion. A moving whistle does not change its frequency.

The first Doppler effect at work in the train example is the “stretched out” wavelengths of the 1,000 Hz tone because the whistle is moving through the medium. The second Doppler effect at work is the moving observer encountering the waves at a speed faster than the speed of the waves in the medium. Thus the second effect cancels out the consequence of the first effect.

It’s not that when both the whistle and the observer move, the Doppler effects “disappear” all together. It’s that one kind of effect cancels out the consequence of the other kind of effect, at the moving observer.

The guy on the track at the end of the train experiences only one Doppler effect. So does the guy on the track in front of the train. But the guy moving with the train experiences two Doppler effects, not “none”. He perceives no frequency shift, but he experiences two Doppler effects.

[Redundant Philosophile]

I don't have time to read all this. So I'll just say this:
Don't pick up a Quantum Physics book, man! :(

[Sam5]

Why can't it be constant everywhere

Because when we move toward a star that is fixed relative to the sun, the velocity of the starlight relative to us is c + v, and thus we see a blueshift. And when we are moving away from the star, the velocity of the starlight relative to us is c – v, and we see a redshift. Don’t blame me for that.

But how can that be, if the earth isn't moving through the ether, and the ether regulates the speed of the light to be c? That implies the light is going c when it hits us.


Bingo!



You've just predicted that we should see no shifting at all, or that we're moving with respect to an ether. You can't promise both - this is science, not politics.

Isn’t an airplane moving “through the greater air” and also carrying some of the “local air” with it inside the sealed cabin? Can you imagine a pocket of local air moving through greater outside air? Then imagine a local pocket of “ether” moving through greater outside “ether”.

Does the earth not carry its own local gravity field with it as it travels through the sun’s larger and greater gravity field?

[Ricimer]

Then I think maybe qm theory should be adjusted somewhat. The gravity field obviously slows down the oscillation rate of the atom, thus it oscillates more slowly and emits light of a lower frequency in a stronger gravity field. And remember, in this same stronger gravity field, a pendulum clock speeds up.

Actually, its not at all obvious. The gravity on the quantum scale is so insignificant it can't be the cause of such drastic changes.

I think we should get away from the idea that only atomic oscillation rates represent the only “true time” in the universe. I will point out again, in massive stars where there is an atomic “time dilation” and a gravitational redshift, the temperatures are hotter, indicating a faster molecular vibration rate, and the stars live out their lifespans more quickly, suggesting that “time” for the massive stars is “speeding up”, not “slowing down”. Actually, you need to stop refusing to look at things differently just because it doesn't make sense to you.

If as you say that gravity does not affect the “energy state” of an atom, why would the oscillation rates slow down in a gravity field. Maybe it takes more energy for them to oscillate rapidly in a gravity field.

Lets make an assumption: Gravity doesn't affect the oscillation rates of an atom.

Now, we do some experimentation to prove that. Done and done, quantum theory is very well backed up by experimentation and gravity has nothing to do with atomic energies (thus oscillation rates).

Now, the only other posibility is that gravity slows time. You see how this works?


Aether theory says: LIght travels through a medium, that explains this constant speed stuff.

So we test it. And the assumption falls flat. THe predictions don't even come out right.

Relativity says: What if it just goes a constant rate? Relative to everyone? Ignore how odd that sounds, and just assume it. How do things need to be set up to let that happen?

You set it up and see what relativity predicts...and it comes out pretty good. Okay, so it at least has that going for it.

Then we check the assumptions, check the predictions, and it still comes out good on the assumptions, great (unsurpassed really) in predictions.

We have found nothing to invalidate the assumptions (light is constant in vacuum) and some corroborating evidence (i.e. the predictions).

[Sam5]

Then I think maybe qm theory should be adjusted somewhat. The gravity field obviously slows down the oscillation rate of the atom, thus it oscillates more slowly and emits light of a lower frequency in a stronger gravity field. And remember, in this same stronger gravity field, a pendulum clock speeds up.

...

If as you say that gravity does not affect the “energy state” of an atom, why would the oscillation rates slow down in a gravity field. Maybe it takes more energy for them to oscillate rapidly in a gravity field.

We have solved the equations that describe atomic oscillations as well as pendula. We've tested them and they work. That's how we know gravity doesn't do these things. If gravity affected the oscillation rate, shouldn't it be a constant frequency change, since it's acting on the electron no matter what atom is used, or which transition? Why is the fractional frequency change independent of the type of atom or the oscillation rate?

Ok, you have an atomic clock in DC, right? And its “tick rate” is based on the oscillation rates of the atoms that are used inside the clock for the timing mechanism, right?

So you move the clock to Denver where the gravitational strength is slightly weaker at the earth’s surface, and your atomic clock tick rate speeds up a little, right?

[Sam5]

Actually, its not at all obvious. The gravity on the quantum scale is so insignificant it can't be the cause of such drastic changes.


So you are saying that atomic clocks don’t slow down in a strong gravity field?

[Sam5]

Lets make an assumption: Gravity doesn't affect the oscillation rates of an atom.

Now, we do some experimentation to prove that. Done and done, quantum theory is very well backed up by experimentation and gravity has nothing to do with atomic energies (thus oscillation rates).

But all the experiments show that atomic oscillation rates slow down, and thus the “tick rate” of atomic clocks slow down, in strong gravity fields.

If your quantum theory doesn’t tell you why this happens, then you need to work on your quantum theory a little.



Now, the only other posibility is that gravity slows time. You see how this works?

What is your definition of “time”?

[TheAtomium]

Actually, its not at all obvious. The gravity on the quantum scale is so insignificant it can't be the cause of such drastic changes.


So you are saying that atomic clocks don’t slow down in a strong gravity field?

Atomic clocks do slow down when in a gravitational field, but unless the field is extremely strong, the difference is very hard to measure.

However, if you too were in the same gravity field, at the same potential, then time for you would be slowed down by the same amount. If the field slows down the atomic clock by 50%, it slows down your clocks by 50% too, hence the clock is measured to be running at normal rate. It's a very simple concept.

[Sam5]

Actually, its not at all obvious. The gravity on the quantum scale is so insignificant it can't be the cause of such drastic changes.


So you are saying that atomic clocks don’t slow down in a strong gravity field?

Atomic clocks do slow down when in a gravitational field, but unless the field is extremely strong, the difference is very hard to measure.

However, if you too were in the same gravity field, at the same potential, then time for you would be slowed down by the same amount. If the field slows down the atomic clock by 50%, it slows down your clocks by 50% too, hence the clock is measured to be running at normal rate. It's a very simple concept.


No it wouldn’t. Time speeds up when I’m having fun, and it slows down when I’m not having fun.

If a local gravity field slowed down atomic oscillation rates by 50%, I’d be crushed to death.

What you are basically saying is that if TWO atomic clocks are in the same gravity potential, BOTH of them will slow down the same amount. Doh. But don’t get this mixed up with biological time.

[Ricimer]

Lets make an assumption: Gravity doesn't affect the oscillation rates of an atom.

Now, we do some experimentation to prove that. Done and done, quantum theory is very well backed up by experimentation and gravity has nothing to do with atomic energies (thus oscillation rates).

But all the experiments show that atomic oscillation rates slow down, and thus the “tick rate” of atomic clocks slow down, in strong gravity fields.

If your quantum theory doesn’t tell you why this happens, then you need to work on your quantum theory a little.


I should have guessed you latch onto that.

Quantum theory says gravity does not affect the actual rate of oscillation. Gravity, via time dilation, does however.

It doesn't tinker with the oscillation rate itself, if you try and describe it that way, you get the wrong answer.

If you instead use gravitational time dilation, by slowing time (not the oscillation parameters) you get the right answer.

My definition of time: The difference between two events that occur in the same spot in space. I.e. the difference between now, and then.

[SeanF]

Tc = (1.5)Ta - 550 [approaching A]
Tc = (0.5)Ta + 550 [after passing A]

You're doing your math wrong. While they are separating:

At Tc=x (x>1100), C will be at a distance of v(x-1100). The duration for the signal to get back to A will be v(x-1100)/c, giving an arrival time of Ta=x+v(x-1100)/c.

Substituting 0.5c for v and simplifying gives us Ta=(1.5)Tc-550.

This is essentially the first equation you gave above, except:

It's while they are separating, not approaching; and
It tells us when a given signal Tc signal will arrive at A.

So, if we just want to figure out what time the Tc=1160 signal will reach A, we plug it into the equation and we get Ta=1190. Which is what I said.

If we want to figure out what specific Tc signal will be arriving at a given Ta (which I think is what you were trying to deduce above), then we need to solve for Tc. That gives us Tc=(2Ta+1100)/3. Little bit different than your equation of Tc=(0.5)Ta+550.

So, when will A see the same time on both B and C? Well, we know that at any given Ta, Tc=(2Ta+1100)/3 and Tb=Ta-60. Setting Tb=Tc gives us Ta-60=(2Ta+1100)/3. Solving for Ta results in Ta=1280. Tc and Tb are both equal to 1220, which is the time C passes B. It only stands to reason that the moment B and C are at the same place will be the only two signals that arrive at A at the same time.

You seem to be laboring under the impression that the moment they pass will be the moment equal signals arrive at A. The truth is the moment they pass will be the broadcast time of the signals that will eventually reach A at the same time.

[Tensor]

What you are basically saying is that if TWO atomic clocks are in the same gravity potential, BOTH of them will slow down the same amount. Doh.

Sam5, it is time that slows down, the clocks just measure the how much time has passed.

But don’t get this mixed up with biological time.

All kinds of time appear to slow down to an outside observer. I'm trying to understand your problem with this (this is not a put down Sam5), and it may be you are having trouble with the difference between time and the instruments used to measure time. The two are not the same thing. Think of it this way, if time is moving slower, wouldn't the instruments measuring time measure slower, even though to an observer in the same gravity they appear to be moving normally?

[SeanF]

You've invented this lovely little history about Einstein
I didn’t invent his 1918 paper.
You invented the idea that he removed relative motion as a cause for time dilation.

No I didn’t. In 1918 he said it was gravity and acceleration that causes the U2 clock to lag behind the U1 clock.

In 1905 he said it was only relative motion that caused one mechanical clock to lag behind the other one.

As a matter of fact, in the 1918 paper he has the U1 clock “lagging behind” the U2 clock due to “relative motion” (thus agreeing that the 1905 thought experiment contained a paradox), but since he is trying to solve the clock paradox riddle of 1905, he had to add the gravity fields and acceleration to make the U2 clock slow down more than the U1 clock.

When I find these rare papers and I quote them and report what they say, and when he changed his mind from one paper to the next, you blame me because he changed his mind. (Emphasis mine)

So, in the 1918 paper he says, "relative motion causes time dilation" but you're not making things up when you say, "he removed relative motion as a cause of time dilation in the 1918 paper"?

[Sam5]

Lets make an assumption: Gravity doesn't affect the oscillation rates of an atom.

Now, we do some experimentation to prove that. Done and done, quantum theory is very well backed up by experimentation and gravity has nothing to do with atomic energies (thus oscillation rates).

But all the experiments show that atomic oscillation rates slow down, and thus the “tick rate” of atomic clocks slow down, in strong gravity fields.

If your quantum theory doesn’t tell you why this happens, then you need to work on your quantum theory a little.


I should have guessed you latch onto that.

Quantum theory says gravity does not affect the actual rate of oscillation. Gravity, via time dilation, does however.

It doesn't tinker with the oscillation rate itself, if you try and describe it that way, you get the wrong answer.

If you instead use gravitational time dilation, by slowing time (not the oscillation parameters) you get the right answer.

My definition of time: The difference between two events that occur in the same spot in space. I.e. the difference between now, and then.



The oscillation rates are the “ticks” of an atomic clock. If you have more ticks in Denver, per astronomical day, than you have in DC, then the “tick rate” and the oscillation rate is slower in DC than in Denver, and the only difference the experiments show is the gravitational potential difference.

The way we determine atomic “time” is by atomic clock “tick rates”, oscillation rates, and they vary in gravity fields of different strengths.

If all of “time itself” slows down in DC, as compared to Denver, then why do pendulum clocks speed up in DC, when compared to the same clocks when they are in Denver?

What we’ve basically got is a lot of different kinds of clocks that operate by different laws of physics, and some slow down where others speed up, and some speed up where others slow down. No single kind of clock can be said to represent all of “time itself”.

And ultimately, all atomic clocks must have leap seconds factored in, so they will average out to match sundial time, so we won’t experience midnight at noon.

[Ricimer]

because for pendulum clocks, gravity does directly effect the oscillation rate.

Gravity increases the rate, directly, while also slowing the time. However the new rate is much faster than the minor shift in the length of a second.

Also, if gravity did affect an atomic system, since its an attractive force, it would only increase the energy in the orbit, which corresponds to an increased oscillation rate (i.e. opposite the experimentally measured time dilation effects).

So the clock makes the same number of ticks per second, but each second is longer (compared to ours)

The clocks all operate by the same laws of physics, they just use different aspects and interactions. As such all clocks can be said to measure time. And if the conditions that dictate the mechanism in question (springs, quartz vibration, pendulums, atomic oscillations) are left unaltered, then the if the clock varies, its because time is changing.


Adding leap seconds has nothing to do with the arguement! It's a correction for how irregular the earth's rotation is, not the rate of time (what we're discussing).

[Sam5]

So, in the 1918 paper he says, "relative motion causes time dilation" but you're not making things up when you say, "he removed relative motion as a cause of time dilation in the 1918 paper"?

No, he just implies in 1918 that relative motion slows down the U1 clock, for a while. He says in procedural step 2 that U1 is “moving” while U2 is “at rest”. Well, of course, he is flip-flopping here, because in the 1905 “peculiar consequence” thought experiments he said that only one of the clocks “moved” while the other was always “at rest”. But in the 1918 paper he’s got the opposite clock “moving” and the opposite one “at rest”.

This is just double-talk and mumbo jumbo, just manipulations of his thought experiments in an attempt to confuse his readers, in his desperate attempt to try to salvage the SR theory. Ultimately, he has to use acceleration and gravity effects to force U2 to lag behind U1 in the 1918 paper. Of course in the 1905 paper he didn’t have any acceleration or gravity effects.

By the way, there are several errors in the 1918 paper. He accidentally left out a position marker for one of the systems in his illustrations, and he said “U2 bleibt in Ruhe,” when he really meant to say, “U1 bleibt in Ruhe.” He made mistakes in his own papers because he got confused by his own clock-manipulations. His mistakes added a lot of confusion to his papers and theories, especially if they are read in the original German and then later read in an English translation or in separate English translations or in later updated versions of the German versions.

Also, there are mistakes made by translators and changes made by them that don’t show up in all the translations or in the originals, such as the first footnote being included in “The Principle of Relativity” translation of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, while it is not included in the original German version or in the Anna Beck translation. Not only did he not know what he was talking about in SR theory, but his different translators didn’t know what he was talking about.

In the Princeton books, there are many more footnotes in the Hardback German version of the 1918 paper in Volume 7 than there are in the Softback English version of the 1918 paper in Volume 7. One of the editors of the German version in Volume 7 adds his own opinions to the end of the original text, as he tries to cover up for Einstein’s mistakes in the 1918 paper. You need to get both an English and German copy of it. He sounded like Professor Irwin Corey in that paper.

[Sam5]

because for pendulum clocks, gravity does directly effect the oscillation rate.

Gravity increases the rate, directly, while also slowing the time. However the new rate is much faster than the minor shift in the length of a second.

Also, if gravity did affect an atomic system, since its an attractive force, it would only increase the energy in the orbit, which corresponds to an increased oscillation rate (i.e. opposite the experimentally measured time dilation effects).

So the clock makes the same number of ticks per second, but each second is longer (compared to ours)

Compared to “ours” what?

Atomic clocks tick faster in Denver and slower in DC. That’s it. This doesn’t change the rate of the astronomical second. The reason the atomic clocks change rates is because in the difference in the gravity fields in the two places.




The clocks all operate by the same laws of physics,

No they don’t. Different specific laws are at work in various kinds of clocks. Different laws are at work in other kinds of clocks. That’s why pendulum clocks speed up where atomic clocks slow down. That’s why electric clocks slow down with less voltage and speed up with more voltage. That’s why some kinds of clocks are sensitive to temperature changes.



As such all clocks can be said to measure time. And if the conditions that dictate the mechanism in question (springs, quartz vibration, pendulums, atomic oscillations) are left unaltered, then the if the clock varies, its because time is changing.


Ha! But when the clock rate changes, the mechanism in question is NOT left “unaltered”. You alter the mechanism of an atomic clock by putting it in different strength gravity fields. If you did not “alter” the mechanism when you move a clock from DC to Denver, it would not change rates.

[SeanF]

So, in the 1918 paper he says, "relative motion causes time dilation" but you're not making things up when you say, "he removed relative motion as a cause of time dilation in the 1918 paper"?

No, he just implies in 1918 that relative motion slows down the U1 clock, for a while.
One must carefully keep in focus that both columns, left and right, describe exactly the same process, but the description on the left refers to the coordinate system K, the one on the right to the coordinate system K’. According to both descriptions, it is the clock U2 which lags by a certain amount behind clock U1 at the end of the process considered. With respect to the coordinate system K’ the phenomenon is explained in the following manner: During procedural steps 2 and 4, clock U1, moving at velocity v, has indeed a slower rate than clock U2 which is at rest.
In coordinate system K, Clock U1 is at rest during procedural steps 2 and 4, and U2 is running slow. In coordinate system K', Clock U2 is at rest during procedural steps 2 and 4, and U1 is running slow. He's not "implying" anything here, Sam5, he's explicitly saying it. Relative motion causes time dilation. You just think he removed it because you don't understand the math.

He says in procedural step 2 that U1 is “moving” while U2 is “at rest”. Well, of course, he is flip-flopping here, because in the 1905 “peculiar consequence” thought experiments he said that only one of the clocks “moved” while the other was always “at rest”. But in the 1918 paper he’s got the opposite clock “moving” and the opposite one “at rest”.
No, you're misinterpreting the "peculiar consequence." In the first one, either clock can be considered at rest. In the second one, with the clock moving in a "polygonal line" or a "continuously curved line", it is difficult to consider such a clock to be "at rest" for the duration of the experiment. However, any effects of the acceleration itself are not necessary to produce the peculiar consequence - you just don't understand the math.

Also, there are mistakes made by translators and changes made by them that don’t show up in all the translations or in the originals . . .
Yes, that's the nature of translating from one language to another. It's impossible to remain exact. That's why you need to understand the math.

[Lunatik]

Hubble sees fire and ice?
http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/image_of_day_040429.html

This article may offer a clue to this exchange, waaaay back on pg. 16, April 21st:
I already know the SR theory has not been “proven”. That’s what I’ve been telling you. It says that “c” is a universal speed limit, but the redshifts show the distant galaxies moving faster than “c”. It says any object approaching “c” will freeze, but the distant galaxies obviously aren’t frozen, nor are we.

Special Relativity predicts that nothing can move through space at a velocity greater than c, not that the expansion of intervening space cannot give a recessional velocity greater than c. It predicts that objects moving at near-c will have a lower temperature, not that they will freeze...

The above article says: "The hailstones consist of dust grains with a layer of frozen, crystalline water, which formed as water vapor when the star initially expelled material and temperatures were relatively low... The expelled gas then expanded into space and the water froze onto grains of dust." This may be another way of saying that once hot star matter is expelled at near-c it quickly drops to freezing? :cool:

[russ_watters]

Or that the Earth & Aether are fixed, and its the stars that are doing the moving. By definition of Relativity, you are obliged to accept this an equally valid explanation. Hey, Yul, welcome back (we missed you). You are correct. However.....well, you already know.

[Sam5]

Relative motion causes time dilation.

He removed it as the reason the U2 clock “lags behind” at the end of the thought experiment. In 1905 he has only one clock running slow, but in the 1918 paper he has both of them running slow at different times. In 1905 he had only one clock “moving”, but in 1918 he has both clocks alternate between “moving” and not moving and changing rates. In 1918 he has acceleration and gravity fields affecting the rates of the clocks, even though he had already said many times in books and papers between 1905 and 1918 that there are no accelerative or gravity effects in SR theory. But he had to add them to the 1918 paper to try to solve the 1905 clock paradox.

You really need to get copies of the 1918 paper. You keep re-posting sections of a paragraph that I got out of my copy of the paper and posted earlier. You can’t argue the 1918 paper with just one section of one paragraph that I gave you a few weeks ago. It would help if you read the entire paper and also if you notice the various mistakes in it.

[Sam5]

No, you're misinterpreting the "peculiar consequence." In the first one, either clock can be considered at rest.

But only one clock is “lags behind” the other when they unite. This is the “paradox” that he tried to get rid of in 1918. If you consider either clock to be “at rest”, they both can’t “lag behind” the other when they unite, and no one can decide which single clock will "lag behind" the other, if both can equally be considered "at rest" during the thought experiment.

[Ricimer]

that's just it Sam.

They can't be. One is accelerated, the other is not. Thus resolving the paradox.

[SeanF]

Relative motion causes time dilation.
He removed it as the reason the U2 clock “lags behind” at the end of the thought experiment.
No, he didn't.
In 1905 he has only one clock running slow, but in the 1918 paper he has both of them running slow at different times.
No, in 1905 both clocks were running slow. Only one lags behind, but that's the way the math works.

In 1905 he had only one clock “moving”, but in 1918 he has both clocks alternate between “moving” and not moving and changing rates.
No, in the 1905 either clock can be considered moving or at rest and both clocks are running slow. Again, you don't understand the math.

In 1918 he has acceleration and gravity fields affecting the rates of the clocks, even though he had already said many times in books and papers between 1905 and 1918 that there are no accelerative or gravity effects in SR theory. But he had to add them to the 1918 paper to try to solve the 1905 clock paradox.
There were no gravitational and accelerative effects in SR. He added them in GR, but not to "solve the paradox." He added them to increase the applicability of the theory.

You really need to get copies of the 1918 paper. You keep re-posting sections of a paragraph that I got out of my copy of the paper and posted earlier. You can’t argue the 1918 paper with just one section of one paragraph that I gave you a few weeks ago. It would help if you read the entire paper and also if you notice the various mistakes in it.
I noticed the mistake in the paragraph you posted, and you never answered me when I asked you to double-check it and see if it was in the original or not. And I (unlike you) can recognize a typo when I see it because I (unlike you) can understand the math.

[Sam5]

In the second one, with the clock moving in a "polygonal line" or a "continuously curved line", it is difficult to consider such a clock to be "at rest" for the duration of the experiment. However, any effects of the acceleration itself are not necessary to produce the peculiar consequence - you just don't understand the math.

.
Well, obviously a clock that moves in a “closed curve” in real life is accelerating, and an atomic clock that accelerates will slow down, but he did not figure that out until 1911.

In the 1905 theory, with only relative motion considered, and no accelerative effects considered, both clocks can be considered to move in the “closed curve”. If you feel no acceleration, and you are in the k system, you see the K clock moving in the “closed curve”, likewise, with no acceleration felt, the K system observers see the k system clock as the one that moves in the “closed curve”.

He just left out too many laws of physics in the SR theory, such as physical forces, acceleration effects, and gravitational fields. That’s why he had to keep patching up the theory over the years and add accelerative and gravity effects in 1918. You don’t seem to understand the concepts.

[SeanF]

No, you're misinterpreting the "peculiar consequence." In the first one, either clock can be considered at rest.

But only one clock is “lags behind” the other when they unite. This is the “paradox” that he tried to get rid of in 1918. If you consider either clock to be “at rest”, they both can’t “lag behind” the other when they unite, and no one can decide which single clock will "lag behind" the other, if both can equally be considered "at rest" during the thought experiment.

Either one of them can be considered at rest. It doesn't matter which reference frame is at rest and which reference frame is in motion. Which clock lags behind is determined by which reference frame the clocks are synchronized in, and which clock remains in that reference frame.

No paradox.

[Sam5]

No, in 1905 both clocks were running slow. Only one lags behind, but that's the way the math works.

That’s not the way reality works.

In reality, if both of two clocks run slow by exactly the same amount, then both are running at the same rate, and neither “lags behind” the other when they unite.

[Sam5]

Either one of them can be considered at rest. It doesn't matter which reference frame is at rest and which reference frame is in motion. Which clock lags behind is determined by which reference frame the clocks are synchronized in, and which clock remains in that reference frame.

No paradox.

In the “peculiar consequence” thought experiments, both clocks were “stationary” in the same frame when they were synchronized and made synchronous (made to run at the same rate). Then the relative motion began. A paradox resulted when only one clock "lagged behind" the other at the end. You don't understand the concepts.

[Sam5]

I noticed the mistake in the paragraph you posted, and you never answered me when I asked you to double-check it and see if it was in the original or not. And I (unlike you) can recognize a typo when I see it because I (unlike you)



Ahh, very good. I noticed it too, but I didn’t want to mention it first, because I didn’t want to get into a big argument about it.

I’m sorry I don’t remember reading your original request for me to check the translation against the original German. A few days ago I was so busy, I didn’t have time to read everyone’s posts. I’ll check it now.........

“und es befindet sich während des Teilprozesses 3 U2 tatsächlich an einem Orte höheren Gravitations potentials als U1.”

Babblefish translates this as:

“and it is during the subprocess 3 U2 actually to places of higher gravitation potential than U1.”

The English translation in the Princeton book has this as:

“and during procedural step 3, U2 is indeed at a location of higher gravitational potential than U1.”

Is this what you are talking about?

[SeanF]

Either one of them can be considered at rest. It doesn't matter which reference frame is at rest and which reference frame is in motion. Which clock lags behind is determined by which reference frame the clocks are synchronized in, and which clock remains in that reference frame.

No paradox.

In the “peculiar consequence” thought experiments, both clocks were “stationary” in the same frame when they were synchronized and made synchronous (made to run at the same rate). Then the relative motion began. A paradox resulted when only one clock "lagged behind" the other at the end. You don't understand the concepts.
Fine, let's talk about that first "peculiar consequence." Read it carefully.

If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous;
A and B are points in K. That means that, in the K coordinate system, A will always maintain the same x, y, and z coordinates while its t coordinate changes with time. Ditto for B. The two clocks at those points are synchronous when "viewed in the stationary system."* Einstein explained way back at the end of Section 2 "that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." So, these two clocks are synchronized in K, but not in k (which is in motion relatively to K).

*Don't be confused by his usage of the word "stationary" - K is not being arbitrarly designated as absolutely motionless. As he said earlier, "In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the 'stationary system.'" It's merely a name.

Next:

and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B . . .

Now, this is important. A and B are points in K, and are thus, by definition motionless in K. Since the clock at A is now moving along the line AB to B, this clock is no longer motionless in K. It is therefore in a different reference system, k. This becomes true the instant the relative motion begins, before the clock has even ticked off a microsecond, before its position in K has even changed a micron. However, as we already know from Section 2, the clocks are not synchronized in a different reference frame. Thus, for this clock, it is no longer synchronized with the other clock at B, even though its time has not changed.

. . . then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B . . .

The other clock "has remained at B." Thus, it was always motionless in K.

It is this distinction that leads to only one clock lagging behind. Not because that clocked "moved" and the other clock was "stationary," but because that clocked changed to k and the other clock remained in K.

QED

[Normandy6644]

He just left out too many laws of physics in the SR theory, such as physical forces, acceleration effects, and gravitational fields. That’s why he had to keep patching up the theory over the years and add accelerative and gravity effects in 1918. You don’t seem to understand the concepts

Sam you have to stop saying this. It just isn't true. He didn't "forget" to add these effects to the original SR, he did it because it was the beginning of the theory. Read the 1916 paper again. There is a whole section on why he needed to expand SR to include non-inertial reference frames. This is why the 1905 theory is the "Special Theory of Relativity," because it only works in special (i.e. locally flat inertial frames) cases, where as the GENERAL theory covers all cases. No matter how many times you say otherwise, it just isn't true. It's like saying that Maxwell "patched up" his original theory by adding more general concepts. Most theories began as special cases and then become more general as all the aspects are explored.

[Sam5]

There were no gravitational and accelerative effects in SR. He added them in GR, but not to "solve the paradox." He added them to increase the applicability of the theory.




He added them in the 1918 paper in an attempt to solve the 1905 SR paradox. But, he already said many times that the 1905 SR theory contains no acceleration or gravity effects. So, if he had to add the acceleration and gravity effects in 1918 to solve the 1905 SR paradox, then that proves the 1905 SR theory was wrong in the first place, and it proves my point that “relative motion” can not slow down any clocks, and it certainly can not slow down just one of two “relatively moving” clocks. The error in SR theory is why some of the guys on this thread think that all the clocks in M31 are ticking a little slower than all the clocks in our galaxy. Whereas, SR theory claims that all the guys in M31 would claim it is our clocks that are running slow. So which guys are right and which clocks are running slow, due to the “relative motion” between M31 and us? One can not tell in SR theory because of the paradox.

In the SR theory, Einstein makes whatever frame HE imagines himself in as the “preferred frame”. This tends to be a geocentricity theory. That’s why some of the guys here think that the M31 clocks are ticking slow, because they live here on the earth, and they see M31 as “moving”. But in SR theory, all the guys in M31 are supposed to see our galaxy as the one that is “moving” and our clocks as the ones that are ticking slow. Thus a paradox results.

[SeanF]

The English translation in the Princeton book has this as:

“and during procedural step 3, U2 is indeed at a location of higher gravitational potential than U1.”

Is this what you are talking about?
Yes. U1 is at a higher gravitational potential, not U2 (which is why U1 runs faster than U2). But like I said, it's just a typo.

There were no gravitational and accelerative effects in SR. He added them in GR, but not to "solve the paradox." He added them to increase the applicability of the theory.
He added them in the 1918 paper in an attempt to solve the 1905 SR paradox.
That is your interpretation of his "motives" and you need to stop presenting it as a fact. Everybody else concludes that he was simply expanding the Theory of Relativity into a more general theory (hence the new name). You are the only person who thinks he was trying to correct an error. If he was, he wouldn't have kept the original under the new "Special Theory" name and called his new one the "General Theory." He just would have called the new one "The Theory of Relativity (Revised)" or something like that and replaced the old one.

But you nead to realize that if all he's doing is talking about how "fields" affect "atoms", then it's a pretty pi**-poor theory. He doesn't present any causes for that, it's all presented as changes in time and space themselves - which is why it's still called "Relativity" and not "Acceleration and Motion of Atoms through Fields" or something.

[Gramma loreto]

The motion of the train does not change the frequency of the whistle.

1,000 Hz are emitted by the whistle whether the train is stationary or moving.
The whistle doesn't emit Hertz. It produces sound of a given wavelength. Whistles vary based upon design but in this case, the wavelength would probably be about four times the length of the whistle tube which would house a 1/4 standing wave when being blown at its rated pressure. The first full, audible sound wave is formed outside of the whistle and the motion of the train most certainly will affect the wavelength produced, while the 1/4 standing wave inside the whistle remains essentially unchanged.

In the direction of travel, the source advances behind the wave while it's still being formed, shortening the wavelength. In the opposite, the source advances ahead of the wavefront, increasing the wavelength. The frequency in either direction is determined by ƒ=λ∕Vs, where λ = wavelength and Vs = the speed of sound. This is no mere "illusion" as you put it. Change the wavelength...you change the frequency.

In both considered directions, however, the speed of sound remains the same. This isn't some kind of speed limit imposed by the medium upon a discrete and separate something traveling through it. The sound waves are composed of the medium itself, as longitudinal compression waves, and their speed is determined largely by the density and elasticity of that medium. Not so with light.

As explained previously, light is a propagating EM field, discretely quantifiable from any detectable medium. Experiment has confirmed that light does not submit to the algebraic addition of velocities. On the other hand, there is no experimental evidence for the existance of an "æther" or any other medium that would make light do the things you seem to want it to do.

[Sam5]

Fine, let's talk about that first "peculiar consequence." Read it carefully.

If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous;


We’ve been through this already, several weeks ago.

At the beginning of the thought experiment, both clocks are stationary in the same frame, and the k and K systems are both stationary together, and the kx’ and Kx axes overlap and are both stationary relative to each other. The k system observer sees the K system “move” and the K clock “slow down”, and the K system observer sees the k system “move” and the k clock slow down.

When he begins the relative motion, he reports only what the K observer sees, and he never reports what the k observer sees. This is because of his geocentric way of thinking in the SR theory. He orients his own mind as being “fixed” within the K system and he is blind to what the k observer sees. He completely disregards it. I think this is probably the result of him thinking about the MM experiment and the apparatus being fixed on the surface of the earth. So he fixed his mind on the surface of the earth when he tried to develop the SR theory.

A few years later, as he began to develop GR theory, he was finally able to fix his mind on both the sun and earth at the same time, and that’s when the clock paradox disappeared from his overall “relativity” theory. In 1911 he correctly has the sun clocks running slow and the earth clocks running fast, and the earth observers seeing the sun clocks run slow, and of course the sun observers see the earth clocks running fast. This is correct. No paradox. I can understand this conceptual stuff, and his and your conceptual mistakes, because I worked in a profession in which I had to always keep two different clocks, which were running at different rates, in my mind when I was working, so I had to know which was ahead of the other, which was behind the other, and which was ahead or behind synchronous master clocks, and both of the clocks I worked with changed rates back and forth constantly, so I got used to thinking of two clock rates at the same time, and clock rates changing back and forth. That’s why I was able to notice some of the flaws in the SR theory when I first read it. By 1905, Einstein must have not had much real experience with real clocks and changing clock rates and the reasons clocks change rates. Clocks don’t change rates for “kinematical” reasons, if the clocks feel no change in physical forces on them.

[Ricimer]

He added them in the 1918 paper in an attempt to solve the 1905 SR paradox. But, he already said many times that the 1905 SR theory contains no acceleration or gravity effects. So, if he had to add the acceleration and gravity effects in 1918 to solve the 1905 SR paradox, then that proves the 1905 SR theory was wrong in the first place, and it proves my point that “relative motion” can not slow down any clocks, and it certainly can not slow down just one of two “relatively moving” clocks. The error in SR theory is why some of the guys on this thread think that all the clocks in M31 are ticking a little slower than all the clocks in our galaxy. Whereas, SR theory claims that all the guys in M31 would claim it is our clocks that are running slow. So which guys are right and which clocks are running slow, due to the “relative motion” between M31 and us? One can not tell in SR theory because of the paradox.

In the SR theory, Einstein makes whatever frame HE imagines himself in as the “preferred frame”. This tends to be a geocentricity theory. That’s why some of the guys here think that the M31 clocks are ticking slow, because they live here on the earth, and they see M31 as “moving”. But in SR theory, all the guys in M31 are supposed to see our galaxy as the one that is “moving” and our clocks as the ones that are ticking slow. Thus a paradox results.

Actually, it only proves that SR has a limiting case, it only works under certian conditions (i.e. NO ACCELERATION).

Now, Relativity says, that as long as you don't try to bring two clocks together we'll see M31 moving slowly, and they'll see us moving slowly. BOTH are right, it doesn't matter. Yes, it's an odd conclusion, but one that comes, inescapably, from the premise of a constant speed of light relative to everyone (not to a medium).

The other alternative, that of it being constant relative to a medium has been disproved, several times (and as we keep telling you) and so we must go down this route relativity describes and end up with that conclusion.

GR's purpose is to extend (not replace, suplant, obscure, etc) SR so that we can know what will happen when we accelerate the clocks, and when we bring them together.

[Sam5]

The motion of the train does not change the frequency of the whistle.

1,000 Hz are emitted by the whistle whether the train is stationary or moving.
The whistle doesn't emit Hertz.


Sure, train whistles emit sound frequencies that are called Hz or “cycles per second”.

“If a particle of air undergoes 1000 longitudinal vibrations in 2 seconds, then the frequency of the wave would be 500 vibrations per second. A commonly used unit for frequency is the Hertz (abbrviated Hz), where 1 Hertz = 1 vibration/second “

www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/U11L2a.html+sound+frequencies+Hz&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]LINK (http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:FGYNn7D_QjwJ:[url) TO SOURCE[/url]

[Ricimer]

Actually, he does address what the other system see's, by saying that both obey the same laws. The other system will see exactly what he see's, unless acceleration occurs.

[Sam5]

He added them in the 1918 paper in an attempt to solve the 1905 SR paradox. But, he already said many times that the 1905 SR theory contains no acceleration or gravity effects. So, if he had to add the acceleration and gravity effects in 1918 to solve the 1905 SR paradox, then that proves the 1905 SR theory was wrong in the first place, and it proves my point that “relative motion” can not slow down any clocks, and it certainly can not slow down just one of two “relatively moving” clocks. The error in SR theory is why some of the guys on this thread think that all the clocks in M31 are ticking a little slower than all the clocks in our galaxy. Whereas, SR theory claims that all the guys in M31 would claim it is our clocks that are running slow. So which guys are right and which clocks are running slow, due to the “relative motion” between M31 and us? One can not tell in SR theory because of the paradox.

In the SR theory, Einstein makes whatever frame HE imagines himself in as the “preferred frame”. This tends to be a geocentricity theory. That’s why some of the guys here think that the M31 clocks are ticking slow, because they live here on the earth, and they see M31 as “moving”. But in SR theory, all the guys in M31 are supposed to see our galaxy as the one that is “moving” and our clocks as the ones that are ticking slow. Thus a paradox results.

Actually, it only proves that SR has a limiting case, it only works under certian conditions



Yeah, under “imaginary” conditions.



Now, Relativity says, that as long as you don't try to bring two clocks together we'll see M31 moving slowly, and they'll see us moving slowly. BOTH are right, it doesn't matter. Yes, it's an odd conclusion, but one

SR brings the clocks together and it says only one will “lag behind” the other. Stop trying to cover up its errors.

[Sam5]

The English translation in the Princeton book has this as:

“and during procedural step 3, U2 is indeed at a location of higher gravitational potential than U1.”

Is this what you are talking about?

Yes. U1 is at a higher gravitational potential, not U2 (which is why U1 runs faster than U2). But like I said, it's just a typo.

Just a “typo”? Two typos in one sentence?? Lol, you’d might as well say the entire SR theory is “just a typo”.

Can’t you see that the guy kept getting mixed up with his own theory? He had flaws and mistakes in the original, and he had flaws and mistakes in the 1918 version. I think that’s probably why he said in the 1918 paper, “First I have to point out that the distinction of real verses non-real is not very productive.” That way he had all his bases covered.

[Ricimer]

no, under conditions where gravity is non-existent or insignificant.

The properties addressed there are still present when gravity is there.

ITs just like saying that, in the absence of a vacuum, objects follow parabolic trajectories. When you introduce drag however, and it doesn't.

Does that mean the other description is wrong, completely invalid, and any scientist who uses it is mistaken? That anybody adding drag terms is covering up several hundred years of Newton worshiping?

Of course not!

By adding drag terms you are taking the general behavior, describing things that cause it to deviate from that behavior (the drag terms) and then ending up with a more complete description.

That is SR and GR situations.

SR describes the general behavior of things in motion alone. GR says, well, thats not the whole picture, there's acceleration and gravity to deal with, and this is how that messes with things. Thus we have, via GR extension of SR a more complete picture.

[Sam5]

That is your interpretation of his "motives" and you need to stop presenting it as a fact. Everybody else concludes that he was simply expanding the Theory of Relativity into a more general theory (hence the new name).


I’m presenting them as my opinion, just like everyone else here is presenting their opinion. Some guy just told me there is no such thing as Hz in sound.


You are the only person who thinks he was trying to correct an error.


That’s not true. You can’t speak for “everybody else”. There are 6 billion people in the world, and they don’t all agree with you. You speak for about 6 to 8 guys. You need to learn the history of what led up to the 1918 paper. He was receiving criticism from physicists from all over Europe and from students too. Some of his lectures were interrupted by questions about the “paradox”. There was no way he could solve the paradox with just the SR theory alone, and he was too stubborn just to admit that the SR theory was wrong.

[Gramma loreto]

Some guy just told me there is no such thing as Hz in sound.

If you're referring to me, that is not at all what I said. I'm well acquainted with what the unit "Hertz" means and how it's used. My point was, that in the premise of the moving train, you cannot simply say that the theoretical whistle emits 1,000 Hz and leave it at that.

[Sam5]

Some guy just told me there is no such thing as Hz in sound.

If you're referring to me, that is not at all what I said. I'm well acquainted with what the unit "Hertz" means and how it's used. My point was, that in the premise of the moving train, you cannot simply say that the theoretical whistle emits 1,000 Hz and leave it at that.

I didn’t simply say the whistle emits 1,000 Hz and leave it at that. I said the whistle emits 1,000 Hz whether it is stationary or moving, and I explained the two Doppler effects that are involved with a passenger at the rear of a train perceiving no frequency change in the tone of the whistle when both he and the whistle are moving through the air at the same rate.

Then you came along and said, “The whistle doesn't emit Hertz.”

[Sam5]

Gramma loreto,

Hey, you might find this amusing. This is a Google translation of a German website about a Heinrich Hertz scholarship:

LINK (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.wissenschaft.nrw.de/Studieren_in_NRW/Studienfoerderung/Stipendium_Hertz_Stiftung.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2BHeinrich%2Bhertz%2Bde%26start%3D10 %26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DISO-8859-1%26sa%3DN)

[Gramma loreto]

I ran into goofs like that (and much, much worse) when I tried using translation software while living in Germany. It was actually easier and much more enjoyable to learn the language.

[Taibak]

Then I think maybe qm theory should be adjusted somewhat.

In addition to what everyone else has said, quantum mechanics has been wildly successful. In fact, it's the most accurate theory on the market. There is no reason to simply discard it.

That and what you're saying has already been done - relativistic quantum mechanics.

The gravity field obviously slows down the oscillation rate of the atom, thus it oscillates more slowly and emits light of a lower frequency in a stronger gravity field. And remember, in this same stronger gravity field, a pendulum clock speeds up.

Apples and Volkswagons, I'm afraid. A pendulum clock is a more complex system than an atomic clock and its period is a function of both time AND gravity. By contrast, the period of an atomic clock is just a function of time. If you increase gravity, the atomic clock slows down slightly because time is running slower. By contrast, if you do the same to a pendulum clock, the clock slows down slightly due to time running slow AND speeds up because gravity is pulling harder on the pendulum arm; the net effect is that the clock ticks faster.

As I mentioned earlier, it is Lorentz theory that talked about the slowdown of atoms due to motion through fields.

Except the equation you gave has nothing to do with motion.

This seems to be the main distinction between Lorentz theory and GR theory. SR theory was an attempt to change Lorentz theory to a time slowdown due to “relative motion” only, but by 1918 Einstein realized that such a thing didn’t work, and so he had to add the acceleration and the gravity to slow down atomic clocks.

'Change' might be the wrong word. 'Replace' would be better. And that still doesn't change the fact that the 1905 paper has been vindicated in experiment after experiment whereas Lorentz's theory of relativity has not.

I think we should get away from the idea that only atomic oscillation rates represent the only “true time” in the universe. I will point out again, in massive stars where there is an atomic “time dilation” and a gravitational redshift, the temperatures are hotter, indicating a faster molecular vibration rate, and the stars live out their lifespans more quickly, suggesting that “time” for the massive stars is “speeding up”, not “slowing down”.

Again, apples and Volkswagons. Time is running slower for a massive star than a lighter star, yes. However, time is NOT the only factor at work. Massive stars are (generally) hotter than lighter stars because their gravity increases the rate at which fusion is taking place. If more fusion reactions take place, the star heats up dramatically.

If as you say that gravity does not affect the “energy state” of an atom, why would the oscillation rates slow down in a gravity field. Maybe it takes more energy for them to oscillate rapidly in a gravity field.

Because time is affected by gravity.

Taibak,

I’ve noticed on some websites and in some books, they say that the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is totally “fixed”, but they also say that cesium clocks “slow down” in a strong gravity field, indicating that “time itself” slows down in a strong gravity field.

Well, if the cesium oscillation rates “slow down” in a strong gravity field, then the oscillation rate of cesium atoms is not “fixed”.

Problem: you've left out the position of the observer. IF the observer is at rest relative to the Cs atoms AND sitting at the same gravitational potential as the Cs atoms, he will never see the oscillation rate change - even if the observer and the Cs are moving, with or without a gravitational field.

Another possibility is that IF the observer is at rest relative to the Cs atoms but NOT at the same gravitational potential, the observer will measure a different, but still constant, rate of oscillation than he would if he was at the same potential.

Similarly, IF the observer is at the same gravitational potential as the Cs, but NOT at rest relative to the atoms, he will measure a slower, but still constant, oscillation rate for the Cs.

Lastly, IF the observer and Cs are at different gravitational potentials and the observer is NOT at rest relative to the atoms, BOTH phenomena apply.


No, it works something like this:

Stellar light is coming in from outside the earth’s local ether. It makes a transition from the sun’s local ether to the earth’s ether and because the earth is moving, it bends the light a little when the light comes in perpendicular to our line of motion. When it comes in parallel to our line of motion, we see the light as being redshifted or blueshifted. The MM light source was on the earth, so they saw no speed change or aberration, because that light did not come in from a different relatively moving ether.

It can't work like that. The existence of stellar aberration proves that there is no local ether because such an ether would have to be at rest relative to the Earth.


It can't be "constant" everywhere, relative to all observers, since all the observers are moving. It can be somewhat "constant" in a local ether, in the local area of space through which the photons are traveling.

Maxwell's equations predict that the speed of light is always a constant, regardless of relative motion. No exceptions to this have ever been found. Therefore, Maxwell's equations ALWAYS hold, regardless of how counter-intuitive that may seem.


We are all in the gravity fields with a bunch of atoms humming at different rates.

While it is true that we are sitting in every gravitational field in the universe, most of those are negligiable. In interstellar space, the gravitational fields are so small, you can ignore them.

Cesium atoms vibrate more rapidly in Denver than they do at Santa Monica. I don’t see all of “time itself” running fast in Denver. Ask swansont why the US atomic time standard is calculated out for “sea level”.

All of time itself IS running fast in Denver. It's just that the effect is so tiny that it's imperceptible to all but the most precise clocks.

Taibak,


Let me ask you this, when an observer is riding on an open car at the end of a moving train, he hears the normal pitch of the train whistle, so how many Doppler effects are at work in this situation?

None. The equation for the Doppler effect for sound where both the observer AND the emitter are moving is:

f' = f [(v + u)/(v + w)]

where f' is the frequency heard by the observer, f is the frequency emitted by the whistle, v is the speed of sound in air, w is the speed of the source relative to the air, and u is the speed of the observer relative to the air. Since both the whistle AND the observer are travelling at the same speed, u = w. Therefore:

f' = f [(v + u)/(v + u)]

f' = f.

There is no frequency change, therefore, no Doppler effect.

[SeanF]

Fine, let's talk about that first "peculiar consequence." Read it carefully.

If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous;
We’ve been through this already, several weeks ago.
Seems like we've been through it more than once.

At the beginning of the thought experiment, both clocks are stationary in the same frame, and the k and K systems are both stationary together, and the kx’ and Kx axes overlap and are both stationary relative to each other.
No. The K and k frames are not stationary together at the start of the experiment. The clocks are only in one frame, the K frame. "[A]t the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks." You can't put the two clocks in different frames if they're not moving relative to each other. That's contrary to the whole definition of inertial frames.

The k system observer sees the K system “move” and the K clock “slow down”, and the K system observer sees the k system “move” and the k clock slow down.

Correct. However, the K system sees the clocks as synchronized and the k system sees the clocks as unsynchronized. That's why there's no paradox.

When he begins the relative motion, he reports only what the K observer sees, and he never reports what the k observer sees.
Of course he does. The non-synchronization of the clocks and the "lagging behind" are "what the k observer sees."

This is because of his geocentric way of thinking in the SR theory. He orients his own mind as being “fixed” within the K system and he is blind to what the k observer sees. He completely disregards it. I think this is probably the result of him thinking about the MM experiment and the apparatus being fixed on the surface of the earth. So he fixed his mind on the surface of the earth when he tried to develop the SR theory.

No. You don't understand what he's saying. If his point of view stayed in the K system, there'd be nothing unusual happening! It's only when you look from the k point of view that you're going to find the dilation!

[Ricimer]

well, in the k' system you will see the dilation, just not dilation of the k' system that K sees (boy I hate that notation).

k' instead sees K as time dilated.

This is, of course, assuming a uniform motion throughout. Acceleration mucks it up (and requires GR terms) and can't be addressed in SR without some general and (compared to GR) weak arguements. They're still valid, but GR does it much better (since it has the tools to deal with it in its entirety).

[Sam5]

No. The K and k frames are not stationary together at the start of the experiment. .


Yes they are. The “clock at A” in inside the k frame. At the beginning of the experiment, the k and K frames are not moving relatively. Their X axes overlap.

When the relative motion begins the k observers see the K frame “move”, and the K observers see the k frame “move”. Einstein is favoring the K frame and he is fixing his mind only with that system. That’s why he wound up with the paradox.

The two clocks are stationary relative to one another before he begins the relative motion. That happens all the time with real clocks.

However, the K system sees the clocks as synchronized and the k system sees the clocks as unsynchronized. That's why there's no paradox.

No, you are thinking about Section 2 or 3. In Section 4 he synchronizes the clocks and makes them synchronous while they are both stationary relative to each other. That’s why the paradox is more obvious in Section 4. You are trying to pretend they are moving relatively before they are synchronized and made synchronous in Section 4.

He said, “If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; “

See?

Both clocks are stationary and both systems are stationary.

He just doesn’t point out that they are both also synchronous and stationary in the k system too, before the relative motion began. This is how he sometimes tricked himself and got mixed up with his own SR theory. These are NOT "typos", these are errors.

Some people can understand this stuff, and some people just can’t, no matter how hard they try.

[Ricimer]

so now, there is no paradox?

That means SR isn't fouled up...

[Sam5]

No. You don't understand what he's saying. If his point of view stayed in the K system, there'd be nothing unusual happening! It's only when you look from the k point of view that you're going to find the dilation!

Nope, what makes the consequences “peculiar” is that while both the k and K observers are supposed to see each other’s clocks slow down, only one clock “lags behind” when they unite. That is mighty peculiar, and in fact it is wrong. Nature doesn’t work that way.

Look, I didn’t invent the “clock paradox”. I started reading about it in books years ago. And every “reconciliation” I have read has been different, including Einstein’s own in 1918.

We weren’t taught this kind of nonsense when I was in school in the ‘50s and ‘60s. This is just a modern trend and a result of a lot of bad information put out by the mass media.

It has become sort of a modern sociological thing. Back in my era, we boys were all media-hyped about Edison, Bell, the Wright brothers and all the “inventor” type “scientists”. Edison’s picture was still on some kinds of consumer products in the 1950s.

But then with the atom bomb thing and the cold war, and the space race, all of a sudden Edison was out and Einstein was in, as far as the mass media was concerned. Boys and young men interested in science have grown up during the past 30 years hearing such things in the mass media as “Einstein was the greatest genius who ever lived,” and “in 1920 only 12 people in all the world could understand Einstein theory,” and “some people are just too stupid to understand relativity, only the smartest people can understand it”. So, when they study it, the original paper, a lot of them don’t understand it and some even disagree with it, but then they start to worry about their intelligence, and they worry about their “relativity orientation”. (lol) They don’t want to be “on the outside” or “outcasts”, so they turn to pop-sci books and websites to try to find some answers. Finally, they come to the conclusion that all they have to remember is that “moving clocks slow down”, and “it’s always the other guy’s clock that slows down, and never your own,” and they think they finally “understand relativity”. But when I ask them, “What kind of force is used to impart the motion to the k frame in ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,’” or when I start talking about the 1918 paper, a bunch of them get mad at me.

It’s just like this, in 1956, had I said, “Edison stole ideas from other inventors,” or, “Edison did not invent sound recording,” I would have been hassled by a bunch of guys who would have thought I was some kind of “Communist” or something. Now Edison is out and Einstein is in. Media fads come and they go.

Some people think I’m “attacking Einstein” when I complain about the SR theory, but what I’m actually attacking is erroneous pseudo-science promoted without logic and reason by the pop-sci media, and gullibly believed by the masses. It’s like all this UFO and chemtrail stuff. It’s like all that “eugenics” stuff back in the 1930s.

[Normandy6644]

Some people think I’m “attacking Einstein” when I complain about the SR theory, but what I’m actually attacking is erroneous pseudo-science promoted without logic and reason by the pop-sci media, and gullibly believed by the masses. It’s like all this UFO and chemtrail stuff. It’s like all that “eugenics” stuff back in the 1930s.

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments. Why don't you accept this?

[Edit]Believed by the masses? The masses have no idea what relativity is other than E=mc^2. That's the extent of the masses' education. If you want to talk about understanding relativity, talk about professors and scientists across the country who have studied physics.

[Sam5]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

[Taibak]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

We have: Muon decay, pion decay, GPS, the invariance of light speed. Supernova light dissipation curves....

[Normandy6644]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

Rather than just saying what they are, here (http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html) is a link that shows them and the outcomes, as well as journal references.

[Sam5]

We have: Muon decay, pion decay, GPS,


Acceleration and motion through fields, GR and Lorentz theory.




the invariance of light speed.

Not true. Shapiro showed that light speed slows down when EM waves pass near the sun.

[Sam5]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

Rather than just saying what they are,

Who is Siegmar Schleif?

I would like your opinion about this, not his list of papers.

I didn’t ask you to, “Show me a list of miscellaneous paper titles.”

[Normandy6644]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

Rather than just saying what they are,

Who is Siegmar Schleif?

I would like your opinion about this, not his list of papers.

I didn’t ask you to, “Show me a list of miscellaneous paper titles.”

No, you asked for examples. There they are. What do you want me to say about them? Have I heard of all of them? Of course not. Have I heard of some of them? Of course. They show what experimental confirmation of the SR postulates exists. What more do you want?

[freddo]

I would like your opinion about this, not his list of papers.

You want evidence, but citing papers isn't going to cut it for you? :o

No, you don't want the evidence, you want a list of reasons you could just handwave about the conclusions... Funnily enough, just like what you did to Taibak.

[milli360]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

We have: Muon decay, pion decay, GPS, the invariance of light speed. Supernova light dissipation curves....
And one I've mentioned before, its use in Dirac's equations of quantum mechanics.

[Sam5]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

Rather than just saying what they are,

Who is Siegmar Schleif?

I would like your opinion about this, not his list of papers.

I didn’t ask you to, “Show me a list of miscellaneous paper titles.”

No, you asked for examples. There they are.

I asked you for examples. I didn’t ask you for someone else’s list of miscellaneous paper titles.


What do you want me to say about them?

What more do you want?

Well, you could give me a summary of each paper and give me your opinion about them.

This is exactly what I was warning you about, the mass media hype. You haven’t read these papers. You got this list off a Google search. You don’t even know what these papers are about.

I want your person opinion about which “experiments” “prove SR”, and your opinions about the experiments. I didn’t ask for an SR hype list.

[Sam5]

I would like your opinion about this, not his list of papers.

You want evidence, but citing papers isn't going to cut it for you?

He didn’t cite papers, he gave me a hype-list of papers. Some of the topics aren’t even related to SR theory.

[Sam5]

Funnily enough, .

Why are you trying so hard to convince people to believe a theory that you can’t even explain?

His list is like some guy showing me how “chemtrails have been proved” by just giving me a long list of chemtrail articles.

[Normandy6644]

Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

Rather than just saying what they are,

Who is Siegmar Schleif?

I would like your opinion about this, not his list of papers.

I didn’t ask you to, “Show me a list of miscellaneous paper titles.”

No, you asked for examples. There they are.

I asked you for examples. I didn’t ask you for someone else’s list of miscellaneous paper titles.


What do you want me to say about them?

What more do you want?

Well, you could give me a summary of each paper and give me your opinion about them.

The summaries are all there, or here (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html) if you prefer.

This is exactly what I was warning you about, the mass media hype. You haven’t read these papers. You got this list off a Google search. You don’t even know what these papers are about.

They aren't that hard Sam. I've read either about the experiments themselves or their replication. I don't see how me linking you to the papers is any different than you posting pictures of Lorentz' book.

I want your person opinion about which “experiments” “prove SR”, and your opinions about the experiments. I didn’t ask for an SR hype list.

My personal opinion is that they are experimental evidence for SR. You can't really have an "opinion" about an experiment. it's just facts.

[Sam5]

And one I've mentioned before, its use in Dirac's equations of quantum mechanics.

Explain it to us.

[Sam5]

I don't see how me linking you to the papers is any different than you posting pictures of Lorentz' book.

I told you how Lorentz invented and published the Lorentz Transformation in 1885, and I told you how he invented atomic clock rate slow-downs, and the story that Einstein invented them is just part of the SR myth, and I posted the photocopies to back up what I said.

I think you said the Transformation wasn't published until 1903, and I showed you where it was published in 1895, when Einstein was 16 years old.


My personal opinion is that they are experimental evidence for SR. You can't really have an "opinion" about an experiment. it's just facts.

Some are “ether drift” experiments that got a typical geocentric results becaue they were conducted on earth. Others are GR experiments. Some are in German and you don’t have any idea what they are.

They are just some guy’s list that is supposed to “prove SR”. How many of these specific papers have you read? What does each of them say?

Einstein said clocks would slow down if they moved in either direction along the x axis in the SR paper, but the Hafele-Keating experiment had the Eastbound clocks slowing down, and the Westbound clocks speeding up. This isn’t in SR theory. The Hafele-Keating flying clocks gained time overall. This isn’t in SR theory. Moving clocks don’t gain time in SR theory. The Pound Rebka experiment is about gravitational redshifts. This isn’t SR theory. Muons are accelerating and moving through fields. There is no acceleration or motion though fields considered in SR theory.

(paragraph added)

[Normandy6644]

I don't see how me linking you to the papers is any different than you posting pictures of Lorentz' book.

I told you how Lorentz invented and published the Lorentz Transformation in 1885, and I told you how he invented atomic clock rate slow-downs, and the story that Einstein invented them is just part of the SR myth, and I posted the photocopies to back up what I said.

I think you said the Transformation wasn't published until 1903, and I showed you where it was published in 1895, when Einstein was 16 years old.

First of all, no one ever said that Einstein came up with the Lorentz transformations. What happened was that Einstein derived them from first principles, something Lorentz did not do. What is commonly known today as the Lorentz tranformations were not published until 1903. You have posted your opinions, and no real facts. The fact that you have a problem with a straightforward answer shows just how stubborn you are about all of this.


My personal opinion is that they are experimental evidence for SR. You can't really have an "opinion" about an experiment. it's just facts.

Some are “ether drift” experiments that got a typical geocentric results becaue they were conducted on earth. Others are GR experiments. Some are in German and you don’t have any idea what they are.

They are just some guy’s list that is supposed to “prove SR”. How many of these specific papers have you read? What does each of them say?

Did it occur to you that I'm not a moron? Have you ever looked at my signature? Do you recognize the language? I have read a number of them, and can easily read any one that you want me to. The fact of the matter is that you are wrong, and are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it by accusing me of not knowing anything about this subject. Well, pick a paper, and I'll try and find it and tell you everything about it that you'd like to know. I'll even explain the math for you.

[Sam5]

I don't see how me linking you to the papers is any different than you posting pictures of Lorentz' book.

I told you how Lorentz invented and published the Lorentz Transformation in 1885, and I told you how he invented atomic clock rate slow-downs, and the story that Einstein invented them is just part of the SR myth, and I posted the photocopies to back up what I said.

I think you said the Transformation wasn't published until 1903, and I showed you where it was published in 1895, when Einstein was 16 years old.

First of all, no one ever said that Einstein came up with the Lorentz transformations. What happened was that Einstein derived them from first principles, something Lorentz did not do. What is commonly known today as the Lorentz tranformations were not published until 1903. You have posted your opinions, and no real facts.


What do you mean by “first principles”? Lorentz developed them from scientific principles.

I’ve posted the actual photocopy of the Lorentz Transformation equations in the 1895 book and the Lorentz text in which he called them “transformations”.

There again, you are going with the “mass media” urban legend, rather than with the flat out truth that I’ve shown you in the 1895 Lorentz book itself.

[Taibak]

We have: Muon decay, pion decay, GPS,


Acceleration and motion through fields, GR and Lorentz theory.

Not quite true. GR can be ignored if a moving object stays at the same gravitational potential as the observer. Since both are at the same gravitational potential, gravity has slowed time down by the exact same amount. Since that amount never changes, ALL observed time dilation MUST come from SR. This holds true for muons and pions travelling along the Earth's surface and GPS satellites orbiting at a constant altitude. Similarly, since any EM fields are also constant during the entire experiment, you can't attribute changes to them either.

As for acceleration, that's also not necessarily true. For muons and pions created in the upper atmosphere, they're created with a high initial velocity, relative to the Earth's surface. That they DON'T accelerate appreciably is entirely consistent with SR, which predicts that the faster an object travels the more it resists attempts to increase its velocity. When they're created in accelerators, they also spend time travelling at a constant speed - entirely the realm of SR. In fact, the time the particle spends acceleration is negligible in comparison!

Last, but certainly not least, for the particles falling from the upper atmosphere, gravitational time dilation, by itself, does NOT account for the extended lifetimes of the particles. If you actually crunch the math, SR is needed.




the invariance of light speed.

Not true. Shapiro showed that light speed slows down when EM waves pass near the sun.

That's not entirely true either. Shapiro showed that there's a time delay when you send a radar signal past the Sun. That could be because light speed slows down OR it could be because time and space are distorted by the Sun's gravity. If you go with the first choice, you have to come up with a competing theory that explains everything GR does WITHOUT an ether, which has been proved not to exist. If you go with the second choice, you get SR.





Except that SR has been validated time and again in experiments

Give me some examples.

Rather than just saying what they are,

Who is Siegmar Schleif?

I would like your opinion about this, not his list of papers.

I didn’t ask you to, “Show me a list of miscellaneous paper titles.”

So you're saying that you aren't actually familiar with the research that's been done that supports relativity?

[freddo]

Why are you trying so hard to convince people to believe a theory that you can’t even explain?


Rich coming from someone who expects relativistic effects to be measurable on his own frame. I may have trouble explaining relativity's nuances, but I understand what it's about far more than your perversion of the theory.

So you're saying that you aren't actually familiar with the research that's been done that supports relativity?
Is this at all surprising?

[Sam5]

I don't see how me linking you to the papers is any different than you posting pictures of Lorentz' book.

I told you how Lorentz invented and published the Lorentz Transformation in 1885, and I told you how he invented atomic clock rate slow-downs, and the story that Einstein invented them is just part of the SR myth, and I posted the photocopies to back up what I said.

I think you said the Transformation wasn't published until 1903, and I showed you where it was published in 1895, when Einstein was 16 years old.

First of all, no one ever said that Einstein came up with the Lorentz transformations. What happened was that Einstein derived them from first principles, something Lorentz did not do. What is commonly known today as the Lorentz tranformations were not published until 1903. You have posted your opinions, and no real facts. The fact that you have a problem with a straightforward answer shows just how stubborn you are about all of this.


My personal opinion is that they are experimental evidence for SR. You can't really have an "opinion" about an experiment. it's just facts.

Some are “ether drift” experiments that got a typical geocentric results becaue they were conducted on earth. Others are GR experiments. Some are in German and you don’t have any idea what they are.

They are just some guy’s list that is supposed to “prove SR”. How many of these specific papers have you read? What does each of them say?

Did it occur to you that I'm not a moron?

.


I know you are not a moron, and I’m not either. But I’m very familiar with how the mass media can promote urban legends so much and so often that people will continue to believe them even when the people are shown that they are not true. I’ve shown you the transformations in the 1895 book, and where Lorentz called them transformations, but you continue to still believe in and promote the urban legend that he did not publish them until 1903. I’m trying to understand what is going on in your mind about this.


I’ve known several people in life who worried constantly about “global warming” and a “nuclear winter” at the same time, because the media hypes these fears. There are guys on this board who are worried about asteroids crashing into the earth and killing all life, because the media TV shows and movies hype this stuff all the time. But these guys don't worry about being killed in a car wreck, although 42,000 Americans are killed each year in car wrecks. But the media doesn't hype car wrecks because they make a lot of money selling cars.

[Sam5]

I may have trouble explaining relativity's nuances,

I'd like to see you try it anyway. Go ahead.

[Normandy6644]

I don't see how me linking you to the papers is any different than you posting pictures of Lorentz' book.

I told you how Lorentz invented and published the Lorentz Transformation in 1885, and I told you how he invented atomic clock rate slow-downs, and the story that Einstein invented them is just part of the SR myth, and I posted the photocopies to back up what I said.

I think you said the Transformation wasn't published until 1903, and I showed you where it was published in 1895, when Einstein was 16 years old.

First of all, no one ever said that Einstein came up with the Lorentz transformations. What happened was that Einstein derived them from first principles, something Lorentz did not do. What is commonly known today as the Lorentz tranformations were not published until 1903. You have posted your opinions, and no real facts.


What do you mean by “first principles”? Lorentz developed them from scientific principles.

I’ve posted the actual photocopy of the Lorentz Transformation equations in the 1895 book and the Lorentz text in which he called them “transformations”.

There again, you are going with the “mass media” urban legend, rather than with the flat out truth that I’ve shown you in the 1895 Lorentz book itself.

Sorry, when I said 1903, I was wrong. it was 1904. In his paper, "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity less than that of Light", he desribed the method for deriving the transformations from Maxwell's equations, with a correction factor to explain the null result of the MM experiment. When I say that Einstein derived them from first principles, I mean that he did without having to explain some extra "stuff" that Lorentz did, i.e., dealing with the MM experiment. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what the "transformations" actually are.

[Normandy6644]

I know you are not a moron, and I’m not either. But I’m very familiar with how the mass media can promote urban legends so much and so often that people will continue to believe them even when the people are shown that they are not true.

No matter what you choose to believe, I learned most of what I know of relativity outside of any classroom, and certainly not from the media. The media could care less about relativity. What good does it do for them when most people don't understand it either? So believe in your conspiracy all you want, I'm gonna go continue to learn the real physics.

[freddo]

I'd like to see you try it anyway. Go ahead.
Not for your benefit Sam5. People better at it than me have tried for you Sam5, and yet you still fail/refuse to grasp it. I will not provide you a launching pad for another disingenious diatribe.

[Taibak]

They are just some guy’s list that is supposed to “prove SR”. How many of these specific papers have you read? What does each of them say?

So you don't think bibilographies have any research validity whatsoever? You asked for evidence - and on several occasions have asked for citations of specific papers - and you got it.

Einstein said clocks would slow down if they moved in either direction along the x axis in the SR paper, but the Hafele-Keating experiment had the Eastbound clocks slowing down, and the Westbound clocks speeding up. This isn’t in SR theory. The Hafele-Keating flying clocks gained time overall.

True, but the link TheAtomium posted makes a pretty strong case that the Hafele-Keating experiment was junk. After reading that, I think that it's a classic example of an experiment that just didn't work.

The Pound Rebka experiment is about gravitational redshifts. This isn’t SR theory. Muons are accelerating and moving through fields. There is no acceleration or motion though fields considered in SR theory.

SR can deal with motion through fields. Like I mentioned a while ago, SR predicts that a high-speed neutron will experience relativistic effects when travelling through an EM field, even though the field has no effect whatsoever on the neutron.

And if the Pound-Rebka experiment isn't about SR, don't read that paper. We're talking basic bibliographic research techniques here....

[Sam5]

When I say that Einstein derived them from first principles, I mean that he did without having to explain some extra "stuff" that Lorentz did, i.e., dealing with the MM experiment


I’ve already pointed out that Einstein left out so much of Lorentz's “extra stuff” from his SR theory, such as körperliche Kräfte, he wound up with a paradox, and he had to add some of the “stuff” back in 1918.

[Normandy6644]

When I say that Einstein derived them from first principles, I mean that he did without having to explain some extra "stuff" that Lorentz did, i.e., dealing with the MM experiment


I’ve already pointed out that Einstein left out so much of Lorentz's “extra stuff” from his SR theory, such as körperliche Kräfte, he wound up with a paradox, and he had to add some of the “stuff” back in 1918.

Wrong again. I'm not going to waste my time to tell you why. Just go read every other time I've told you about it.

[Normandy6644]

By the way, am I right about Lorentz' 1904 paper?

[Sam5]

I'd like to see you try it anyway. Go ahead.
Not for your benefit Sam5. People better at it than me have tried for you Sam5, and yet you still fail/refuse to grasp it. I will not provide you a launching pad for another disingenious diatribe.


freddo, all you’ve posted here are insults to me.

[freddo]

freddo, all you’ve posted here are insults to me.

No, you insult us by demanding then refusing citations, your invention of the history of Einstein's papers, your insinuation that Normandy6644 can't read German, your claim that people should freeze to death according to SR's predictions, and your absolute inability to listen to anything that is said to you. You are impervious to argument, and use any excuse to weasel out of answering anything posed to you. Like this one:

you are wrong, and are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it by accusing me of not knowing anything about this subject. Well, pick a paper, and I'll try and find it and tell you everything about it that you'd like to know. I'll even explain the math for you
Your response was some waffle about media hype and car accidents....

[Sam5]

Einstein said clocks would slow down if they moved in either direction along the x axis in the SR paper, but the Hafele-Keating experiment had the Eastbound clocks slowing down, and the Westbound clocks speeding up. This isn’t in SR theory. The Hafele-Keating flying clocks gained time overall.

True, but the link TheAtomium posted makes a pretty strong case that the Hafele-Keating experiment was junk. After reading that, I think that it's a classic example of an experiment that just didn't work.


So you won’t believe me when I say that? But you will believe someone else?

I thought it was “junk” back in 1977 when I first heard about it in the mass media. I knew then that clocks don’t slow down due only to “relative motion”.

For about 24 years all I heard about it was that “Hafele-Keating proved that flying clocks slow down” and “all the Hafele-Keating clocks slowed down”. That all turned out to be a bunch of hype. I finally got my hands on some real Hafele-Keating papers, and their flying clocks wound up gaining time, overall. The Eastbound clocks slowed down while the Westbound clocks speeded up.

I’ve been trying to tell you of other “experiments” and reports that are flawed and are filled with baloney and hype, including the 1918 paper.

Whatever of Einstein’s theories work out in real life, then that is fine. His E=mc^2 seems to work, his photoelectric effect seems to work, his propagation speed of gravity seems to work. But his “curved universal space” did not work, his “constancy” postulate did not work and so he changed it in 1911. His “fixed” universe did not work. His “cosmological constant” did not work. The SR theory clock slowdowns due to “relative motion” does not work.

Face it. Just like other scientists, he got some things right and some things wrong.

If you are young enough, some day you’ll find out that I’m right about SR theory.

[Sam5]

freddo,

Come on, give it a try.... tell us how SR works and why the clocks slow down and why it contains no paradox.

[Normandy6644]

If you are young enough, some day you’ll find out that I’m right about SR theory

Well it's been a hundred years, may as well hold out a little longer.

[Sam5]

By the way, am I right about Lorentz' 1904 paper?


He repeated the Lorentz transformation equations in the 1904 paper. I showed you where they originated, at least as far back as the 1895 book.

[freddo]

So you won’t believe me when I say that? But you will believe someone else?

I thought it was “junk” back in 1977 when I first heard about it in the mass media. I knew then that clocks don’t slow down due only to “relative motion”.
That's back-to-front though. H-K to you was evidence that SR is wrong. H-K to TheAtomium was evidence that the experiment was flawed (which has no bearing on SR). You are not saying the same thing - hence why you are not believed.

tell us how SR works and why the clocks slow down and why it contains no paradox.
3 frames. You deserve no more explanation.

[Normandy6644]

By the way, am I right about Lorentz' 1904 paper?


He repeated the Lorentz transformation equations in the 1904 paper. I showed you where they originated, at least as far back as the 1895 book.

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.

[freddo]

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.
Out of curiosity, would being able to recognise this hinge on understanding the math?

[Sam5]

I know you are not a moron, and I’m not either. But I’m very familiar with how the mass media can promote urban legends so much and so often that people will continue to believe them even when the people are shown that they are not true.

No matter what you choose to believe, I learned most of what I know of relativity outside of any classroom, and certainly not from the media. The media could care less about relativity. What good does it do for them when most people don't understand it either?

You mean like freddo?

The media always needs heroes. Sports heroes, soldier heroes, actor heroes, science heroes. After the atomic age and the space race, Einstein replaced Edison as the main science hero, so, like Edison before him, and like Newton (in the 19th Century) before Edison, the media hypes these heroes and even makes up false stories about them. This irritates me. It’s like the way the chemtrail and free energy guys irritate you. They irritate me too, but they are so much more stupid than guys like you. You should be smart enough not to be fooled by the SR theory.

Anyway, the reason Einstein didn’t want to admit SR was wrong involved some WW I-era political issues, which are very interesting. The reasons Lorentz and Eddington helped him are interesting too.

[freddo]

You should be smart enough not to be fooled by the SR theory.


We are. You have proven you are not. You believe that a prediction of SR is that people will freeze. Heck you thought the way a camera worked had something to do with relativity. You've been fooled by the words - because the math escapes your grasp.

Anyway, the reason Einstein didn’t want to admit SR was wrong involved some WW I-era political issues, which are very interesting.
I can see another chapter of Sam5 revisionist Einstein "History" coming on...

[Normandy6644]

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.
Out of curiosity, would being able to recognise this hinge on understanding the math?

Well more or less. it's more about recognizing what the transformations are. They just aren't explicitly there in that first paper. it's mostly a commentary on the MM experiment. By 1904 he had come up with his brilliant equations, and this is the paper that my book says Einstein didn't know about. Certainly Einstein knew of Lorentz and what he had to say about the MM experiment (I'm not sure on this though, perhaps he didn't).

[Normandy6644]

The reasons Lorentz and Eddington helped him are interesting too.

Sam, Lorentz didn't even understand all of Einstein's theories at first. He only really got it all after communicating with Paul Ehrenfest. Eddington helped him out because he was an amateur mathematician and knew more about non-Euclidian geometry than Einstein did.

[Sam5]

By the way, am I right about Lorentz' 1904 paper?


He repeated the Lorentz transformation equations in the 1904 paper. I showed you where they originated, at least as far back as the 1895 book.

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.

Who says this? I've posted links to science websites that say the transformations were first published in 1895. I've posted photocopies of the transformation as published in the 1895 book. Why do you prefer to believe the erroneous 1904 date? Are you trying to avoid true factual information given to you by me? You would prefer to believe the wrong thing and the wrong date, so you won't have to admit that I've taught you anything?

[Tensor]

When I say that Einstein derived them from first principles, I mean that he did without having to explain some extra "stuff" that Lorentz did, i.e., dealing with the MM experiment


I’ve already pointed out that Einstein left out so much of Lorentz's “extra stuff” from his SR theory, such as körperliche Kräfte, he wound up with a paradox, and he had to add some of the “stuff” back in 1918.

I hope Normandy doesn't mind if I try. The simple fact Sam5, is that Gamma (1/(1-(v^2/c^2)^.5) could not be calculated or explained by Lorentz. There is no scientific or mathematic reason for it to be there in Lorentz's equations. It's a fudge factor. On the other hand, in SR, gamma can be calculated directly from, and as a result of the postulates of SR.

[Normandy6644]

By the way, am I right about Lorentz' 1904 paper?


He repeated the Lorentz transformation equations in the 1904 paper. I showed you where they originated, at least as far back as the 1895 book.

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.

Who says this? I've posted links to science websites that say the transformations were first published in 1895. I've posted photocopies of the transformation as published in the 1895 book. Why do you prefer to believe the erroneous 1904 date? Are you trying to avoid true factual information given to you by me? You would prefer to believe the wrong thing and the wrong date, so you won't have to admit that I've taught you anything?

Because every book on relativity I've ever read has said that the equations were first published in 1904, and I even have his paper with them as derived from Maxwell's equations.

[Sam5]

it's more about recognizing what the transformations are. They just aren't explicitly there in that first paper. it's mostly a commentary on the MM experiment. By 1904 he had come up with his brilliant equations, and this is the paper that my book says Einstein didn't know about. Certainly Einstein knew of Lorentz and what he had to say about the MM experiment (I'm not sure on this though, perhaps he didn't).


Einstein’s SR paper is a copy of sections of the 1895 Lorentz book, with some modifications in Lorentz’s ideas. It was Lorentz who invented atomic clock time dilation, length contraction, relativistic Doppler effects, the speed limit of c, the S1 and S2 moving “systems”. In a 1907 paper Einstein credits the book as giving him the idea about time dilation. He even mentions the Lorentz transformations and the Lorentz electrodynamics theory in his 1905 paper.

But the mass pop-sci media claims Einstein invented all this stuff. I’ve found that many science writers, perhaps most, have never heard of the 1895 Lorentz book. I learned about it from an Einstein paper. It took me 4 or 5 years to track down a copy of it. One company wanted more than $8,000 for a copy. Another company wanted $950 for a copy.

[Normandy6644]

When I say that Einstein derived them from first principles, I mean that he did without having to explain some extra "stuff" that Lorentz did, i.e., dealing with the MM experiment


I’ve already pointed out that Einstein left out so much of Lorentz's “extra stuff” from his SR theory, such as körperliche Kräfte, he wound up with a paradox, and he had to add some of the “stuff” back in 1918.

I hope Normandy doesn't mind if I try. The simple fact Sam5, is that Gamma (1/(1-(v^2/c^2)^.5) could not be calculated or explained by Lorentz. There is no scientific or mathematic reason for it to be there in Lorentz's equations. It's a fudge factor. On the other hand, in SR, gamma can be calculated directly from, and as a result of the postulates of SR.

This is the wording I was looking for when I was talking about "first principles." Thanks Tensor. :lol:

[Sam5]

By the way, am I right about Lorentz' 1904 paper?


He repeated the Lorentz transformation equations in the 1904 paper. I showed you where they originated, at least as far back as the 1895 book.

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.

Who says this? I've posted links to science websites that say the transformations were first published in 1895. I've posted photocopies of the transformation as published in the 1895 book. Why do you prefer to believe the erroneous 1904 date? Are you trying to avoid true factual information given to you by me? You would prefer to believe the wrong thing and the wrong date, so you won't have to admit that I've taught you anything?

Because every book on relativity I've ever read has said that the equations were first published in 1904, and I even have his paper with them as derived from Maxwell's equations.


Well I've got a copy of the 1895 book and he talks about Maxwell in the book.

[Normandy6644]

By the way, am I right about Lorentz' 1904 paper?


He repeated the Lorentz transformation equations in the 1904 paper. I showed you where they originated, at least as far back as the 1895 book.

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.

Who says this? I've posted links to science websites that say the transformations were first published in 1895. I've posted photocopies of the transformation as published in the 1895 book. Why do you prefer to believe the erroneous 1904 date? Are you trying to avoid true factual information given to you by me? You would prefer to believe the wrong thing and the wrong date, so you won't have to admit that I've taught you anything?

Because every book on relativity I've ever read has said that the equations were first published in 1904, and I even have his paper with them as derived from Maxwell's equations.


Well I've got a copy of the 1895 book and he talks about Maxwell in the book.

That's just great. Here's a little analogy for you:

Lorentz' 1895 paper is to Lorentz' 1904 paper as
Einstein's 1905 paper is to Einstein's 1918 paper.

Do you see the point? Lorentz had the idea in 1895 (a paper I have read, and it certainly wasn't that hard to find), and then expanded it in 1904. His explanation was absolutely brilliant in its attempt to salvage the ether. Unfortunately, he was wrong, and later admitted it once SR popped up.

[Taibak]

Einstein said clocks would slow down if they moved in either direction along the x axis in the SR paper, but the Hafele-Keating experiment had the Eastbound clocks slowing down, and the Westbound clocks speeding up. This isn’t in SR theory. The Hafele-Keating flying clocks gained time overall.

True, but the link TheAtomium posted makes a pretty strong case that the Hafele-Keating experiment was junk. After reading that, I think that it's a classic example of an experiment that just didn't work.


So you won’t believe me when I say that? But you will believe someone else?

I believe that paper because the author provided quantitative evidence to back up his claims. That's something you haven't yet done. We ask you for scientific evidence, you give us a history of Einstein's thoughts. There's a big difference. You don't give us experimental data, you don't show us where the equations that predict the data come from, and you don't guage the relative effects of different phenomena on a given system. Heck, I posted a thought experiment in the hopes that you'd use it to argue your theory and you changed the subject to the Doppler shift!

I thought it was “junk” back in 1977 when I first heard about it in the mass media. I knew then that clocks don’t slow down due only to “relative motion”.

For about 24 years all I heard about it was that “Hafele-Keating proved that flying clocks slow down” and “all the Hafele-Keating clocks slowed down”. That all turned out to be a bunch of hype. I finally got my hands on some real Hafele-Keating papers, and their flying clocks wound up gaining time, overall. The Eastbound clocks slowed down while the Westbound clocks speeded up.

I’ve been trying to tell you of other “experiments” and reports that are flawed and are filled with baloney and hype, including the 1918 paper.

Whatever of Einstein’s theories work out in real life, then that is fine. His E=mc^2 seems to work, his photoelectric effect seems to work, his propagation speed of gravity seems to work. But his “curved universal space” did not work, his “constancy” postulate did not work and so he changed it in 1911. His “fixed” universe did not work. His “cosmological constant” did not work. The SR theory clock slowdowns due to “relative motion” does not work.

And that's the problem: you haven't actually provided ANY experiments that offer conclusive proof of anything. The Shapiro experiment, for instance, has two possible explanations: one is that gravity warps spacetime, the other is that light slows down. The former is consistent with Maxwell's equations and general relativity, the latter is consistent with the ether theory. Maxwell's theories have been well-proven and GR has passed the other tests it's been subjected to, whereas the ether fails on stellar aberration and the Michaelson-Morely experiment.

I can't make it much clearer than that, Sam. Einstein's theories of relativity - SR included - has passed EVERY TEST THEY'VE BEEN SUBJECTED TO. The exceptions, including the Hafele-Keating experiment, are cases where the test itself doesn't work. You can't pick and choose which applications of a theory you like and which you don't. For instance, if an ether exists, it CAN NOT apply exclusively to the regulation of the speed of light. It WILL produce other physical effects. For a theory to be valid it MUST pass ALL its tests. Relativity does that, the models you've proposed don't.

Face it. Just like other scientists, he got some things right and some things wrong.

No argument from me. He sure ate enough crow for adding that cosmological constant and for rejecting quantum mechanics.

And you do realise that E=mc^2 was derived from SR, right?

If you are young enough, some day you’ll find out that I’m right about SR theory.

I'd be willing to consider the possibility IF you start providing evidence.

Sam, please try to understand our frustration here. We WANT to talk physics. We've provided experimental evidence - including a bibliography of pro-relativity references - and you rejected it out of hand. We've posted the math that shows relativity predicting the opposite of what you think it does, and you've ignored it. We ask you questions about your theory, and you refuse to answer them on the grounds that you're not 'Mr. Science' or 'Ask Sam.' When we've disagreed with you, we've given detailed reasons why but when you've disagreed with us you just retreated to the refrain that relative motion can't cause time dilation. To us, all those things make it look like you're trying to avoid the discussion, at best.

You're arguing a scientific theory here. Like it or not, that makes you 'Mr. Science' and it makes you 'Ask Sam.' If you want to talk science, then talk science. More importantly, if you want to propose a theory, then you need to be prepared to defend it.

Edited to fix a tag.

[Sam5]

your invention of the history of Einstein's papers, your insinuation that Normandy6644 can't read German, your claim


My “history of the Einstein papers” means that I’ve found and read and paid a lot of money buying and invested a lot of time in finding rare Einstein papers that you’ve never heard of . Your “history of Einstein papers” is probably limited to the $5 book, “The Principle of Relativity”.

[Normandy6644]

Here's another one for you Sam. Even the Germans seem to say 1904.

"Eine mathematisch besonders durchsichtige Darstellung der Lorentz-Transformations-Gruppe sowie der Invarianz der Maxwell-Gleichungen formuliert Poincaré 1905. Die von Lorentz 1899 angegebene Transformation lautet, wenn S' als relativ zu S längs der x-Achse mit v bewegt angenommen wird:

x'=(x-vt)/ sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) , y'=y, z'=z


Der Ausdruck für die [b[Zeittransformation[/b] wird in der Arbeit von 1904 sinngemäß angegeben mit:

t'=(t-vx)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)"

source (http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/einstein/node18.html)

[Taibak]

Because every book on relativity I've ever read has said that the equations were first published in 1904, and I even have his paper with them as derived from Maxwell's equations.


Well I've got a copy of the 1895 book and he talks about Maxwell in the book.

Okay... he talks about Maxwell. But does he *derive* the Lorentz transformations from Maxwell's equations? There's a huge difference.

[Normandy6644]

Your “history of Einstein papers” is probably limited to the $5 book, “The Principle of Relativity”.

It was $8 thank you very much. :D And what's wrong with that one? Not that it's the only book to go by, but it certainly is a primary source. Oh right, the whole media conspiracy thing. Gotcha. Barnes and Noble is gonna hear about this.

[Sam5]

. The Shapiro experiment, for instance, has two possible explanations: one is that gravity warps spacetime, the other is that light slows down.

The EM radar waves slowed down. What more could you ask for? You can call it anything you want, “curved space-time”, “magic”, “nonsense”, or whatever you want, but he proved that the waves slowed down, and this is exactly what Einstein predicted in 1911 and 1916 and I’ve provided physics websites that say so. I’ve got a TV documentary with Shapiro in it saying that the EM signals slowed down.

[Tensor]

your invention of the history of Einstein's papers, your insinuation that Normandy6644 can't read German, your claim


My “history of the Einstein papers” means that I’ve found and read and paid a lot of money buying and invested a lot of time in finding rare Einstein papers that you’ve never heard of . Your “history of Einstein papers” is probably limited to the $5 book, “The Principle of Relativity”.

You mean the one with the equations? And the predictions from those equations that match experiments?

[Sam5]

Your “history of Einstein papers” is probably limited to the $5 book, “The Principle of Relativity”.

It was $8 thank you very much. :D And what's wrong with that one? Not that it's the only book to go by, but it certainly is a primary source. Oh right, the whole media conspiracy thing. Gotcha. Barnes and Noble is gonna hear about this.


It’s not a “conspiracy”, it’s a “trend”. The media follows great trends. Reporters report what other reporters say, and other reporters report what they read in other media reports. The myths feed on themselves.

It’s sort of like the media trends that one year say “coffee is bad”, and two years later they say “coffee is good for you”, and two years later they say “coffee is bad”. This coffee thing has being going back and forth for the past 40 years. That’s a flip-flop trend, not a “conspiracy”.

[Normandy6644]

Your “history of Einstein papers” is probably limited to the $5 book, “The Principle of Relativity”.

It was $8 thank you very much. :D And what's wrong with that one? Not that it's the only book to go by, but it certainly is a primary source. Oh right, the whole media conspiracy thing. Gotcha. Barnes and Noble is gonna hear about this.


It’s not a “conspiracy”, it’s a “trend”. The media follows great trends. Reporters report what other reporters say, and other reporters report what they read in other media reports. The myths feed on themselves.

It’s sort of like the media trends that one year say “coffee is bad”, and two years later they say “coffee is good for you”, and two years later they say “coffee is bad”. This coffee thing has being going back and forth for the past 40 years. That’s a flip-flop trend, not a “conspiracy”.

Look I absolutely agree with you on this. The media can essentially produce almost any effect it wants on the masses. The problem is the media won't waste energy on a subject that the masses won't undertstand. This is why reading primary scientific sources is (excuse the pun) relatively accurate. That book has the real papers. it's a good source. And it's not the media who keeps relativity alive. While I'm sure it has elevated Einstein's celebrity, the fact remains that his theories are intact as of right now.

[parejkoj]

What do you mean by “first principles”? Lorentz developed them from scientific principles.


I’ve posted the actual photocopy of the Lorentz Transformation equations in the 1895 book and the Lorentz text in which he called them “transformations”.

There again, you are going with the “mass media” urban legend, rather than with the flat out truth that I’ve shown you in the 1895 Lorentz book itself.

Ok, I really just have to say something at this point. This is another perfect example of Sam5 completely misunderstanding what is going on, because he doesn't know any math. For those of you who missed it before, he has said that he has no calculations (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9731&start=1515) and has also shown indirectly (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9731&start=1570) as well as actually admitting (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9731&start=1603) that he doesn't understand mathematics. So I don't really think anyone will get anywhere explaining any of this to him. He just doesn't understand the language you are all speaking in: mathematics.

Sam5: To derive from first principles is to begin with a very basic set of assumptions and build your equations from there. Lorentz didn't do that. Einstein did. This makes Einstein's version better, since the equations actually come from somewhere reasonable. But you wouldn't understand that because you don't understand the math.

My recommendation to you is to go and review your math. Then look through a decent SR book (several have been recommended here in the past, and if you ask, I'm sure plenty of people will again recommend them). But I doubt you will listen to this, since you haven't listened to anyone else's recommendations before. So I have a proposition.

Either:

1. you take the time to actually answer the questions listed here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12739&start=631) using mathematics, logic and citing experimental evidence when necessary,
Or
2. One of us can come and visit you and help you understand the math. Heck, I'd be willing to try to teach you SR as well as the difference between time and the different clock systems that you keep bringing up. But I don't know enough about the details of GR (that's a goal for the summer), so someone else would have to do that. You would have to let one or more of us know where you live, which you may not be comfortable with, and I rather understand that.

But unless someone sits down and helps you work through the theory, including the math, this conversation will go nowhere. Very, very quickly.

Incidently, while digging around at the local university for a good GR book (they were all checked out), I found Paradoxes in the Theory of Relativity by Yakov P. Terletskii, 1968 originally published in 1966 in Russian. It has a rather simple derivation of the Lorentz transformations without assuming the constancy of light! Instead, it uses these postulates:
1. Isotropy of space.
2. Uniformity of space and time.
3. Relativity principle (equality of all inertial frames).
and uses the experimentally verified observation that mass increases at high velocities by the relation: m = m0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to get the final value of a constant. The end result is exactly the same as taking the extra assumption to be the constancy of the speed of light (which results in a simpler derivation), but I thought it was an interesting method.

And you still end up with the velocity of light being constant, because of the way that frames transform.

Well, I thought it was neat. I'd recommend anyone checking out this book. Quite interesting, though his proofs are somewhat sparse at times. But his explanation of the "Clock Paradox" is quite simple, and as soon as he shows the Minkowski plane for the situation, the solution is completely obvious. Maybe you should check it out Sam5.

and I should go to bed... need to read a paper on a relativistic proof of maximum pulsar mass by one of my old professors. :D

and this was WAY longer than I intended.

[Sam5]

Here's another one for you Sam.

Are you saying the 1895 book doesn't exist?

[Normandy6644]

Does anybody else find it ironic that based on the title of this thread we've been debating EinsIEn's theories? :lol: Anyway I'm done for tonight. Tomorrow is another fun-filled day (not really) and I'd like to make sure I wake up in time for it. :wink:

[Normandy6644]

Here's another one for you Sam.

Are you saying the 1895 book doesn't exist?

Where did you get that? Of course it exists. it's quite good actually. it just doesn't go as deep into the theory as the 1904 paper does. THAT'S where the real matrices (transformations) come from.

Ok, now I'm really going to sleep.

[Taibak]

. The Shapiro experiment, for instance, has two possible explanations: one is that gravity warps spacetime, the other is that light slows down.

The EM radar waves slowed down. What more could you ask for? You can call it anything you want, “curved space-time”, “magic”, “nonsense”, or whatever you want, but he proved that the waves slowed down, and this is exactly what Einstein predicted in 1911 and 1916 and I’ve provided physics websites that say so. I’ve got a TV documentary with Shapiro in it saying that the EM signals slowed down.

The TV documentary and the physics websites are bad evidence compared to the math. The actual equation used in GR predicts that:

D = (2Gm/c^3)(ln (R/r) - (R - r)/r)

where D is the time delay as seen from Earth, m is the mass of the Sun, G is the gravitational constant, R is the radius of the Earth's orbit, and r is the radius of the other planet's orbit (Shapiro used Venus, if I remember right). All that says is that an observer on Earth will find that he can't use good old t=s/v to predict how long the light will take to bounce of Venus and back. It doesn't say anything about the speed of the wave.

And no, it doesn't prove that the light slowed down. Like I said, it proves that one of TWO possibilities are at work: either light is slowing down OR that time and space are warped in such a way that the speed of light is constant. The former violates several well-understood, repeatedly verified laws of physics (Maxwell's equations, the laws of physics being the same for everyone, etc.) while the latter fits snugly into those same theories. Why should we take an interpretation that doesn't fit the big picture when one that does is readily available?

[Tensor]

. The Shapiro experiment, for instance, has two possible explanations: one is that gravity warps spacetime, the other is that light slows down.

The EM radar waves slowed down. What more could you ask for? You can call it anything you want, “curved space-time”, “magic”, “nonsense”, or whatever you want, but he proved that the waves slowed down, and this is exactly what Einstein predicted in 1911 and 1916 and I’ve provided physics websites that say so.


Websites...eh?

Geepers! Go to a big library and read some good books, instead of getting all your information off the internet. Turn your computer off and go to a library.
shouldn't you follow your own advice?

I’ve got a TV documentary with Shapiro in it saying that the EM signals slowed down.

Oh, one of those mass media outlets that you tell us we should ignore?

[Sam5]

The TV documentary and the physics websites are bad evidence compared to the math.


It was Shapiro himself on TV saying that light slowed down when it passed near the sun. Go look up his papers. He conducted the experiments.

Your mind is so fixed on trying to salvage the incorrect 1905 “constancy” postulate, you won’t even believe Shapiro or Einstein himself!

Why?

Einstein said that light slows down when it passes the sun. So why don’t you believe him?

I say you’ve believed in the false 1905 “constancy” postulate for so long, not knowing about Einstein’s change of mind or his 1911 theory, you just hate to admit you’ve been wrong all these years.

Einstein said light slows down when it passes the sun, not me. I got the information from him. Why don't you believe him?

Face it, you've believed in the wrong concept all these years.

[Sam5]

Where did you get that? Of course it exists. it's quite good actually.

Oh, you have a copy? What's the title of Abschnitt 4?

[Taibak]

The TV documentary and the physics websites are bad evidence compared to the math.


It was Shapiro himself on TV saying that light slowed down when it passed near the sun. Go look up his papers. He conducted the experiments.

Your mind is so fixed on trying to salvage the incorrect 1905 “constancy” postulate, you won’t even believe Shapiro or Einstein himself!

Why?

Einstein said that light slows down when it passes the sun. So why don’t you believe him?

I say you’ve believed in the false 1905 “constancy” postulate for so long, not knowing about Einstein’s change of mind or his 1911 theory, you just hate to admit you’ve been wrong all these years.

Einstein said light slows down when it passes the sun, not me. I got the information from him. Why don't you believe him?

Face it, you've believed in the wrong concept all these years.

Two reasons: first, I can not in good conscience accept the evidence you've provided. TV documentaries are not solid, scientific evidence. I don't care who says what on camera, documentaries are by their very nature watered-down summaries of the issue, filtered through the minds of the director and the editors. They are generally NOT accurate representations of what a person really thinks. Einstein's 1911 paper is generally considered to be superceded by the 1916 paper. Having done the math and seen the experimental evidence, I agree with that view and have yet to hear any explanation given for the 1911 paper's validity.

The other is more philosophical. I believe that there is a simple, concise set of physical laws that govern the universe. Those laws form an integrated whole. They do not ultimately present a piecemeal description of the universe. Like I've said, Shapiro's work presents two possible interpretations, both of which are equally valid. If you decide that it means that the speed of light varies - and it is possible to argue that, from the Earth's point of view, it does - then you suddenly find GR presenting an exception to Maxwell's equations, which predict a constant speed of light, and to quantum mechanics, which has several features that depend on the speed of light being a constant. While those conclusions are possible, it casts doubts on two theories that have been shown to be wildly accurate. The other possiblity, that time and space are warped by gravity, gets around those difficulties. In that interpretation, the light doesn't change its speed. However, it takes a longer path through space and time than it appears to from Earth. While our eyes and brains aren't wired to visualize this path directly, its existence is a possible explanation for the time delay. While changing time and space seems strange at first, that fits much more neatly into the larger physical picture. Maxwell's equations hold, quantum mechanics works the same for all observers, and we're back on track to finding a single theory of the universe.

[milli360]

And one I've mentioned before, its use in Dirac's equations of quantum mechanics.

Explain it to us.
The Dirac equation (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DiracEquation.html), or just quantum mechanics (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/topics/QuantumMechanics.html)? :)

[milli360]

Because every book on relativity I've ever read has said that the equations were first published in 1904, and I even have his paper with them as derived from Maxwell's equations.
This wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) says Lorentz first applied them to the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1904, but he used them before that--in 1900 to transform the Maxwell equations.

Pais, in his biography of Einstein (p.125 pb) walks through all the versions of Lorentz's papers, and says "1904--Lorentz finally writes down the transformations." Unfortunately, he makes an error, and does not obtain the covariance beyond the first order terms.

[Yannox]

If aberration was so easy to understand, why, for the last several years have the anti-relativity crowd struggled with the explanation of aberration? It has been suggested that if the usual explanation for aberration is correct that then all street lights should show aberration, and that said aberration should be large enough to make a hunter miss a distant target. The Geocentrists (not geocentrists!) hold that all fundamental, physical experiments show the earth to be absolutely at rest in the universe.

[milli360]

If aberration was so easy to understand, why, for the last several years have the anti-relativity crowd struggled with the explanation of aberration?

I can think of a couple possibilities. :)

It has been suggested that if the usual explanation for aberration is correct that then all street lights should show aberration, and that said aberration should be large enough to make a hunter miss a distant target.
Who suggested that, and why?
The Geocentrists (not geocentrists!) hold that all fundamental, physical experiments show the earth to be absolutely at rest in the universe.
We know.

[AstroSmurf]

Just breaking my silence to point out that while a pendulum clock slows down in a strong gravitational field, i.e. due to a high value of gravitational acceleration g, relativity predicts a slowdown in time due to a difference in gravitational potential - i.e. due to a high difference in g * h. And the effects are vastly different in magnitude as well.

The two physical phenomena both exist, and are not by any means interchangeable or even possible to confuse with each other.

[captain swoop]

I don't think anyone is going to get anywhere with Sam.

He doesn't post the maths because he can't do the math.
His whole conduct in the thread is that of a standard conspiracy theorist, he doesn't believe you because you are using the maths and evidences of the mainstream, they are obviously part of the conspiracy.

Science hasn't got anything to do with it. If it wasn't Einstain and SR it would be the Illuminati and NWO.

[TheAtomium]

I knocked up a rather poor Paintshop Pro demonstration of how gravity warps space so that light stealthily takes a longer path through space from a to b when travelling through a gravitational field. I hope it's correct :)

http://www.widosm.com/picts/warp/biggravpre.jpg
Here you see a massive sun distorting space around it. Light travelling from the red probe (A) to the green planet (B) travels in what appears to us to be a straight line. However, the space is imperceptibly distorted by the gravitational field of the sun. If you 'unwarp' the space, you see the path of the light is like this...

http://www.widosm.com/picts/warp/biggravpost.jpg
When space is fix the warping due to gravitation, you can see that the light has not taken the shortest straight line path between the two objects. Hence it takes longer to travel the same apparent distance, and it's speed is measured to be slower. Its just an illusion :)

http://www.widosm.com/picts/warp/smallgravity.jpg
For reference, in the presence of a tiny gravitational field, the warping of space on perturbs light's path by a tiny amount, and so the speed is not measurably effected.

Phew. I realise that isn't a totally accurate picture of what goes on, but I hope it illustrates the general concept.

[SeanF]

No. The K and k frames are not stationary together at the start of the experiment. .
Yes they are. The “clock at A” in inside the k frame. At the beginning of the experiment, the k and K frames are not moving relatively. Their X axes overlap.
Geez, now you don't understand coordinate systems and transformations, either.

You know what cartesian coordinates are, as opposed to polar coordinates? You know how, once you define the two coordinate systems relative to each other, you can derive equations to take a point in the cartesian coordinate system and convert it to the same point in the polar coordinate system? Good.

Do you understand that you can't take a cartesian coordinate system and just say, "Now it's a polar coordinate system"? Do you understand that that doesn't make sense?

That's exactly what you're trying to do here.

The way it actually works is that both clocks are in the same coordinate system and then they are in different coordinate systems. Trying to say that the two clocks are in different coordinate systems when they're relatively motionless simply doesn't make sense. Quite frankly, it displays an inability to understand math.

Just breaking my silence to point out that while a pendulum clock slows down in a strong gravitational field, i.e. due to a high value of gravitational acceleration g, relativity predicts a slowdown in time due to a difference in gravitational potential - i.e. due to a high difference in g * h. And the effects are vastly different in magnitude as well.
This is a good point, and I wanted to commend AstroSmurf for pointing it out. The "gravitational" effect of GR is based on a homogenous field, where g is the same everywhere. The traditional gravitational effect on a pendulum clock is an effect of a decreasing gravity field.

This is why GR predicts that two clocks which are accelerating together (ie, both experience 1g of acceleration), but one in front of the other, will lose synchronization - the front clock (which is "higher" in the homogoneous gravitational field) will run faster, even though it is experiencing the same "gravity" as the other clock. The traditional gravitational effect on pendulum clocks would be the same for both clocks, so the front pendulum clock would run fast due to GR, too.

[Sam5]

I knocked up a rather poor Paintshop Pro demonstration of how gravity warps space so that light stealthily takes a longer path through space from a to b when travelling through a gravitational field. I hope it's correct

Your drawings don’t match Einstein’s drawings or his theory. Your second drawing show light being repelled by the sun, and it incorrectly shows a right turn, then a big left turn, then a right turn again.

[Taibak]

I knocked up a rather poor Paintshop Pro demonstration of how gravity warps space so that light stealthily takes a longer path through space from a to b when travelling through a gravitational field. I hope it's correct

Your drawings don’t match Einstein’s drawings or his theory. Your second drawing show light being repelled by the sun, and it incorrectly shows a right turn, then a big left turn, then a right turn again.

That's because it's a two-dimensional projection of three-dimensional space. The grid lines are curved near the Sun, which is an attempt to show the Sun's gravity warping space. What looks like repulsion is just the light following the curvature. That said, TheAtomium's drawings show exactly what Einstein's theories predict - that light follows the shortest possible path through curved space, which causes it to bend just as TheAtomium's drawing show.

[Sam5]

I knocked up a rather poor Paintshop Pro demonstration of how gravity warps space so that light stealthily takes a longer path through space from a to b when travelling through a gravitational field. I hope it's correct

Your drawings don’t match Einstein’s drawings or his theory. Your second drawing show light being repelled by the sun, and it incorrectly shows a right turn, then a big left turn, then a right turn again.

That's because it's a two-dimensional projection of three-dimensional space. The grid lines are curved near the Sun, which is an attempt to show the Sun's gravity warping space. .

This is what happens when someone tries to prove a false premise with a phony illustration. He has the sun repelling the light beam.

Here’s a correct drawing that was modeled after Einstein’s original:

LINK (http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/lt_defl.gif)

[Normandy6644]

I knocked up a rather poor Paintshop Pro demonstration of how gravity warps space so that light stealthily takes a longer path through space from a to b when travelling through a gravitational field. I hope it's correct

Your drawings don’t match Einstein’s drawings or his theory. Your second drawing show light being repelled by the sun, and it incorrectly shows a right turn, then a big left turn, then a right turn again.

That's because it's a two-dimensional projection of three-dimensional space. The grid lines are curved near the Sun, which is an attempt to show the Sun's gravity warping space. .

This is what happens when someone tries to prove a false premise with a phony illustration. He has the sun repelling the light beam.

Here’s a correct drawing that was modeled after Einstein’s original:

LINK (http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/lt_defl.gif)

If we're talking geodesics, then depending on the strength of the field (as shown in Atomuim's drawings), the light will take whichever path that follows the curve. The way he has it drawn is that the light is followingthe curvature of the field produced by the star. The only thing I think that needs to be changes is that last little curve before it reaches the planet. I don't think it should straighten out, I think it should stay curved and arrive a bit more to the left. Other than that, it's essentially the same as Einstein's original. it just looks prettier. 8)

[Taibak]

I knocked up a rather poor Paintshop Pro demonstration of how gravity warps space so that light stealthily takes a longer path through space from a to b when travelling through a gravitational field. I hope it's correct

Your drawings don’t match Einstein’s drawings or his theory. Your second drawing show light being repelled by the sun, and it incorrectly shows a right turn, then a big left turn, then a right turn again.

That's because it's a two-dimensional projection of three-dimensional space. The grid lines are curved near the Sun, which is an attempt to show the Sun's gravity warping space. .

This is what happens when someone tries to prove a false premise with a phony illustration. He has the sun repelling the light beam.

Here’s a correct drawing that was modeled after Einstein’s original:

LINK (http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/lt_defl.gif)

Close, but not quite. In that example, the light is emitted at a different angle than in TheAtomium's drawing, nor does it attempt to show the curvature of space. Those two things make all the difference.

[milli360]

Close, but not quite. In that example, the light is emitted at a different angle than in TheAtomium's drawing, nor does it attempt to show the curvature of space. Those two things make all the difference.
Exactly what Sam5 said about TheAtomium's drawing. That's what makes the drawings wrong--the two "right turns."

[TheAtomium]

Close, but not quite. In that example, the light is emitted at a different angle than in TheAtomium's drawing, nor does it attempt to show the curvature of space. Those two things make all the difference.
Exactly what Sam5 said about TheAtomium's drawing. That's what makes the drawings wrong--the two "right turns."

Yes, those end curves are simply due to the fact I used a cheap PSP filter to distort space :) But the main curve would indeed exist.

I am simply showing how gravity curves space, sam5. I ignored the curve due to gravitational attraction, as that would confuse the effect, not only that but it would add to the distortion.

The top diagram is what space looks like to use. Obviously space doesnt have grid lines everywhere, so we dont see the warping. The ssecond diagram shows the 'true' nature, where light curves.

You must be able to understand this?

[TravisM]

I've probably waited too long.

Good lord, where do I start? Probably not by introducing the concept of God into this tangle... :)

Einstien is wrong? Maybe he's not exact. And, maybe the description of spacetime as a fourth-dimensional space might not be representative of the true nature of the universe. However, spacetime with this geometry is in agreement, superb agreement, with measurements and observations.

It might be your inability, Sam5, to grasp the concept of large dimensional spaces. This is okay, because most people cannot imagine more than 3 at a time. 2d screens, monitors, CRTs, TVs and photographs are inadequate to attempt to display anything higher than a 3d looking image without some distortion.
Maybe there's hope to project a 4d image on some kind of 3d holographic display, which there are prototypes of now, but I don't know how much of a help this would be for you. (Or anyone, for that matter.)

Minkowski generated the geometric description for spacetime. Space and time were regarded as seperate entities for many years. The projection of time as a dimension, with the same worth or value (at a right angle to... here ;) ) as the 3 we preceive every day, is a concept that is still hard for me to grasp.

I have never taken a course on SR or GR. Nor do I have the math skills to 'verify' its results. I do not take the theory as proven. That's why even the course names include the word THEORY. If you have a dictionary look up the term if you don't know what it means, everyone else too. (Not just Sam5, I'd hate to single him out...)

All anyone here is doing is trying to impart their unique understanding of a theory. Unique understanding. It's hard to wrap our heads around these things in order to come to a 'complete' understanding.

I imagine the universe as some unbelievable complex bubble of energy that just happens to be observing itself. :) All the math in the world makes it no less pretty.

Now that I feel like a complete geek, I will gracefully bow out of a thread I shouldn't have trampled upon.

[Normandy6644]

All anyone here is doing is trying to impart their unique understanding of a theory. Unique understanding. It's hard to wrap our heads around these things in order to come to a 'complete' understanding.

All anyone here is really trying to do is debate the facts at hand. I don't think anyone would argue that relativity is 100% sound. What many people would argue is that there are certain parts of it that have been tested extensively, and are continuing to be subjected to rigorous experimentation. That's the point really. i guess. :lol:


I imagine the universe as some unbelievable complex bubble of energy that just happens to be observing itself. All the math in the world makes it no less pretty.

No, in fact the math makes it more pretty when you begin to understand it all.
:D

[d 2022]

The ideas may have begun there, but the actual equations that are today considered the "Lorentz Transformations" weren't published until 1904.
Out of curiosity, would being able to recognise this hinge on understanding the math?

Well more or less. it's more about recognizing what the transformations are. They just aren't explicitly there in that first paper. it's mostly a commentary on the MM experiment. By 1904 he had come up with his brilliant equations, and this is the paper that my book says Einstein didn't know about. Certainly Einstein knew of Lorentz and what he had to say about the MM experiment (I'm not sure on this though, perhaps he didn't).
Edited to fix quote:
Lorentz transform is made all about including ether in the calculation... Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Michelson-Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer.Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E=Mc2
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html
(Eq.5) t1/t2 = [2sc/(c2-ve2)][(c2-ve2).5/2s]

which reduces to:
(Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1-ve2/c2)-.5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the ether, one sees:
(Eq.6) ve = 0

hence:
Eq.7) t1/t2 = 1/(1-0).5 = 1/1 = 1
Such a ratio as (Eq.7) shows is exactly what every successive try of the linear M-M test has obtained...(notice: linear not angular). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well-known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether... we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord... Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence, said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether; hence it was possible to detect the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Michelson-Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E=Mc2 ... the derivation of which follows:
Starting with (Eq.5): t1/t2=(1-ve2/c2)-.5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1-ve2/c2).5 (to bring t2=t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct, one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass sees it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it....
let m1 = mass as it appears to riding observer
let v1 = velocity as detected by rider
let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it
let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it

then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:
(Eq.9) m1v1 not= m2v2 (to either observer)

So, to equate the two products, Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1-ve2/c2).5 which would bring m1v1=m2v2 to either observer,... yielding the following extension:

since,... v1 = s1/t1 and v2 = s2/t2 (assuming time is reference)
(Eq.10) m1s1/t1 not =m2s2/t1

or,...
(Eq.10) m1s1 not= m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2=s1(l-ve2/c2).5 (assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1-ve2/c2).5 which reduces to:
(Eq.11) m1=m2(1-ve2/c2).5

To re-evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor: (1 - ve2/c2)-.5 (which transforms t1=t2) .It is of the general binomial type:
(Eq.12) (1-b)-a

Hence, it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:
(Eq.13) 1+ab+a(a+1)b2/2!+a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3!+... etc

where: b2 is less than 1

So, setting... a=.5 and b=ve2/c2

one obtains:
(Eq.14) 1+(ve2/2c2)+(3ve4/8c4)+(5ve6/16c6)+... etc

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less the evaluation of (1-ve2/c2).5 is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):
(Eq.15) (1-ve2/c2)-.5=1+ve2/2c2

so, (Eq.ll) becomes:
(Eq.16) m2=m1(1+ve2/c2) (where ve less than .25c)

developing further,... m2=m1+m1ve2/2c2
(Eq.17) m2-m1=.5m1ve2/c2

Remembering energy (E) is represented by:
(Eq.18*) E=.5mv2(where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq.18*) into (Eq.17*) giving...
(Eq.19) m2-m1=E/c2 (assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2-m1)by M gives:
(Eq.20) M=E/c2

or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):
(Eq.21) E=mc2

(Note, however, that equation (14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)...(ve) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity... This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for Special Relativity.

[SeanF]

Lorentz transform is made all about including ether in the calculation... Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Michelson-Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer.Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E=Mc2
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html
You know, once you post a link to the website, it's not really necessary to cut-and-paste the whole bloody thing into your post.

This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for Special Relativity.
It means no such thing. Just read Einstein's papers and you can follow how a constant speed of light for all observers (not just those motionless to some "ether") derives to E=mc^2. No "ether" or "fluid space" required.

Your demonstration that assuming a fluid ether also leads to E=mc^2 doesn't mean that's where Einstein got it - especially since numerous experiments have shown that there is no ether.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Well, maybe I should chime in a bit. I have tempted many times to lock this thread. Why? Because, Sam5 is either incapable or unwilling to understand what people are saying. Sam5, I have seen you go on and on with your statements, misinterpreting what people are saying even after multiple explanations. I have seen this behavior in many, many people on this board and others, and it is exasperating.

The only hope is for you to ease up on your beliefs, sit down with more books (or better yet, take a class on this stuff), and actually learn it instead of rejecting it out-of-hand. Unfortunately, it's also clear you need to learn more math to understand this. This is not an insult, it's simply a statement that there is a basic math level needed to work on this. I don't have the math skills necessary to do high-level SR, for example. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it's just a reality. You have been making some errors that are pretty basic, like the whole dt issue.

I have let this thread continue for several reasons, mostly because there is a lot of good knowledge in it. But it's clear to me that the original premise is long gone, and arguing these points with Sam5 will go nowhere as long as he doesn't try to reach beyond what he already thinks he knows.

[d 2022]

Lorentz transform is made all about including ether in the calculation... Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Michelson-Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer.Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E=Mc2
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html
You know, once you post a link to the website, it's not really necessary to cut-and-paste the whole bloody thing into your post.

That`s right but it it refreshing to see some math equations. :wink:

This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for Special Relativity.

It means no such thing. Just read Einstein's papers and you can follow how a constant speed of light for all observers (not just those motionless to some "ether") derives to E=mc^2. No "ether" or "fluid space" required.

Your demonstration that assuming a fluid ether also leads to E=mc^2 doesn't mean that's where Einstein got it - especially since numerous experiments have shown that there is no ether.
Note that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid... one undetectable by known technology.
So actually undetectable by known technology does not meant necessary non existent. :wink:

[SeanF]

Note that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid... one undetectable by known technology.
So actually undetectable by known technologydoes not mean necessary non existent. :wink:
Well, now you're just contradicting yourself. If you predict the same results whether there's an ether or not, then there's no cause to claim that getting the predicted results indicates an ether (which is what you did - "This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for Special Relativity").

And if you predict different results depending on whether there's an ether or not, then you've got a mechanism for detecting said ether. And probably a Nobel Prize, too, if you do detect it. :)

[d 2022]

Note that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid... one undetectable by known technology.
So actually undetectable by known technologydoes not mean necessary non existent. :wink:
Well, now you're just contradicting yourself. If you predict the same results whether there's an ether or not, then there's no cause to claim that getting the predicted results indicates an ether (which is what you did - "This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for Special Relativity").

And if you predict different results depending on whether there's an ether or not, then you've got a mechanism for detecting said ether. And probably a Nobel Prize, too, if you do detect it. :)
The author conclusion is revelator
In essence, what Michelson, Morley, Einstein, and many other scientists have said is that the M-M test showed the velocity of light was not affected by the Earth's orbital motion. "Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw":

1) The Earth is orbiting the Sun and there is no ether, or,

2) The Earth is not orbiting the Sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by Earth's observed helio-centric orbit.

However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a third option:

3) The Earth is orbiting Ihe Sun and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.

In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether... only whether or not the Earth is moving relative to such an ether.

[Normandy6644]

Note that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid... one undetectable by known technology.
So actually undetectable by known technology does not meant necessary non existent

Yes they did, mainly because they were an attempt to salvage the ether based on the null result of the MM experiment. And you are absolutely right that just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there; however, as of now it has yet to be detected, and therefore we have to conclude that it does not exist. Perhaps in the future it will be detetced, but to quote Djimon Honsou at the end of Gladiator, "not yet." :lol:

[Flaney]

You're doing your math wrong. While they are separating:

At Tc=x (x>1100), C will be at a distance of v(x-1100). The duration for the signal to get back to A will be v(x-1100)/c, giving an arrival time of Ta=x+v(x-1100)/c.

Substituting 0.5c for v and simplifying gives us Ta=(1.5)Tc-550.

You're changing the reference frames!

C approaches A @ 0.5c:
At n=0, Tao = 500 seconds; Do = 300 ls and the time on C's clock as seen at A is;
Tco =Tao - Do/c = 200 seconds.

n seconds later in A's frame:
Tcn = Tan - Dn/c, where Dn = Do - v(Tan - Tao) = Do - vn, and Tan =Tao+n.
substituting:
Tcn = Tao - Do/c + n(1+v/c) = Tco + n(1+v/c) [n<600]

At n=600 seconds, Dn=0 and Tcn = Tan = 1100 seconds.

Now C will receed from A:
Tcm = Tam - Dm/c, where Dm = Dn + v(Tam - Tan). Tam = Tan + m.
substituting:
Tcm = Tam - Dn/c -v/c(m) = Tan + m -v/c(m). Dn/c = 0 at n = 600 when receedng starts.
Tcm = Tan + m(1-v/c) = Tcn + m(1-v/c). [m>0]

NOTE that all clock times (Tco,Tcn,Tcm,Tan,Tam,Tao) are as viewed by A!


You seem to be laboring under the impression that the moment they pass will be the moment equal signals arrive at A. The truth is the moment they pass will be the broadcast time of the signals that will eventually reach A at the same time.

So while C is approaching at 0.5c, A sees the image of C's clock running fast: delTc = 1.5n, n are seconds counted by A's clock.

At n=600 (and m=0), both clocks show the same time at the same place, D=0.
C begins receeding from A (m>0) at 0.5c. A sees the image of C's clock running slow: delTc = 0.5m, m are seconds counted by A's clock.

Again, all measures are from A's reference only; what A sees!

Does that explain it clearly, SeanF?

[swansont]

Then I think maybe qm theory should be adjusted somewhat. The gravity field obviously slows down the oscillation rate of the atom, thus it oscillates more slowly and emits light of a lower frequency in a stronger gravity field. And remember, in this same stronger gravity field, a pendulum clock speeds up.

...

If as you say that gravity does not affect the “energy state” of an atom, why would the oscillation rates slow down in a gravity field. Maybe it takes more energy for them to oscillate rapidly in a gravity field.

We have solved the equations that describe atomic oscillations as well as pendula. We've tested them and they work. That's how we know gravity doesn't do these things. If gravity affected the oscillation rate, shouldn't it be a constant frequency change, since it's acting on the electron no matter what atom is used, or which transition? Why is the fractional frequency change independent of the type of atom or the oscillation rate?

Ok, you have an atomic clock in DC, right? And its “tick rate” is based on the oscillation rates of the atoms that are used inside the clock for the timing mechanism, right?

So you move the clock to Denver where the gravitational strength is slightly weaker at the earth’s surface, and your atomic clock tick rate speeds up a little, right?

We have more than one atomic clock. Yes, the clocks are adjusted for altitude because of the difference in the gravitational potential. What I want to know is why the shift is the same for a Hydrogen maser, a cesium beam tube clock, and a rubidium clock, each of which necessarily use transitions at different frequencies, and have different masses in their nuclei.

As a matter of interest, this (http://www.uni-konstanz.de/quantum-optics/qmet/) site has a paper that measures the effects of relativity using an optical resonator as a clock. The paper also notes other experiments, using nuclear transitions and even a quartz oscillator, that confirm relativity. Your position is that only atomic transitions exhibit this behavior, is it not?

Oh, and this isn't "mass media." It's Physical Review Letters, which is a peer-reviewed journal.

[SeanF]

You're doing your math wrong. While they are separating:

At Tc=x (x>1100), C will be at a distance of v(x-1100). The duration for the signal to get back to A will be v(x-1100)/c, giving an arrival time of Ta=x+v(x-1100)/c.

Substituting 0.5c for v and simplifying gives us Ta=(1.5)Tc-550.

You're changing the reference frames!

No, I'm not. Look, I don't have time to go through your math steps and figure out what you're doing wrong. Just consider a specific example:

Given that C is approaching A at 0.5c and passes A at T=1100, we know that C's distance was 30 light-seconds at T=1040. Agreed?

At that time (T=1040), C emitted Tc=1040. Agreed?

Because C is 30 light-seconds away from A at that time, it will take 30 seconds for that signal to reach A. Agreed?

So if the signal starts at T=1040, and arrives 30 seconds later, it will arrive at T=1070. Agreed?

This means that when Ta=1070, A will be "seeing" Tc=1040. Has to.

You posted the equation:
Tc=(1.5)Ta-550 [approaching A]
Plugging Ta=1070 into that equation results in Tc=1055. Last time I checked, 1055 does not equal 1040.

Like I said, I'm not going to go through your work and figure out if you've got a simple math error or if it's a conceptual error. Bottom line is, your final equation doesn't give the right answer, so it's got to be wrong. You've got A seeing C running fast, but not fast enough. You've got a factor of 1.5, it should be 2.

And you've got a similar problem in your "receding" equation. You've got a factor of 1/2 and it should be 2/3.

You're doing something wrong somewhere.

[Edit]Just realized it's got to be a problem with approaching/receding. The factor should be 2/3 for receding, and you've got 3/2 for approaching. The factor should be 2/1 for approaching, and you've got 1/2 for receding. That's got to mean something . . . :-?

[swansont]

Einstein said clocks would slow down if they moved in either direction along the x axis in the SR paper, but the Hafele-Keating experiment had the Eastbound clocks slowing down, and the Westbound clocks speeding up. This isn’t in SR theory. The Hafele-Keating flying clocks gained time overall. This isn’t in SR theory. Moving clocks don’t gain time in SR theory.


Finally, they come to the conclusion that all they have to remember is that “moving clocks slow down”, and “it’s always the other guy’s clock that slows down, and never your own,” and they think they finally “understand relativity”.

Seems to me that, by your own criteria, you are someone who only thinks he understands relativity.

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

[Yannox]

It is significant that the moon, streetlights, and artificial satellites do not exhibit aberration. Any source of light originating inside the earth's gravitational field does not exhibit aberration. This may mean that aberration originates at the edges of gravitational fields, for the sun and planets do exhibit aberration.Could aberration be due solely to the air? Not likely, but it could originate at the edge of the earth's gravitational field. More likely, the Fresnell drag of the gravitational or electro-magnetic field of the sun and the earth could account for the aberration just as well.

[Sam5]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

[Ricimer]

It is significant that the moon, streetlights, and artificial satellites do not exhibit aberration. Any source of light originating inside the earth's gravitational field does not exhibit aberration. This may mean that aberration originates at the edges of gravitational fields, for the sun and planets do exhibit aberration.Could aberration be due solely to the air? Not likely, but it could originate at the edge of the earth's gravitational field. More likely, the Fresnell drag of the gravitational or electro-magnetic field of the sun and the earth could account for the aberration just as well.

Yannov: There are several problems with the earth stationary point of view.

I remember you asking if streetlights show abberation, or if a hunter misses his distant target.

The answer, btw, is yes.

Over long distances onthe earth, shot's fired in a north-south line must correct for a sideways component that arises, shifting where the shot lands further west. This abberation, when viewed from a rotating frame of reference appear to be due to forces. This particular force is the "coriolis force". Many other peculiar results must use the mechanics translated into a rotating frame of reference in order to get the correct result.

Street-lights show some abberation, but not as strong as starlight does. This is because the light already has a horizontal component to its motion (which negates, in part, the abberation) becauset he emitting source is stuck the earth, and so travels with it, to a certain extent.

Another proof of the rotating nature of earth, is the Focault Pendulum. Pendulums, if left alone, swing back and forth in a straight plane (think line). If you put them on a rotating platform, they will continue to swing in that straight line, even as the platform spins it around.

Feel free to try this yourself. Tie a weight to the end of a string, and send it swinging. Now, spin around (smoothly, heck sit in a desk chair for this) and notice how the pendulum continues to swing in the same direction, regardless of your rotation.

Any deviation, btw, is due to your setup (a twisted cord can cause the pendulum, or maybe you bumped it, swung it a little sideways, etc).

Now, if you put up a series of pins (or somethign to knock over) on the rotating platform, and let it rotate. Since teh pendulum's swinging motion doesn't rotate, it will move out and hit the various pins that are brought into line because of the platform rotating.

So, how does this relate to the earth?

Simple really, we set up a similar pendulum, and a really, really big one (so it travels very smoothly, for a long time, etc) and let it go. If the earth doesn't rotate, it'll just go back and forth, always in that line.

If the earth is rotating, it will appear to shift, hitting any pins we place in a circle around it. (basically we made the earth the platform).

Guess what? it hits those pins. This proves the earth is rotating.



Now, as for us going around the sun. Either everything else (and thats a lot) has to make year long circles as they do their other complicated motions, or only the earth (a single thing) goes around the sun.

I'll buy the second, far simpler one (that doesn't mess with our concepts of inertia), that allows our physics to describe everything the same way, over making an exception for everything "out there".

[Tensor]

So, how does this relate to the earth?

Simple really, we set up a similar pendulum, and a really, really big one (so it travels very smoothly, for a long time, etc) and let it go. If the earth doesn't rotate, it'll just go back and forth, always in that line.

If the earth is rotating, it will appear to shift, hitting any pins we place in a circle around it. (basically we made the earth the platform).

Guess what? it hits those pins. This proves the earth is rotating.

No it doesn't, you're forgetting Mach's Principle. All of the effects you showed will occur if everything is rotating around a stationary Earth. The moving pendulum will not prove a rotating earth unless and until that experiment is performed on another planet. If both pendulums move, neither planet could be considered stationary and the stationary earth is out. Even then though, GR would allow a stationary earth frame(along with every other frame). However....

Now, as for us going around the sun. Either everything else (and thats a lot) has to make year long circles as they do their other complicated motions, or only the earth (a single thing) goes around the sun.

I'll buy the second, far simpler one (that doesn't mess with our concepts of inertia), that allows our physics to describe everything the same way, over making an exception for everything "out there".

Applying Occam's razor, as you did above, gives the simplest explanation of the earth, and the other planets, revolving around the sun.

[Sam5]

Maybe there's hope to project a 4d image on some kind of 3d holographic display, which there are prototypes of now, but I don't know how much of a help this would be for you. (Or anyone, for that matter.)


That’s just great. So you’ve finally discovered the elusive “w” space-time coordinate, to go with the x, y, z, and t?

[Normandy6644]

Maybe there's hope to project a 4d image on some kind of 3d holographic display, which there are prototypes of now, but I don't know how much of a help this would be for you. (Or anyone, for that matter.)


That’s just great. So you’ve finally discovered the elusive “w” space-time coordinate, to go with the x, y, z, and t?

What does this have to do with anything? You're not even interpreting what he's saying correctly.

[Sam5]

Maybe there's hope to project a 4d image on some kind of 3d holographic display, which there are prototypes of now, but I don't know how much of a help this would be for you. (Or anyone, for that matter.)


That’s just great. So you’ve finally discovered the elusive “w” space-time coordinate, to go with the x, y, z, and t?

What does this have to do with anything? You're not even interpreting what he's saying correctly.

Well, why don’t you interpret it for me, since you are so smart and I'm so stupid. Tell us how he’s going to get a 4 D image in a 3 D hologram.

I’ve already seen 3-D plus time movies (x, y, z, t), so he’s talking about 4 spatial dimensions plus time.

[Normandy6644]

Maybe there's hope to project a 4d image on some kind of 3d holographic display, which there are prototypes of now, but I don't know how much of a help this would be for you. (Or anyone, for that matter.)


That’s just great. So you’ve finally discovered the elusive “w” space-time coordinate, to go with the x, y, z, and t?

What does this have to do with anything? You're not even interpreting what he's saying correctly.

Well, why don’t you interpret it for me, since you are so smart and I'm so stupid. Tell us how he’s going to get a 4 D image in a 3 D hologram.

I’ve already seen 3-D plus time movies (x, y, z, t), so he’s talking about 4 spatial dimensions plus time.

Well, as long as we're on topic... :roll:

It's called a hypercube (http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html), essentially the "shadow" of a 4d object (plus time, if you like, since time isn't a spatial direction) projected into the 3d plane. This can be done with any n-dimensional object, it just distorts it more and more to where the image isn't exactly what the object would be.

[Taibak]

Close, but not quite. In that example, the light is emitted at a different angle than in TheAtomium's drawing, nor does it attempt to show the curvature of space. Those two things make all the difference.
Exactly what Sam5 said about TheAtomium's drawing. That's what makes the drawings wrong--the two "right turns."

Okay... now I see what you two are saying. The way I interpreted the drawing - and I still think this is the right way to do it - is that the Sun's gravity causes an indentation in space, represented by the curves in the drawing. The light's path takes the shortest possible route and, loosely speaking, travels around the lip of the indentation. I'll concede that the line shouldn't straighten itself out again at the end, but it should *start* straight because space is assymptotically flat where the light was emitted.

[Taibak]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

They don't. However, just like everything else in relativity, it takes two to tango. You have to account for the clock sitting on the ground for the results to make any sense.

Here's how I would do the problem: let's use the clock sitting on the Earth's surface as our stationary reference frame and, for conceptual simplicity, assume that the Earth's atmosphere doesn't rotate with the planet. Let w be the rotational speed of the Earth and let v be the aircraft's speed, relative to the air. Let's also assume that the airplane is, essentially, orbiting at the equator at a constant altitude and that the stationary clock is also on the equator. Lastly, let's assume that the effect of gravitational time dilation is tiny compared to Lorentz time dilation.

The trick is that, from the point of view of an observer on the surface, the speed of the airplane is some combination of v and w. When the airplane is travelling westward, it's travelling against the Earth's rotation. That makes the velocity of the airplane relative to the ground:

u1 = v - w.

When the airplane is travelling eastward, it's travelling with the Earth's rotation. Therefore, the velocity of the airplane relative to the ground is:

u2 = v + w.

Since u2 > u1, you would expect different results from the experiment depending on which direction the airplane was travelling in. The clock in the airplane doesn't care which direction it's travelling. An observer on the ground, however, sees different relative velocities for the airplane. Therefore, the observer will see the clock in the airplane run slower than the clock on the ground when the airplane is travelling west. He'll see it run slower still if it's travelling east.

[Yannox]

By "proving" that the Earth rotates, has Ricimer "disproved" Reativity? A Nobel Prize for him? Not yet! By Einstein & Mach, Foucault's Pendulum & aberration are fully accountable in all geocentric, heliocentric, acentric and polycentric models!

Boscovich's & Airy's Failures, and indeed all the observations positively reek of Geocentricity, though nothing's proved yet! To perform Airy's Experiment far away from the Earth would be really worthwhile!

We're still waiting to hear about Gravity Probe B's balls: whether Einstein rises or falls, g can still be maintained. And G may yet take the cup!

What is Ricimer's source that streetlights, artificial satellites, the Moon and hunters experience aberration?

[swansont]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

I rather doubt that atoms "know" anything. The Westbound clock sped up relative to an earthbound clock, which is not in an inertial frame, and thus you can't use SR to directly compare the clocks.

When you construct a strawman argument by misapplying the theory, of course you are going to get the wrong answer. It proves absolutely nothing. GIGO.

[Sam5]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

I rather doubt that atoms "know" anything. The Westbound clock sped up relative to an earthbound clock, which is not in an inertial frame, and thus you can't use SR to directly compare the clocks.


Oh, the Hafele-Keating clocks were in “inertial frames”? They felt no gravity on them? You mean they floated inside the Westbound airplanes and the airplanes didn’t follow the curvature of the earth?

[Sam5]

When you construct a strawman argument by misapplying the theory, of course you are going to get the wrong answer. It proves absolutely nothing. GIGO.

You are saying meaningless things in an attempt to pretend to be intellectual.

Just tell me how the atoms in the Eastbound Hafele-Keating clocks knew to slow down their oscilation rates and the Westbound atoms knew to speed up theirs, or just say, “I don’t know.”

[Sam5]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

They don't. However, just like everything else in relativity, it takes two to tango. You have to account for the clock sitting on the ground for the results to make any sense.

Here's how I would do the problem: let's use the clock sitting on the Earth's surface as our stationary reference frame and, for conceptual simplicity

The atoms inside the flying Hafele-Keating clocks weren’t aware of the clocks sitting on the ground or the reference frame of the clocks on the ground. All they were aware of was their own surroundings and the forces they felt.

You are attempting to over-pseudo-intellectualize this too, because you don’t know the answer to my question.

[Sam5]

It's called a hypercube (http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html), essentially the "shadow" of a 4d object (plus time, if you like, since time isn't a spatial direction) projected into the 3d plane.

Interesting. I used a red and blue camera filter to see the 3-D effect. I recall when some of the guys in Palo Alto and Berkeley were making some of the first computer-image wire-frame animations of computer-generated geometrical figures. I used to make 3-D drawings back in the 4th grade in 1952, using a red and green pencil and movie-type 3-D glasses.

[Taibak]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

They don't. However, just like everything else in relativity, it takes two to tango. You have to account for the clock sitting on the ground for the results to make any sense.

Here's how I would do the problem: let's use the clock sitting on the Earth's surface as our stationary reference frame and, for conceptual simplicity

The atoms inside the flying Hafele-Keating clocks weren’t aware of the clocks sitting on the ground or the reference frame of the clocks on the ground. All they were aware of was their own surroundings and the forces they felt.

You are attempting to over-pseudo-intellectualize this too, because you don’t know the answer to my question.

Their awareness of their surroundings includes the rate at which time is passing for them. That's it. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't say that I don't know the answer just because you don't like what I said. :evil:

[Normandy6644]

It's called a hypercube (http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html), essentially the "shadow" of a 4d object (plus time, if you like, since time isn't a spatial direction) projected into the 3d plane.

Interesting. I used a red and blue camera filter to see the 3-D effect. I recall when some of the guys in Palo Alto and Berkeley were making some of the first computer-image wire-frame animations of computer-generated geometrical figures. I used to make 3-D drawings back in the 4th grade in 1952, using a red and green pencil and movie-type 3-D glasses.

Yeah, it's cool stuff. The first time I heard anything about it was on Cosmos. I didn't realize it was possible to do that, but apparently it is.

[milli360]

However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a third option:

3) The Earth is orbiting Ihe Sun and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.

In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether... only whether or not the Earth is moving relative to such an ether.
I thought that was considered, and rejected because of aberration?

[Sam5]

Their awareness of their surroundings includes the rate at which time is passing for them. That's it. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't say that I don't know the answer just because you don't like what I said. :

The atoms inside the clock are only aware of forces on them. That's it. The Eastbound clocks feel a different amount of force than the Westbound clock.

[milli360]

I am simply showing how gravity curves space, sam5. I ignored the curve due to gravitational attraction, as that would confuse the effect, not only that but it would add to the distortion.
I thought that the curves were the distortion due to gravity, that "causes" gravitational attraction. How were you ignoring it?

[Taibak]

Their awareness of their surroundings includes the rate at which time is passing for them. That's it. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't say that I don't know the answer just because you don't like what I said. :

The atoms inside the clock are only aware of forces on them. That's it. The Eastbound clocks feel a different amount of force than the Westbound clock.

What forces are you talking about? The clocks aren't affected by electromagnetism, and the wind pushing the plane is cancelled out by air drag. The ONLY force acting on the clocks is gravity, which doesn't care whether or not you go east or west.

And I repeat my questions from earlier: Why do you think you need a force to alter the rate at which time passes and how do you explain the fact that the Lorentz equations aren't dependent on forces?

Edited to add 'from.'

[swansont]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

I rather doubt that atoms "know" anything. The Westbound clock sped up relative to an earthbound clock, which is not in an inertial frame, and thus you can't use SR to directly compare the clocks.


Oh, the Hafele-Keating clocks were in “inertial frames”? They felt no gravity on them? You mean they floated inside the Westbound airplanes and the airplanes didn’t follow the curvature of the earth?

Gravity is an orthogonal effect to the motion. That was also calculated.

Since the earthbound clocks were not in an inertial frame, one cannot assume they were at rest. It has to be treated as a moving clock. You have to choose your observer who is an inertial frame, and then do the math. H&K did this. The "observer" need not be a real observer, since you do pairwise differences and said observer cancels out of all of the calculations.

[Taibak]

When you construct a strawman argument by misapplying the theory, of course you are going to get the wrong answer. It proves absolutely nothing. GIGO.

You are saying meaningless things in an attempt to pretend to be intellectual.

Just tell me how the atoms in the Eastbound Hafele-Keating clocks knew to slow down their oscilation rates and the Westbound atoms knew to speed up theirs, or just say, “I don’t know.”

From their point of view, they DON'T change speeds - the clocks ON THE GROUND are slowing down. You can't apply relativity unless you have two different reference frames.

[swansont]

When you construct a strawman argument by misapplying the theory, of course you are going to get the wrong answer. It proves absolutely nothing. GIGO.

You are saying meaningless things in an attempt to pretend to be intellectual.

Just tell me how the atoms in the Eastbound Hafele-Keating clocks knew to slow down their oscilation rates and the Westbound atoms knew to speed up theirs, or just say, “I don’t know.”

(I have to wonder - if you should get banned, will you think it's because of your "scientific" views, rather than ad hominems like this.)

What I said wasn't meaningless. Surely you can look up the words and understand what they mean. The abbreviation in question stands for "garbage in, garbage out."

Anyway, the question is nonsensical, like "A thermos keeps hot thing hot, and cold things cold. How does it know?" It doesn't know. It's just following the heat transfer laws. The atoms don't know which way they are moving. They just follow the laws of relativity.

[swansont]

Their awareness of their surroundings includes the rate at which time is passing for them. That's it. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't say that I don't know the answer just because you don't like what I said. :

The atoms inside the clock are only aware of forces on them. That's it. The Eastbound clocks feel a different amount of force than the Westbound clock.

I think everyone here is aware of your position. But we can't go any further until you tell us what, specifically, is exerting the force. Just saying, "the ether" isn't good enough, because other experiments have discounted certain properties that an ether could have.

[Lunatik]

H & K give a good explanation in their paper. It is unfortunate you misrepresent their analysis. (Hint: The westbound clock speeds up relative to what?)

Hint: How do the atoms inside the clocks know when they are moving in different directions?

They don't. However, just like everything else in relativity, it takes two to tango. You have to account for the clock sitting on the ground for the results to make any sense.

Here's how I would do the problem: let's use the clock sitting on the Earth's surface as our stationary reference frame and, for conceptual simplicity

The atoms inside the flying Hafele-Keating clocks weren’t aware of the clocks sitting on the ground or the reference frame of the clocks on the ground. All they were aware of was their own surroundings and the forces they felt.

You are attempting to over-pseudo-intellectualize this too, because you don’t know the answer to my question.

Their awareness of their surroundings includes the rate at which time is passing for them. That's it. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't say that I don't know the answer just because you don't like what I said. :evil:

This exchange is an example of what I had written earlier on the 'plausible parallels' effect of theory. One theory, the Reference frames one, is relativistic, whereas the second theory, Gravity force one, is physical. Unless one accepts Relativity as a valid theory explaining gravity, then the two do not match, so the arguments never touch and remain parallel ad infinitum. Which is right, the Reference frame or Gravity force reason for the atomic clocks to slow? How does the atom itself "know" it's supposed to slow? The simple answer is that if electromagnetic energy naturally redshifts while passing through a gravitational field, then the Gravity force is the simple reason the atomic oscillations slow in the clock. The other theory, the one using Reference frames and Relativity, is unnaturally complex to explain such a simple phenomenon. Relativity is captivatingly interesting, but it reeeaaalllly fails the Ockham's razor test. :)

Did Einstein love to fiddle? :-({|=|

[Yannox]

In the heliocentric model there are two common explanations for the aberration effect.

1:The length of the telescope tube may have been foreshortened by the Fitzgerald contraction which shortens rulers as they move faster and faster through space. This is the explanation which relativity affords.

2:The water in the telescope tube may have dragged the light beam along with it as the water orbits the sun, so that there is no aberration. This is the Fresnell drag effect which Airy expected to find.

Since both of these phenomena have been "observed," which one applies?

[Sam5]

It's called a hypercube (http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html), essentially the "shadow" of a 4d object (plus time, if you like, since time isn't a spatial direction) projected into the 3d plane.

Interesting. I used a red and blue camera filter to see the 3-D effect. I recall when some of the guys in Palo Alto and Berkeley were making some of the first computer-image wire-frame animations of computer-generated geometrical figures. I used to make 3-D drawings back in the 4th grade in 1952, using a red and green pencil and movie-type 3-D glasses.

Yeah, it's cool stuff. The first time I heard anything about it was on Cosmos. I didn't realize it was possible to do that, but apparently it is.

I lived in San Francisco in the ‘70s, and the way some of those early computer experimenters explained it to me (and to the public in some of their local news interviews) was that they could illustrate “impossible” things that could not exist in real life, by using computers to calculate the positions of the rotating lines on the screen. They could simulate other “dimensions” with the computer animation.

I think the first guys who invented moving holograms were from the San Francisco area. They were several young Berkeley guys. They rented a little warehouse in SF and they constructed a very clever hologram device. They filmed people moving on a rotating turntable, using 35 mm 2-D film. Then they converted each frame of the film into a line hologram. They turned the image of each frame into a narrow line by using a curved “cylinder lens”. They couldn’t afford to have a cylinder lens made, so they created one out of thin curved plastic sheets glued together, and they filled it with water. That made a good curved cylinder lens.

So, they put each long narrow hologram movie frame, side by side, in the form of the narrow lines, onto a large sheet of film. It took three sheets of the larger film to curve around and make a full 3-D holographic movie. They spliced the sheets together, and they put the sheet-cylinder on a small turntable, and they put a clear light bulb in the center. When the turntable was turned, we could see the hologram as a movie. It was a brilliant idea, and three Berkeley students developed it.

Another strange thing. They said they could make 3-D hologram movies out of some old Hollywood and newsreel film scenes, as long as the subjects were rotating in front of the camera, or moving past the camera rapidly, or in the rare cases where the camera revolved around the subjects, such as in the “Waltzing Matilda” kissing scene in “On the Beach”, where the camera made a 360 revolution around Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. This was a very rare type scene in Hollywood movies, since the camera had to move completely around the outside of the subjects, while rolling on curved dolly tracks. This was different from the kind of 360 pan as used in the cattle drive scene in “Red River”.

[Sam5]

Their awareness of their surroundings includes the rate at which time is passing for them. That's it. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't say that I don't know the answer just because you don't like what I said. :

The atoms inside the clock are only aware of forces on them. That's it. The Eastbound clocks feel a different amount of force than the Westbound clock.

I think everyone here is aware of your position. But we can't go any further until you tell us what, specifically, is exerting the force. Just saying, "the ether" isn't good enough, because other experiments have discounted certain properties that an ether could have.


Although I tend to like the Lorentz explanation, with the slowdown being caused by a movement through fields, there is another possible explanation that I’ve been wondering about. Could it be that Eastbound pilots have to pull back on the controls somewhat, to keep their planes at the same altitude, whereas Westbound pilots might not have to do that quite as much? In other words, could the atomic oscillation rate slowdown in the flying Eastbound atoms have something to do with the Coriolis Effect? And could those atoms feel just a little more gravity pull while flying to the East?

When thinking about this stuff, everyone needs to keep in mind that the atoms are not “resting”, since they are bouncing around due to heat energy. The gravitational effect (at the elevation where the atoms are located) causes them to bounce a little harder in the direction of “down”, depending on the gravitational strength in the place (and at the altitude) where they are located. While bouncing around in deep space, there is no gravity effect and the atoms are sort of bouncing around while floating. But near the earth’s surface, some of their bounce energy is affected by the local gravity field.

Obviously, the Eastbound and Westbound atoms felt a different amount of “force” on them, since the same clocks were used for the Eastbound flight and the Westbound flight, and whatever that “force” was, the difference in the amount of force was what caused the atoms to oscillate at different rates while flying in the different directions. The atoms were merely reacting to the two different amounts of “force” they experienced while flying in the two different directions. This has nothing at all to do with SR theory.

[Sam5]

When you construct a strawman argument by misapplying the theory, of course you are going to get the wrong answer. It proves absolutely nothing. GIGO.

You are saying meaningless things in an attempt to pretend to be intellectual.

Just tell me how the atoms in the Eastbound Hafele-Keating clocks knew to slow down their oscilation rates and the Westbound atoms knew to speed up theirs, or just say, “I don’t know.”

From their point of view, they DON'T change speeds - the clocks ON THE GROUND are slowing down. You can't apply relativity unless you have two different reference frames.


The clocks on the ground don’t do any such thing. The Eastbound flying atoms oscillate more slowly than the earthbased atoms, and the Westbound flying atoms oscillate more rapidly than the earthbased atoms. Obviously, there is some “force” placed on all the atoms, with more of the force being placed on the Eastbound atoms than on the Westbound atoms. The flying atoms aren’t even aware of the earthbased atoms or what they are doing. It is the physical conditions and forces at each grouping of atoms that tell the atoms what to do.

[Sam5]

Anyway, the question is nonsensical, like "A thermos keeps hot thing hot, and cold things cold. How does it know?" It doesn't know. It's just following the heat transfer laws. The atoms don't know which way they are moving. They just follow the laws of relativity.


LOL! You mean they all went to universities and read “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”?? LOL!

I tend to believe that the atoms feel a different amount of “force” on them when they move East and West. And no, I don’t know exactly what the “force” is.

It’s really easy and quite painless to occasionally say, “I don’t know.”

[milli360]

You mean they all went to universities and read “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”??”
I'm pretty sure that they meant the opposite--they do not have to read it. Atoms can't read all that well--I think they have the lowest SAT verbal scores of all particles, micro- or macro-scopic.

[swansont]

I tend to believe that the atoms feel a different amount of “force” on them when they move East and West. And no, I don’t know exactly what the “force” is.


Wow. And it only took 1969 posts.

[swansont]

Although I tend to like the Lorentz explanation, with the slowdown being caused by a movement through fields, there is another possible explanation that I’ve been wondering about. Could it be that Eastbound pilots have to pull back on the controls somewhat, to keep their planes at the same altitude, whereas Westbound pilots might not have to do that quite as much? In other words, could the atomic oscillation rate slowdown in the flying Eastbound atoms have something to do with the Coriolis Effect? And could those atoms feel just a little more gravity pull while flying to the East?



Except that the Lorentz transformation explanation has no fields. That's not a small problem.

It's not gravity. Do the math.

[Sam5]

You mean they all went to universities and read “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”??”
I'm pretty sure that they meant the opposite--they do not have to read it. Atoms can't read all that well--I think they have the lowest SAT verbal scores of all particles, micro- or macro-scopic.

How do you think the atoms sealed inside the clocks know when they are moving East or West?

[The Bad Astronomer]

How do you think the atoms sealed inside the clocks know when they are moving East or West?

You ask this question a lot, which strikes me as odd. How do my tires know when they are on a dirt road versus a paved one? How does my hair know to be darker when it's wet? How does anything know anything?

My guess is, it's a property of space itself. Atoms know nothing; they behave according to the rules built into the fabric of the Universe.

[d 2022]

Their awareness of their surroundings includes the rate at which time is passing for them. That's it. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't say that I don't know the answer just because you don't like what I said. :

The atoms inside the clock are only aware of forces on them. That's it. The Eastbound clocks feel a different amount of force than the Westbound clock.

I think everyone here is aware of your position. But we can't go any further until you tell us what, specifically, is exerting the force. Just saying, "the ether" isn't good enough, because other experiments have discounted certain properties that an ether could have.
To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase, and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid... one undetectable by known technology.

Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special Theory of Relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: the velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe - (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe, however.)

[Sam5]

How do you think the atoms sealed inside the clocks know when they are moving East or West?

You ask this question a lot, which strikes me as odd. How do my tires know when they are on a dirt road versus a paved one? How does my hair know to be darker when it's wet? How does anything know anything?

Geepers, I’m awed by your presence.

Here’s what I figure... atoms, rocks, planets, etc. “know” things by what is within them (the laws of physics contained inside them that they have to abide by), and by what comes in to them from the outside, sort of like all the stuff inside an old sealed Egyptian tomb. Mostly nothing ever gets into an old sealed Egyptian tomb, except maybe 5,000 years of cosmic rays or maybe some new sonic waves or X-rays sent into them by archaeologists. So, things happen to some stuff inside an Egyptian tomb that doesn’t usually happen to similar stuff that exists in other places and that are not sealed up for 5,000 years.

For example, some old wood “carbonizes” inside a sealed Egyptian tomb. On the other hand, old wood soaking in the Atlantic for a few hundred years tends to rot and is eaten away by bugs and stuff. Yet when old wood stays under Like Michigan for just 100 to 150 years or so, guess what happens to it?

It starts to petrify. It starts absorbing minerals and it starts turning into stone (the wood particles get replaced by the mineral particles). I interviewed a guy who specialized in making furniture out of old Lake Michigan shipwrecks, and he showed me some of his heavy wood, filled with minerals, and he showed me how sparks fly off of his saw blade when he cut it, because it was so filled with minerals.

So, atoms and molecules “know” what to do, based on what is inside them, what is sealed inside the containers they are in, and what comes in from the outside. In the sealed Egyptian tombs, wood carbonizes. In the Atlantic ocean, wood rots. In Lake Michigan, wood petrifies. And so that wood “knows” where it is, based on what happens to it, what surrounds it, and what comes in (or doesn’t come in) from the outside.

So those atoms sealed inside the Hafele-Keating clocks somehow knew that they were traveling in two opposite directions, since the same clocks were used in both the Eastbound flight and the Westbound flight.

Something in nature, at the atoms, inside the clocks, told those atoms to slow down in one direction and speed up in the other.

And after all, SR theory said that clocks moving in EITHER direction along the x axis would “slow down” relative to a clock and an observer that are stationary relative to each other. So what happened in the experiment? Hafele and Keating were basically stationary relative to the DC clock, and the DC clock was stationary relative to them, and their flying clocks were moving relative to them and the DC clock, but their flying clocks did not all “slow down” along the x axis in both directions of travel. They slowed down when they went East, and they speeded up when they went West. According to SR theory, the flying clocks should have slowed down the same amount in both directions of travel, but they didn’t. So the atoms inside the clocks had some way of knowing they were flying in opposite directions, and it was some kind of “energy” or “force” that told them so, whether that force be gravity, cosmic rays, acceleration differences, inertia differences, the Coriolis effect or whatever.

And if you say, “The earth is not an inertial frame, and the clocks weren’t flying in straight lines,” then Hafele and Keating should have never attributed their so-called “kinematical” results to SR theory.

[Sam5]

Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special Theory of Relativity in 1895, published it in 1905.

Hmm, what a coincidence. 1895, when Einstein was 16 years old, is the same year that Lorentz published his big book that talked about moving atomic clocks slowing down, mass increasing when things move, the Lorentz Transformation equations, the speed limit of c, length contraction, the relativistic Doppler effect, and some other ideas that Einstein lifted from the book and re-wrote into the 1905 SR theory.

[Taibak]

From their point of view, they DON'T change speeds - the clocks ON THE GROUND are slowing down. You can't apply relativity unless you have two different reference frames.


The clocks on the ground don’t do any such thing. The Eastbound flying atoms oscillate more slowly than the earthbased atoms, and the Westbound flying atoms oscillate more rapidly than the earthbased atoms. Obviously, there is some “force” placed on all the atoms, with more of the force being placed on the Eastbound atoms than on the Westbound atoms. The flying atoms aren’t even aware of the earthbased atoms or what they are doing. It is the physical conditions and forces at each grouping of atoms that tell the atoms what to do.

Sam5: You're missing the whole point of relativity here. An observer on the airplane and an observer on the ground have two different explanations for what's happening. The observer on the ground sees the clock on the plane slow down. The observer on the plane sees the clock on the ground slow down. Both explanations are completely valid.


I tend to believe that the atoms feel a different amount of “force” on them when they move East and West. And no, I don’t know exactly what the “force” is.


Although I tend to like the Lorentz explanation, with the slowdown being caused by a movement through fields, there is another possible explanation that I’ve been wondering about. Could it be that Eastbound pilots have to pull back on the controls somewhat, to keep their planes at the same altitude, whereas Westbound pilots might not have to do that quite as much? In other words, could the atomic oscillation rate slowdown in the flying Eastbound atoms have something to do with the Coriolis Effect? And could those atoms feel just a little more gravity pull while flying to the East?



Except that the Lorentz transformation explanation has no fields. That's not a small problem.

It's not gravity. Do the math.

I agree. The Lorentz equations don't involve fields and don't involve any forces. Even just a quick overview of the forces acting on the plane should tell you that no forces are acting in the direction the plane is moving in. Gravity doesn't care about east/west motion, electromagnetism has no effect, air resistence and the wind cancel each other out, the centripetal force doesn't care about east/west motion, and the ether doesn't exist. I can't think of any other possibilities here.

Edited to fix a tag.

[Sam5]

Sam5: You're missing the whole point of relativity here.

Thank Zeus!

An observer on the airplane and an observer on the ground have two different explanations for what's happening. The observer on the ground sees the clock on the plane slow down. The observer on the plane sees the clock on the ground slow down. Both explanations are completely valid.


No, you and I have two different explanations for what happened. You believe in SR “magic”, and I believe in science. It was NOT the airplane pilots who disagreed with Hafele and Keating about what they "saw". It was the clock read-outs that had different readings for the East and West flights.

Geepers!

What you are saying is pseudo-science nonsense! I actually read the Hafele-Keating papers, I’ve got copies of them in my files, and the clock read-outs showed that the tick rates of the flying clocks SLOWED DOWN WHILE FLYING EAST, and the same clocks’ tick rates SPEEDED UP WHILE FLYING WEST. All observers agree about that because that’s what Hafele and Keating said the clock read-outs said at the end of each flight. You could have been traveling to Mars at 17 miles per second, and the clock read-outs that were published in Hafele and Keating’s paper said the same thing, whether you were here on earth or on the way to Mars.

What you are trying to claim is that the pilots that traveled with the clocks saw one thing happen while Hafele and Keating who stayed on the ground saw something else happen. That’s nonsense!

[Sam5]

swansont, Milli, et al


The observer on the ground sees the clock on the plane slow down. The observer on the plane sees the clock on the ground slow down. Both explanations are completely valid.

Hey, why don’t you guys tell Taibak that he’s got things all mixed up.

He thinks the pilots of the Hafele-Keating flying clocks airplanes saw all the earth-based clocks slow down, and he thinks that Hafele and Keating saw all the flying clocks slow down.

Please straighten him out about this.

[Tensor]

No, you and I have two different explanations for what happened. You believe in SR “magic”, and I believe in science.

What you are saying is pseudo-science nonsense! !

You keep saying this Sam5, so if it is magic and nonsense, why do the mathematical predictions of SR match our observations?



I tend to believe that the atoms feel a different amount of “force” on them when they move East and West. And no, I don’t know exactly what the “force” is.

Let's see, you say you believe that a force is involved, but don't have any idea what the force is. Your idea sounds a lot like magic to me.

[milli360]

I tend to believe that the atoms feel a different amount of “force” on them when they move East and West. And no, I don’t know exactly what the “force” is.
Let's see, you say you believe that a force is involved, but don't have any idea what the force is. Your idea sounds a lot like magic to me.
Not only that, but that is at odds with GR, which Sam5 has said he does believe in.

[Sam5]

No, you and I have two different explanations for what happened. You believe in SR “magic”, and I believe in science.

What you are saying is pseudo-science nonsense! !

You keep saying this Sam5, so if it is magic and nonsense, why do the mathematical predictions of SR match our observations?


The mathematical predictions of SR DID NOT MATCH the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Taibak specifically said about the Hafele-Keating experiment:


An observer on the airplane and an observer on the ground have two different explanations for what's happening. The observer on the ground sees the clock on the plane slow down. The observer on the plane sees the clock on the ground slow down.

He thinks that the airplane pilots DISAGREED with Hafele and Keating about what they all “saw”. He thinks the pilots saw all the earth-based clocks slow down, and he thinks that Hafele and Keating saw all the flying clocks slow down.

But here is the mathematical results of the experiment, that I quote directly from one of the Hafele-Keating papers, published in Science magazine, July 14, 1972:

The Eastbound clocks averaged a loss of “–59 nanoseconds” as compared to the earth-based clocks, and the Westbound clocks GAINED an average of “+273 nanoseconds” when compared to the earth-based clocks, so ALL the flying clocks averaged a GAIN of + 214 nanoseconds over the earth-based clocks.

The flying clocks averaged a SPEED UP, not a slow down, and all the pilots AND Hafele and Keating saw this in the read-outs of the clocks. Hafele and Keating and the pilots all AGREED. And it’s obvious that Taibak has absolutely no idea what the Hafele-Keating experiment turned up or what they said in their papers.

If you don’t understand Taibak’s fundamental error, then I’m just going to give up and go live on a desert island somewhere.

[Sam5]

I tend to believe that the atoms feel a different amount of “force” on them when they move East and West. And no, I don’t know exactly what the “force” is.
Let's see, you say you believe that a force is involved, but don't have any idea what the force is. Your idea sounds a lot like magic to me.
Not only that, but that is at odds with GR, which Sam5 has said he does believe in.

Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Prize winner, in his 1921 book, AFTER Einstein added “forces” to the SR theory thought experiments in his 1918 paper, in order to alter the SR paper and give a GR reason why the “moving” clock in the SR theory slowed down its tick rate:

“If we take the special case where C2 is moving along the x-axis to point Q and then back again to P, with discontinuous velocity changes at P and Q, then the effect of the acceleration will certainly be independent of t and can easily be eliminated. The paradox now lies in the following statement: Let us describe the process in terms of a reference system K’, always at rest with respect to C2. Clock C1 will then move relative to K’ in the same way as C2 moves relative to K. Yet, at the end of the motion, Clock C2 will have lost compared with C1, i.e. C1 will have gained compared with C2. The paradox is resolved by observing that the coordinate system K’ is not a Galilean reference system and that in such a system the effect of acceleration cannot be neglected, since the acceleration is not produced by an external force, but, in the terminology of Newtonian mechanics, by an inertial force.”

I didn’t invent the idea of a “force” felt by the atoms in the clocks, Lorentz did in 1895, Einstien agreed in 1918, and Pauli agreed in 1921. I got the information from them.

And the reason some people want to ban me is because I know this because I read their rare books and papers, and my critics have not read them.

[Taibak]

No, you and I have two different explanations for what happened. You believe in SR “magic”, and I believe in science.

What you are saying is pseudo-science nonsense! !

You keep saying this Sam5, so if it is magic and nonsense, why do the mathematical predictions of SR match our observations?


The mathematical predictions of SR DID NOT MATCH the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Taibak specifically said about the Hafele-Keating experiment:


An observer on the airplane and an observer on the ground have two different explanations for what's happening. The observer on the ground sees the clock on the plane slow down. The observer on the plane sees the clock on the ground slow down.

He thinks that the airplane pilots DISAGREED with Hafele and Keating about what they all “saw”. He thinks the pilots saw all the earth-based clocks slow down, and he thinks that Hafele and Keating saw all the flying clocks slow down.

But here is the mathematical results of the experiment, that I quote directly from one of the Hafele-Keating papers, published in Science magazine, July 14, 1972:

The Eastbound clocks averaged a loss of “–59 nanoseconds” as compared to the earth-based clocks, and the Westbound clocks GAINED an average of “+273 nanoseconds” when compared to the earth-based clocks, so ALL the flying clocks averaged a GAIN of + 214 nanoseconds over the earth-based clocks.

The flying clocks averaged a SPEED UP, not a slow down, and all the pilots AND Hafele and Keating saw this in the read-outs of the clocks. Hafele and Keating and the pilots all AGREED. And it’s obvious that Taibak has absolutely no idea what the Hafele-Keating experiment turned up or what they said in their papers.

If you don’t understand Taibak’s fundamental error, then I’m just going to give up and go live on a desert island somewhere.

I wasn't talking about the specific Hafele-Keating experiment as such, I was talking theory. As I stated before, I don't think the HK experiment was any good because the clocks were too imprecise and returned bad data. An experiment that falls flat as a result of faulty equipment does not disprove the theory.

I stand by my argument. A ground-based observer sees clocks flying west run slow compared to a stationary clock on the ground and sees eastbound clocks run slower still. An observer on the westbound plane sees the clock on the ground run slow, but not as slow as an observer on the eastbound plane would.

[Celestial Mechanic]

A few remarks about the Hafele-Keating experiment:

It is incorrect to say that clock rates of the clocks on the ground were compared to clock rates in the air during the flights. The clocks were flown aboard commercial flights (mostly) and the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington. Clock readings were compared on the ground, before and after each circumnavigation.

We cannot always pick and choose what effects to test for in a real experiment. (That's what thought experiments are for!) In the HK experiment we have SR effects (relative velocity) and GR effects (the gravitational field aloft compared to the field on the ground). I refer you to my "Celestial Mechanic's Angels Return" posts for an explanation and a simple, back-of-the-envelope calculation of an HK-type experiment. (At least, it's back-of-the-envelope once the math has been simplified.)

Finally, has anyone else here read the A. G. Kelley paper linked here? In particular, swansont, do you have any thoughts about it? Did Hafele and Keating really cook the numbers? It doesn't matter much now since, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the GPS is a continuous and continuing version of the HK experiment. GPS simply would not work if SR and GR were invalid.

[Sam5]

I wasn't talking about the specific Hafele-Keating experiment as such, I was talking theory.

Yes you were talking about HK. That’s what we were talking about and that’s why you specifically mentioned airplanes.



As I stated before, I don't think the HK experiment was any good because the clocks were too imprecise and returned bad data

You reject experimental results that don't conform to your erroneous prejudices.



I stand by my argument. A ground-based observer sees clocks flying west run slow compared to a stationary clock on the ground and sees eastbound clocks run slower still. An observer on the westbound plane sees the clock on the ground run slow, but not as slow as an observer on the eastbound plane would.


Look, the Hafele-Keating experiment and results are famous. They’ve been published in many science magazines and in books, and they are taught in university physics classes. You opinion has not been published anywhere except here on the internet. Your opinion is not taught in universities, but the Hafele-Keating results are taught in universities.

If you want to maintain your erroneous belief, against the scientific results of the famous experiment, then just go ahead.

[Taibak]

A few remarks about the Hafele-Keating experiment:

It is incorrect to say that clock rates of the clocks on the ground were compared to clock rates in the air during the flights. The clocks were flown aboard commercial flights (mostly) and the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington. Clock readings were compared on the ground, before and after each circumnavigation.

We cannot always pick and choose what effects to test for in a real experiment. (That's what thought experiments are for!) In the HK experiment we have SR effects (relative velocity) and GR effects (the gravitational field aloft compared to the field on the ground). I refer you to my "Celestial Mechanic's Angels Return" posts for an explanation and a simple, back-of-the-envelope calculation of an HK-type experiment. (At least, it's back-of-the-envelope once the math has been simplified.)

Finally, has anyone else here read the A. G. Kelley paper linked here? In particular, swansont, do you have any thoughts about it? Did Hafele and Keating really cook the numbers? It doesn't matter much now since, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the GPS is a continuous and continuing version of the HK experiment. GPS simply would not work if SR and GR were invalid.

Read it and agree with it. A set of results THAT far out of whack has got to be a problem with the experiment itself. The numbers may not have been cooked, as such, but Kelley makes a pretty good case that Hafele and Keating, at very least, did a horrible job with their analysis. GPS does a good job of retesting the theory and, as far as I'm aware, fits the predictions of both SR and GR quite nicely.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]And the reason some people want to ban me is because I know this because I read their rare books and papers, and my critics have not read them.
It doesn't matter how many rare books and papers you have read if you do not understand the math in them.
:(
Edited to clean up BBcode.

[Sam5]

A few remarks about the Hafele-Keating experiment:

It is incorrect to say that clock rates of the clocks on the ground were compared to clock rates in the air during the flights. The clocks were flown aboard commercial flights (mostly) and the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington. Clock readings were compared on the ground, before and after each circumnavigation.
That is absolutely wrong.

In Science magazine, July 14, 1972, Hafele and Keating published the continuous hourly flying clock read-out traces that were recorded during the flights on September 25, 1971. Their published chart shows the read-outs of each individual clock while in flight. I’ve got the charts right here in front of me.

[Taibak]

I wasn't talking about the specific Hafele-Keating experiment as such, I was talking theory.

Yes you were talking about HK. That’s what we were talking about and that’s why you specifically mentioned airplanes.

So we can't talk about theoretical airplanes? I was talking theory. Amongst other things, that's why I had my planes travelling around the equator (the HK planes passed through Dublin which is most definitely NOT on the equator) and why I had my planes travelling at a constant altitude and NOT making repeated landings and takeoffs. It was a thought experiment and NOT a summary of the actual HK experiment.


As I stated before, I don't think the HK experiment was any good because the clocks were too imprecise and returned bad data

You reject experimental results that don't conform to your erroneous prejudices.

No. I reject the results of the HK experiment because Kelley showed that the clock drift rates were varying far too much to be useful and that the original data was severely altered.

Look, the Hafele-Keating experiment and results are famous. They’ve been published in many science magazines and in books, and they are taught in university physics classes. You opinion has not been published anywhere except here on the internet. Your opinion is not taught in universities, but the Hafele-Keating results are taught in universities.

Frankly, none of that impresses me. Fame is not an indication of quality. I think for myself and reserve the right to question any and all theories put before me. You're right - my opinion is my opinion, but it's based on a solid understanding of the theory, its underlying math, and the experimental results and that gives me all the authority I need to question it.

Besides, you do realise that special relativity has been published in many science magazines and taught in university physics classes, right? By the argument you just used, that means it must be correct.

[Sam5]

And the reason some people want to ban me is because I know this because I read their rare books and papers, and my critics have not read them.
It doesn't matter how many rare books and papers you have read if you do not understand the math in them.
:(

I just gave you the Hafele-Keating math, and you say they faked it. I gave you the Pauli math after he read the 1918 paper, and you ignored it. I gave you Einstein’s math that tells how light speed slows down at the sun and you denied it. You manipulate or ignore the math, or you claim it is fake, as much as you manipulate and ignore the experimental evidence and claim the experiments are fake.

[Sam5]

I was talking theory. Amongst other things, that's why I had my planes travelling around the equator (the HK planes passed through Dublin which is most definitely NOT on the equator) and why I had my planes travelling at a constant altitude and NOT making repeated landings and takeoffs.

You actually sent atomic clocks on real airplanes that flew around the equator?? Where are your experimental results published??

[Celestial Mechanic]

A few remarks about the Hafele-Keating experiment:

It is incorrect to say that clock rates of the clocks on the ground were compared to clock rates in the air during the flights. The clocks were flown aboard commercial flights (mostly) and the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington. Clock readings were compared on the ground, before and after each circumnavigation.
That is absolutely wrong.

In Science magazine, July 14, 1972, Hafele and Keating published the continuous hourly flying clock read-out traces that were recorded during the flights on September 25, 1971. Their published chart shows the read-outs of each individual clock while in flight. I’ve got the charts right here in front of me.
You are absolutely wrong. Please read what I wrote again. "It is incorrect to say that clock rates ... were compared to clock rates ..." and "... the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington." How can they have continuous (or at least frequent) comparison, a prerequisite to comparing clock rates, if they are not communicating clock readings back and forth? The only thing that HK could do in flight was compare the readings of the traveling clocks with one another and determine drift rates, relative to one another. The determination of how these clocks were drifting relative to the clocks on the ground could not be made until the traveling clocks landed.

To recap: relative drift rates of the traveling clocks were measured during flight, but total drift relative to the clocks on the ground could not be determined until the traveling clocks were brought back to Washington. At no time could anyone on the plane say "my clock is gaining time compared to the ground" because no such observations were made. Only when they were on the ground could they say, "these clocks all read differently--how do we interpret this?"

[Celestial Mechanic]

I just gave you the Hafele-Keating math, and you say they faked it.
No you have not. I have actually done the math and presented it in my "Celestial Mechanic's Angels Return" posts.
I gave you the Pauli math after he read the 1918 paper, and you ignored it.
No, you have not given any real math here, just a quote from Pauli's book.
I gave you Einstein’s math that tells how light speed slows down at the sun and you denied it.
Math that is wrong by a factor of two, that is corrected in his 1916 paper which you do not understand. You still erroneously believe the 1911 paper to be the definitive GR paper when in fact it is only a provisional step along the way.
You manipulate or ignore the math, or you claim it is fake, as much as you manipulate and ignore the experimental evidence and claim the experiments are fake.
Since you don't understand the math I've presented, which I have tried to make as elementary as possible given the limitations of the medium and the level of my intended audience, you are the last person on this board who can accuse me of "manipulating" the math.
:evil:
Also, I am not the one accusing Hafele and Keating of cooking the books. The accusation is in a paper by A. G. Kelley. I am disturbed by what I have read there and have said so. I have asked other knowledgeable posters on this board what they think of it. It is an incredible leap for you to say that I am "manipulating" and "ignoring" experimental evidence.

[Torsten]

A few remarks about the Hafele-Keating experiment:

It is incorrect to say that clock rates of the clocks on the ground were compared to clock rates in the air during the flights. The clocks were flown aboard commercial flights (mostly) and the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington. Clock readings were compared on the ground, before and after each circumnavigation.
That is absolutely wrong.

In Science magazine, July 14, 1972, Hafele and Keating published the continuous hourly flying clock read-out traces that were recorded during the flights on September 25, 1971. Their published chart shows the read-outs of each individual clock while in flight. I’ve got the charts right here in front of me.

At the bottom of page 168 of that paper, H&K stated "Of course, no comparison with MEAN(USNO) were possible during the trip". So what exactly does that chart show?

Elsewhere Sam5 said:

And after all, SR theory said that clocks moving in EITHER direction along the x axis would “slow down” relative to a clock and an observer that are stationary relative to each other. So what happened in the experiment? Hafele and Keating were basically stationary relative to the DC clock, and the DC clock was stationary relative to them, and their flying clocks were moving relative to them and the DC clock, but their flying clocks did not all “slow down” along the x axis in both directions of travel. They slowed down when they went East, and they speeded up when they went West. According to SR theory, the flying clocks should have slowed down the same amount in both directions of travel, but they didn’t.

Isn't circumglobal flight constantly accelerated? Doesn't any analysis therefore become a little more complicated than assuming flight along a simple, straight axis?

BTW Sam5, I'm curious, are you still daytrading?

[swansont]

Finally, has anyone else here read the A. G. Kelley paper linked here? In particular, swansont, do you have any thoughts about it? Did Hafele and Keating really cook the numbers? It doesn't matter much now since, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the GPS is a continuous and continuing version of the HK experiment. GPS simply would not work if SR and GR were invalid.

I read the link, but I don't have access to the original data and anaylsis, nor did Kelley really go into detail - the tables were not present in the page I saw. The things he mentioned about clock calculations are not necessarily how we do them today. So I can't say whether they cooked the numbers - I don't know. But I'm always suspicious when criticism such as this is published only on a web page. This guy has a PhD, so certainly he is capable of writing this up and submitting it to a peer reviewed publication.

My credibility meter was not budged by his citations, many of which were the list of textbooks that cite the H-K experiment, and also the other "work" to have analyzed the clock experiment's drift rates, which was L. Essen, Creation Res. Society Quarterly Vol 14, 46, (1977).

I wouldn't cite the Creation Research Science Quarterly if I wanted my work to be taken seriously. But that's just me.

[swansont]

No, you and I have two different explanations for what happened. You believe in SR “magic”, and I believe in science.

What you are saying is pseudo-science nonsense! !

You keep saying this Sam5, so if it is magic and nonsense, why do the mathematical predictions of SR match our observations?


The mathematical predictions of SR DID NOT MATCH the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Taibak specifically said about the Hafele-Keating experiment:


An observer on the airplane and an observer on the ground have two different explanations for what's happening. The observer on the ground sees the clock on the plane slow down. The observer on the plane sees the clock on the ground slow down.

He thinks that the airplane pilots DISAGREED with Hafele and Keating about what they all “saw”. He thinks the pilots saw all the earth-based clocks slow down, and he thinks that Hafele and Keating saw all the flying clocks slow down.

But here is the mathematical results of the experiment, that I quote directly from one of the Hafele-Keating papers, published in Science magazine, July 14, 1972:

The Eastbound clocks averaged a loss of “–59 nanoseconds” as compared to the earth-based clocks, and the Westbound clocks GAINED an average of “+273 nanoseconds” when compared to the earth-based clocks, so ALL the flying clocks averaged a GAIN of + 214 nanoseconds over the earth-based clocks.

The flying clocks averaged a SPEED UP, not a slow down, and all the pilots AND Hafele and Keating saw this in the read-outs of the clocks. Hafele and Keating and the pilots all AGREED. And it’s obvious that Taibak has absolutely no idea what the Hafele-Keating experiment turned up or what they said in their papers.

If you don’t understand Taibak’s fundamental error, then I’m just going to give up and go live on a desert island somewhere.

We discussed this before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=198260&highlight=#198260), and you're still getting it wrong.
From Science 177: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space."

"For this purpose, consider a view of the (rotating) earth as it would be perceived by an inertial observer looking down on the North Pole from a great distance."

In the very paper you claim to have read and understood, they explain all this. And yet you claim that the results are inconsistent. Did you not read the paper, did you not understand the paper, or did you willfully misrepresent the paper? I don't see a third option.

Hey, why don’t you guys tell Taibak that he’s got things all mixed up.

Taibak, I believe you are mistaken. The earth based clocks cannot assume they are stationary, because they are not in an inertial frame. In your previous analysis, though, you had the earth's speed taken into account, which was correct. But the earth observer won't see the west clock as slowing down, because the west clock is moving slower than the earth clock to any inertial observer.

[Sam5]

You are absolutely wrong. Please read what I wrote again. "It is incorrect to say that clock rates ... were compared to clock rates ..." and "... the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington." How can they have continuous (or at least frequent) comparison, a prerequisite to comparing clock rates, if they are not communicating clock readings back and forth? The only thing that HK could do in flight was compare the readings of the traveling clocks with one another and determine drift rates, relative to one another. The determination of how these clocks were drifting relative to the clocks on the ground could not be made until the traveling clocks landed.


That’s ridiculous. The readouts read the same numbers while flying as they did after the plane landed.

If he had wanted to, Hafele could have radioed a report of the hourly read-out numbers down to earth and they could have been written down by someone at an earth-based radio, and the numbers would have been the same for both the flying Hafele and the earth-based radio operator when Hafele returned.

Do you think that the printed hourly read-out changed after the plane landed?

That’s a science fiction idea right out of the old Twilight Zone show.

[Sam5]

A few remarks about the Hafele-Keating experiment:

It is incorrect to say that clock rates of the clocks on the ground were compared to clock rates in the air during the flights. The clocks were flown aboard commercial flights (mostly) and the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington. Clock readings were compared on the ground, before and after each circumnavigation.
That is absolutely wrong.

In Science magazine, July 14, 1972, Hafele and Keating published the continuous hourly flying clock read-out traces that were recorded during the flights on September 25, 1971. Their published chart shows the read-outs of each individual clock while in flight. I’ve got the charts right here in front of me.

At the bottom of page 168 of that paper, H&K stated "Of course, no comparison with MEAN(USNO) were possible during the trip". So what exactly does that chart show?

Well, if you’ve got the paper then you’ve got the chart.

In the same paragraph they said, “Starting at 0h U.T. on 25 September 1971, we recorded more than 5000 time differences during the data period. Figure 1 shows the time difference data relative to MEAN(USNO) for the entire data period, which lasted 636 hours. The labels in Figure 1 are the serial numbers of the corresponding clocks, and the traces give the measured difference in time between the corresponding clock and MEAN(USNO).”



Elsewhere Sam5 said:

And after all, SR theory said that clocks moving in EITHER direction along the x axis would “slow down” relative to a clock and an observer that are stationary relative to each other. So what happened in the experiment? Hafele and Keating were basically stationary relative to the DC clock, and the DC clock was stationary relative to them, and their flying clocks were moving relative to them and the DC clock, but their flying clocks did not all “slow down” along the x axis in both directions of travel. They slowed down when they went East, and they speeded up when they went West. According to SR theory, the flying clocks should have slowed down the same amount in both directions of travel, but they didn’t.

Isn't circumglobal flight constantly accelerated? Doesn't any analysis therefore become a little more complicated than assuming flight along a simple, straight axis?

The clocks weren’t flying in a straight line as the imaginary clocks were in SR theory. They were all subjected to gravity effects, unlike in SR theory. But Hafele and Keating used their information to try to falsely “prove” SR theory.

I first heard about it in a 1977 news article. I asked a Mt. Wilson astronomer about it in 1977 and he told me it was true that all the flying clocks "slowed down", which was not true at all, since the Westbound clocks speeded up. While conducting my research I read books published in the ‘80s and ‘90s that said all the flying clocks slowed down, thereby “proving” SR theory.

SR relativists in books in the '80s and '90s thought nothing at all about lying to try to promote the myth that SR theory is not flawed.

When I finally got my hands on a real Hafele-Keating paper, that’s when I found out the Westbound clocks actually speeded up and all the clocks averaged an overall speed-up rather than a slowdown, which is exactly the opposite of what the SR theory predicted.

What Hafele and Keating should have done as “scientists” was conduct the test and report the numbers of their results, and not try to falsely promote the SR myth in the process.

Now, as a result of this thread, and my interview with the Mt. Wilson astronomer and the books I’ve read, and what I’ve read here, I’ve had the experience of SR promoters using the Hafele-Keating experiment, claiming it was a “valid” experiment that “proves” SR, and now I’ve had guys tell me that it was an “invalid” experiment, the invalidity of which “proves” SR.

This kind of baloney is what I’m fed up with. SR is a cult belief system, not “science”.

[TheAtomium]

This kind of baloney is what I’m fed up with. SR is a cult belief system, not “science”.
I can't for the life of me work out what the HK experiment was trying to prove, all I know is that it looks to a layman like me that it was a pretty poor attempt, and A.G.Kelly's paper gives some evidence of this. So, whatever that experiment was about, the results are inconclusive due to it's poor execution.

However, as has repeatedly been said, GPS satellites have been using and validating both GR and SR theory 24/7, all year long, for as long as they've been up there. How do you explain that?

What do I believe to be correct, a poorly executed experiment with a rather convoluted point or a real-world, proven practical application?

[Sam5]

Since you don't understand the math I've presented,

I didn’t read your science fiction story. I saw that it had something to do with angels, and I didn’t read it.


You don’t understand the Hafele Keating math, the Pauli math, or the Einstein math. You presented your math in some kind of science fiction short-story involving angels.

[Sam5]

This kind of baloney is what I’m fed up with. SR is a cult belief system, not “science”.
I can't for the life of me work out what the HK experiment was trying to prove,


Here’s what happened as a result of the Hafele-Keating experiment.... many books, science papers, websites, and university textbooks have used the experiment for the past 32 years to claim that it “proved” SR theory.

The experiment was conducted for propaganda purposes, and it has served those propaganda purposes for the past 32 years.

This is not science, this is cultism.

In all those books, and all those textbooks, and all those websites, and all those science papers over the years, NOBODY CARED if the Hafele-Keating experiment was accurate or not. It served a political and a propaganda purpose. It was not “science”. It was a staged theatrical event, a public relations stunt, designed to give an illusion of a “proof of SR theory”.

[TheAtomium]

Since you don't understand the math I've presented,

I didn’t read your science fiction story. I saw that it had something to do with angels, and I didn’t read it.


You don’t understand the Hafele Keating math, the Pauli math, or the Einstein math. You presented your math in some kind of science fiction short-story involving angels.

Celestial Mechanic 1 - 0 Sam5

[TheAtomium]

In all those books, and all those textbooks, and all those websites, and all those science papers over the years, NOBODY CARED if the Hafele-Keating experiment was accurate or not. It served a political and a propaganda purpose. It was not “science”. It was a staged theatrical event, a public relations stunt, designed to give an illusion of a “proof of SR theory”.

Maybe, maybe not. But...
However, as has repeatedly been said, GPS satellites have been using and validating both GR and SR theory 24/7, all year long, for as long as they've been up there. How do you explain that?

What do I believe to be correct, a poorly executed experiment with a rather convoluted point or a real-world, proven practical application?

Answer the question.

[swansont]

You are absolutely wrong. Please read what I wrote again. "It is incorrect to say that clock rates ... were compared to clock rates ..." and "... the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington." How can they have continuous (or at least frequent) comparison, a prerequisite to comparing clock rates, if they are not communicating clock readings back and forth? The only thing that HK could do in flight was compare the readings of the traveling clocks with one another and determine drift rates, relative to one another. The determination of how these clocks were drifting relative to the clocks on the ground could not be made until the traveling clocks landed.


That’s ridiculous. The readouts read the same numbers while flying as they did after the plane landed.

If he had wanted to, Hafele could have radioed a report of the hourly read-out numbers down to earth and they could have been written down by someone at an earth-based radio, and the numbers would have been the same for both the flying Hafele and the earth-based radio operator when Hafele returned.


Really? You were there? You have a lot of experience with atomic clocks, do you?

I don't know exactly whick model of clocks H-K used, as I left the paper at work, but I suspect it was an HP5061. The readout is a dial. There's no way you get nanosecond differences off of it. And how would you know whose "hourly" data to use? The clocks were running at different rates!

The output of a clock like this is from an oscillator running at 5 MHz (or 10 or 100; sometimes a combination of these outputs are available, depending on the clock) divided down from the Cs rate. You plug this into a measurement system and then you can do things like count zero crossings and phase differences of the clocks.

I strongly suspect the "hourly data" were measurement differences between the clocks. You reconstruct the data afterwards, when you can compare them to the other clocks. You don't do it in the interim unless you have a calibrated link between them - I don't think they had that in the phonebooth at the airport bar. But I can't say for sure.

It's unfortunate you aren't differentiating between what you know as verifiable fact and what is speculation. That's not up to scientific integrity standards. I suspect that's not up to journalistic integrity standards either, but I'm guessing about that.

[Sam5]

However, as has repeatedly been said, GPS satellites have been using and validating both GR and SR theory 24/7, all year long, for as long as they've been up there. How do you explain that?


GPS does not use Einstein’s SR or GR equations. They use a wide variety of real-life equations that correct for the wide variety of atomic clock drift rates. Moving atomic clocks around and constantly changing their positions in the gravity field causes them to be inaccurate.

Lorentz first predicted that atomic clock rates would changed when moved around. Newton, Galileo, all the ships captains of the 17th and 18th Centuries, all knew that moving different kinds of clocks around changed the rates of the clocks. This was nothing new. It has been known for hundreds of years. Einstein wasn’t the first guy to predict that the rates of moving clocks would be unstable. He read about it in books. Harrison worked for years to develop a steady clock that would not drift much when used aboard a rocking ship.

Hafele wrote in July of 1970 that the Einstein SR equation prediction couldn’t be used in their experiment, because it was not accurate. He wrote:

“The standard answer that moving clocks run slow by the well known factor √(1 – v^2/c^2) is almost certainly incorrect.”

It is a myth that Einstein equations are used in the GPS clock system. Various complex equations are used because the clocks drift for a variety of reasons. These modern equations would have been worked out whether or not Einstein ever wrote anything about clock drift. Just like the guys in the 19th Century worked out the equations for pendulum clock rate drift at different elevations. They even used the equations and pendulum clocks to accurately measure the elevation of mountains, and that was more accurate than the barometer method of determining elevation. Einstein didn’t invent the concept of motion-related or gravity-related clock rate drift.

[Normandy6644]

Since you don't understand the math I've presented,

I didn’t read your science fiction story. I saw that it had something to do with angels, and I didn’t read it.

Sam, of all the things you could possibly say, this one may be the biggest whopper of them all. a) maybe you should go back and read the posts, since it is about as science fiction as Gore Vidal, b) how can yoou accuse anyone of not understanding the math, least of all Celestial Mechanic? You're just not making sense anymore.

You don’t understand the Hafele Keating math, the Pauli math, or the Einstein math. You presented your math in some kind of science fiction short-story involving angels.

:roll: When you understand it, maybe you can accuse others of the opposite. Until then, I would stay silent about math if I were you.

[milli360]

Not only that, but that is at odds with GR, which Sam5 has said he does believe in.

::snip::

I didn’t invent the idea of a “force” felt by the atoms in the clocks, Lorentz did in 1895, Einstien agreed in 1918, and Pauli agreed in 1921. I got the information from them.

That's not my issue. It's the potential box issue, where every particle feels the same force.

And the reason some people want to ban me is because I know this because I read their rare books and papers, and my critics have not read them.
Hey, that's not me, you know that.

[Lunatik]

Sam5 wrote: SR is a cult belief system, not “science”.
Good science is to disprove theories, to find the flaws. In SR is a kind of 'science trap' where everyone works very hard to prove it, or fix the flaws, and convince others it is right. Is this good Science? Or is it good Mythology? In the end, someday, our successors will laugh at our Age of Relativity in the same way we today laugh at Ptolemeic astronomy. In both eras, people worked very hard to prove their "science" true, when in fact it was more myth than real. Still, because these theories are a lot of fun, they will be toyed with endlessly. Did you know that astologists today still use the Ptolemeic concentric cycles? Why not? It works!

My guess? Relativity in the end will be set aside as an unnecessarily complicated way to explain how the Universe works, and used only as an "from the observer's point of view" observational theory of motion and acceleration, though useful as such.

[swansont]

Did you know that astologists today still use the Ptolemeic concentric cycles? Why not? It works!


What works? Astrology?

Ptolomeic cycles work, just as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations work. But there's no mechanism behind them that works. That's why they were discarded, not because they give the wrong answer.

[Lunatik]

Did you know that astologists today still use the Ptolemeic concentric cycles? Why not? It works!


What works? Astrology?

Ptolomeic cycles work, just as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations work. But there's no mechanism behind them that works. That's why they were discarded, not because they give the wrong answer.
That was "it works" with Big grins! :D:D:D and a :wink: