Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof That It's SR?

[Sam5]

I'll reiterate. I can indeed describe what happens at the coil as the result of a changing magnetic field. However, I can describe it equally well using the force induced on charges moving through a static radial magnetic field (the force is v x B, the field is radial and the velocity of the charged particles is perpendicular to both the field and the ring at any given point, so the net force is around the ring). Why is one of these descriptions more valid than the other?

Whatever law of physics you use to explain what happens at the coil and magnet, that law has nothing to do with the motion of the students. If there are two different laws that apply, the so be it. But if you don’t really know which law applies from moment to moment at the coil and magnet, then you should say so, and maybe some intelligent student can eventually figure it out or come up with a new law.

But for you or the professors at UCLA to arbitrarily turn on and off the electric field at the coil and magnet, when a single student moves around the room, or down the street, or around the world, is an error.

If you don’t really know which law applies, then you should not arbitrarily turn on and off the electric field at the coil and magnet, and you should not attribute your lack of knowledge to “Einstein relativity”.

[Diamond]

Now from comparison, you can see that Sam5 has:

- removed the context as to what "Fascinating but irrelevant" was referring to and made it look like I was referring to something else.
- trying to make me look as if I had claimed "Einstein was God" rather than Sam5 making a sarcastic comment about Einstein's reputation.
- deliberately changing the emoticon I used to imply that I called Sam5 a liar.
- not answered the question posed about SR despite numerous attempts.
- referred to clock slowdown and got the wrong answer. Clocks do not "slow down" in space relative to the surface of the earth but "speed up", the reverse of the pendulum behavior as has already been pointed out from the article that Sam5 quoted

Wow, those sound like serious charges, yur honer. Your list of charges reminds me of the Articles of the Accusation against Joan of Arc:

{snip}

The comparison with Galileo can't be far behind.

Face it, Sam5. You were caught out changing what was said and rewriting what I had said to be something else. In other words, LYING.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why pendulum clocks slowing down as they rise above the earth when GR predicts (and has been proven in experiment) that atomic clocks SPEED UP relative to ones at the earth's surface.

Or perhaps you'd like to change the subject again.....

[Sam5]

Grey,

Do you see what I’m saying?

The UCLA website says that the moving student changes the Law of Physics at the coil and magnet, no matter how far the student is away from the coil and magnet.

This concept violates common sense, Newtonian mechanics, and the Einstein Relativity Principle. If the laws of physics are the same in every frame of reference, then the moving student is not going to change the laws of physics at the coil and magnet just by moving around, inside the room, outside the room, or while he is walking around in Sumatra. The “frame of reference” here is the frame in which the coil and magnet are moving relatively, let’s say inside a little box sitting on a table, with a mechanical device inside that first moves the magnet, then moves the coil, then moves both at the same time, but since this “frame” is inside a box, we can’t tell what is happening inside the box from moment to moment. All we know is that a current steadily flows through the coil and that registers on our galvanometer, which is located outside the box. With the magnet and coil in the box, you won’t be able to tell me when the laws of physics “change” when various students walk around the room in various ways.

Here is a paper written by a Russian professor who tends to agree with me about some of this:

“In another words, a conception about equivalence of all inertial reference frames
comes into a deep contradiction with causality: a current in the loop
A-B-C-D cannot exist in one inertial frame and be absent in another
inertial frame.”

VIEW AS HTML FILE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:kL6qJGUWYNwJ:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO2PDF/V10N2KH1.pdf+%22faraday+induction+law+and+field+tr ansformations+in+special+relativity%22&hl=en&ie=UT F-8)

FULL PAPER, 17 pages PDF file (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO2PDF/V10N2KH1.pdf)

However, I do support the Newtonian relativity principle that says the laws of physics are the same everywhere and in every frame of reference. So I think what you guys need to do is come up with a new single law that explains what is going on inside the closed box, when you can't see which one is moving, the magnet or the coil or both.

And please, do not put a cat inside the box. :D

[Sam5]

Face it, Sam5.

I did not change anything you wrote. You are making stuff up again. If you say I changed stuff, then post what you wrote and what I said you wrote.

Regarding the pendulum and the atom, there are two different laws of physics at work. One involves a swinging mass inside a gravitational field, and the other involves an internal electrodynamical oscillation rate. But neither the pendulum nor the atom’s oscillation rate represents “all of time” at the places where they are located.

If you don’t know enough to talk about the physics issues, if all you can do is troll and flame, then just leave me alone, because I’m busy here talking optics, astronomy, and physics with a few intelligent people.

[Sam5]

How can you be sure? From your description of your work, you're making this conclusion based on working with moving clocks around at low speeds, where the mechanical effects on the clocks from shuffling them around dominated any other effects that might have been present. Are you sure you can generalize that to any clock rate, anywhere, under any possible motion?

It’s quite simple. There is a principle in physics, well, a principle that used to be in physics, that is called common sense. Also, we have Newton’s laws of motion. Someone with both then knows that if I move here, a clock can not slow down in another galaxy just because I moved here. And if a guy moves in another galaxy, his motion can not slow down my clock.

I learned this at an early age. When I moved my recorder a certain way, my motion of my recorder slowed down the speed of the tape across the tape heads, due to inertial forced placed on the flywheel of my recorder. But when another guy moved his recorder, his motion of his recorder did not change the speed of the tape in my recorder. This is a fundamental law of nature that is a consequence of Newton’s laws of motion and his relativity principle.

If you are not sure about this, I’ll be happy to explain it to you in terms of Newton, Faraday, and Lorentz relativity theory, if you are interested. Your professors have evidently not explained it to you, and they’ve apparently led you to believe that some other guy’s motion can change the speed of my recorder.

[Jobe]

If you don’t know enough to talk about the physics issues

Never stopped you :P


, if all you can do is troll and flame, then just leave me alone, because I’m busy here talking optics, astronomy, and physics with a few intelligent people.

All of whom disagree with you :P

[Sam5]

Never stopped you :P


All of whom disagree with you :P

[-X

:D

[Sam5]

Sorry, the first example here involves cosmological distances and the second is a theoretical statement from the presentation of general relativity. I'll repeat: Remember, no using experiments involving gravitational fields or cosmological distances, since we already know that we need general relativity to handle such situations, so any such measurements would not be tests of the validity of special relativity. If you want to show that it is an invalid postulate of special relativity to assume the velocity of light is always measured to be the same relative to yourself, regardless of your motion, then of course you have to show contradictory evidence within the purview of special relativity, not in circumstances where we already know special relativity cannot fully describe the situation.


LOL! THAT IS a test of Special Relativity. If you must introduce a gravitational field into Special Relatity, in order to get it to “work out”, as Einstein had to do in 1918, then that in itself DISPROVES his original 1905 Special Relativity paper. There IS NO test or observation that “proves” the Kinematical part of Special Relativity or “clock slowdowns” due only to “relative motion”.

What Hafele and Keating did was PROVE Lorentz relativity theory.

If the Eastbound and Westbound clocks slowed down the same amount, they would have proven SR theory, but since the Westbound clocks speeded up, while the Eastbound clocks slowed down, they disproved SR theory and proved Lorentz theory. Do you know enough about Lorentz theory to tell me why?

[Sam5]

SR theory predicts a total time slowdown, with either -v or + v, either Westbound or Eastbound.
No, that's not correct. You are forgetting that the surface of the Earth is not an inertial system.

Actually, in the 1905 paper, Einstein did not call any of his frames an “inertial system”. He said:

“Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. 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.”

The equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good on and near the surface of the earth, don’t they?

But anyway, you are merely talking about effects along the z axis of the 1905 theory, which we can disregard, since he didn’t move any clocks along the z axis.

The total time observed on all the flying clocks totaled an overall gain, not a loss.

The Eastbound clock ticked an average of - 59 nanoseconds more slowly over 41.2 hours, while the Westbound clocks ticked an average of + 273 more rapidly over 48.6 hours


You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Your numbers in the second statement are correct, but then why don't you consider the eastbound clock to have lost time. Unless you simply mean that it didn't move backward, which would seem to be a strange statement, since no one has ever suggested that one of the clocks would show an earlier time than when it started out, so you would seem to be making a deliberately confusing statement, refuting something that has never been suggested (either by Einstein or anyone in this disucssion).

I said the “the total time” on all the flying clocks averaged a total “overall gain”. In 1905, Einstein predicted a total overall loss, ie a loss in both directions of travel, when the clocks re-united with the base-clocks, the “stationary” clocks, which in this case were the earth clocks, since the earth clocks were stationary with the surface of the earth, while the flying clocks were not. If you want to disregard the gravitational potential along the z axis, even then, the Westbound clocks speeded up, whereas SR theory predicted all the relatively moving clocks would slow down.

[Grey]

In 1873 Maxwell said something very interesting about the way Faraday looked upon “fields”. He said:

He never considers bodies as existing with nothing between them but their distance, and acting on one another according to some function of that distance. He conceives all space as a field of force, the lines of force being in general curved, and those due to any body extending from it on all sides, their directions being modified by the presence of other bodies. He even speaks of the lines of force belonging to a body as in some sense part of itself, so that in its action on distant bodies it cannot be said to act where it is not.
An interesting quote, that tells us something of how Maxwell and Faraday saw the world around them. Is there any particular reason that we should assume that what Maxwell said Faraday thought about fields is necessarily the revealed truth, unable to be revised with later learning? Make no mistake, Maxwell and Faraday were brilliant men (I'm particularly impressed with Maxwell's ability to take disparate laws of physics and turn them into a unified whole), but we've learned a lot since then. There are a number of effects which classical electrodynamics is unable to explain, so we've had to acknowledge that, while there are still places where it's valid to use them as an approximation, there are times when it is not.

This UCLA physics website says the electric field disappears from the WHOLE CLASSROOM if one students moves a certain way, with the moving magnet. Would you please explain to all of us how the moving student makes the electric field disappear FROM THE CLASSROOM? It doesn’t say the student just doesn’t see the or measure the field, it says the field disappears from the entire classroom.
Perhaps you missed the line at the bottom of the page:
Electric and magnetic fields are not invariant entities themselves, but are aspects of a single entity, the electromagnetic field, which manifests itself differently to different moving observers. [my empasis added]
You seem unable to accept this simple fact of life. Things look different to differently moving observers. Since we have no a priori way to tell which observer should be considered "right" and which should be considered "wrong", we either make an arbitrary choice (it seems you'd prefer to say the coil has the right idea about what's going on and the magnet is mistaken), or we accept that either observer's view of the world can be considered equally valid.

Whatever law of physics you use to explain what happens at the coil and magnet, that law has nothing to do with the motion of the students.
It depends on how you define "law". If you think that electric fields and magnetic fields are governed by separate laws, then you are mistaken, since how I'm moving relative to the apparatus changes the nature of the magnetic and electric fields that I'll see there (and what I see there is just as valid as what anyone else sees there). If you accept that the laws of electrodynamics are a unified whole, with electricity and magnetism being different aspects of the very same thing, then your statement above is correct,that it's the laws of electrodynamics that govern if and how the current flows in the loop.

If there are two different laws that apply, the so be it. But if you don’t really know which law applies from moment to moment at the coil and magnet, then you should say so, and maybe some intelligent student can eventually figure it out or come up with a new law.
There are two "laws" involved (using the definition of law which you seem to prefer, dividing electricity and magnetism*), and we know exactly when each should be used: it depends on whether you decide the magnet or the coil is stationary. In each case, I can use Maxwell's equations to derive the correct value for the current. I know exactly when to apply which equations to the situation, and it gives me the right answer. That's confirmation by experiment, always the test of a physical theory.

Sorry, the first example here involves cosmological distances and the second is a theoretical statement from the presentation of general relativity. I'll repeat: Remember, no using experiments involving gravitational fields or cosmological distances, since we already know that we need general relativity to handle such situations, so any such measurements would not be tests of the validity of special relativity. If you want to show that it is an invalid postulate of special relativity to assume the velocity of light is always measured to be the same relative to yourself, regardless of your motion, then of course you have to show contradictory evidence within the purview of special relativity, not in circumstances where we already know special relativity cannot fully describe the situation.
LOL! THAT IS a test of Special Relativity. If you must introduce a gravitational field into Special Relatity, in order to get it to “work out”, as Einstein had to do in 1918, then that in itself DISPROVES his original 1905 Special Relativity paper. There IS NO test or observation that “proves” the Kinematical part of Special Relativity or “clock slowdowns” due only to “relative motion”.
Um, no. Suppose I have a theory which is pased on the postulate that X is true whenever you're in a pink room. You say this can't possibly be right because here I am in a purple room, and X isn't true. My postulate said nothing about whether X was true or not in a purple room. If you want to show that the speed of light is not constant in the situations where special relativity is valid (places where we can safely neglect gravitational interactions or cosmological effects) you can't cite an experiment with cosmological effects or gravitational interactions. We already know that special relativity breaks down under those circumstances, and that we need general relativity there. If you can't support your contention with experimental evidence, why do you believe it so strongly?

Someone with both then knows that if I move here, a clock can not slow down in another galaxy just because I moved here. And if a guy moves in another galaxy, his motion can not slow down my clock.
Remember, nobody has ever said that you'll see your own clock slow down because someone is moving somewhere else. Only that the other person will see your clock slowing down.

I said the “the total time” on all the flying clocks averaged a total “overall gain”
Actually, your original quote when bringing this up was
All of Hafele’s flying atomic clocks ticked more rapidly, when their final readouts were compared to earth-based clocks that did not travel.
If you understood how to apply Einstein's equations of special and general relativity to this particular experiment, specifically dealing with the fact that the Earth's surface is not an inertial frame, you'd see that the predictions match the experimental results quite nicely. Of course if you insist on calculating the predictions from special relativity incorrectly, you'll think those predictions are mistaken.

Actually, in the 1905 paper, Einstein did not call any of his frames an “inertial system”. He said:

“Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.
And that's an inertial reference frame, whether or not Einstein used the term.

The equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good on and near the surface of the earth, don’t they?
No actually, they don't, and using this as a more extended example might prove an excellent opportunity to try to explain your misunderstanding.

Suppose I'm launching projectiles on the Earth (let's assume that I'm launching them significant distances, so that the effects I'll be discussing are easily measurable, but not so fast that I get into relativistic effects). As with anything, I have a couple choices of reference frame to describe their motion. If I choose a reference frame that's stationary with respect to the rotating Earth, I'll discover that there are some extra mysterious forces (centrifugal and coriolis, of course) that I'll need to take into account if I want to know where my projectiles will land. So Newton's laws do not in fact hold, and that's simply because it's not an inertial reference frame. If I restrict my motion to relatively short distances, of course, these two effects are pretty small, and I can choose to ignore them and pretend that Newton's laws do hold in this reference frame for most purposes, but for some experiments that's simply not the case.

I could instead choose a non-rotating reference frame, and then I don't have to take these extra forces into account. Instead, of course, I'll have the added complication that I'll have to include the rotational velocities of both the projectile and the Earth's surface into account, but in this case, Newton's laws will hold (well, as long as I can safely neglect effects of the Earth's revolution around the sun, and so forth). That is, if I shoot something straight up, it's horizontal velocity is not zero in this reference frame, but rather somewhere between 0 and 460 m/s, depending on my lattitude, and to figure out where it lands, I also have to keep track of how the Earth itself is moving during the projectile's travel. The calculations are messier, but I don't need to include a description of the extra pseudo-forces.

So, in the former case, I could come up with a "centrifugal field" and a "coriolis field" that describe for each point in space and time what forces a particle will experience, given its position and velocity. In the second case, I don't need any such fields to describe the motion. But how can my choice of reference frame change what fields are present? Either there's a coriolis field there or there isn't, and an observer's motion can't have anything to do with it, you might complain. Yet the presence or absence of a coriolis field is indeed changed by how the person observing it is moving. Why isn't this a problem, with this field thing popping in and out of existence? Because it's not a "thing" the same way the projectiles themselves are. It's part of our mathematical description of the situation, and we can certainly choose to ascribe some kind of "reality" to it, but it would be an error to expect it to be "real" in the same way physical objects are.

* This seems such a shame, since Maxwell did such excellent work showing that they are just aspects of the same thing.

[SeanF]

Grey, may I just say that this latest post of yours is a work of beauty.

=D>

[Sam5]

An interesting quote, that tells us something of how Maxwell and Faraday saw the world around them. Is there any particular reason that we should assume that what Maxwell said Faraday thought about fields is necessarily the revealed truth, unable to be revised with later learning? Make no mistake, Maxwell and Faraday were brilliant men (I'm particularly impressed with Maxwell's ability to take disparate laws of physics and turn them into a unified whole), but we've learned a lot since then.

But you haven’t yet learned that “relative motion” alone can not make any clock slow down. Maxwell and Faraday knew that, but you don’t.

You seem unable to accept this simple fact of life. Things look different to differently moving observers.

Everybody knows that already. Every human learns that when he/she is a baby. Cavemen babies learned that. That concept was not give to us by Einstein.

Since we have no a priori way to tell which observer should be considered "right" and which should be considered "wrong", we either make an arbitrary choice (it seems you'd prefer to say the coil has the right idea about what's going on and the magnet is mistaken), or we accept that either observer's view of the world can be considered equally valid.

The coil and the magnet don't need your opinion. They don't care about your opinion. They don't care if you exist or not. What happens at the coil and magnet has nothing at all to do with you or how you move. What causes the current in the coil is the changing magnetic field strength at the coil, no matter what you are doing or how you are moving. We can prove this by using an electromagnet and by varying the voltage.

The website doesn’t just say that the students will “see” or “measure” different strengths of the magnetic and electric fields. The website says the electric field disappears from the “classroom” due to the motion of only one student in the classroom and due to some kind of Einstein SR hocus pocus, and that is a big physics error. The website specifically says, “In case A there is only a magnetic field in the classroom, but in case B there is also an electric field in the classroom.”

Then it goes on to say that if just one student is moving the same way the magnet is moving, no matter how far away the student is from the magnet, the electric field disappears, and based on what the website previously said, this means the electric field disappears from the classroom and from the vicinity of the magnet and the coil.

And this is wrong. If the website wants to say that all the students will “measure” or “see” something different, than that’s ok, but to say that the motion of a student makes the electric field disappear from the immediate vicinity of the coil and magnet, then that is wrong. The moving students have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on at the magnet and the coil. The “disappearing field” at the coil and magnet is an error fostered by the erroneous Kinematical part of the 1905 SR paper.

[Jim]

Grey, may I just say that this latest post of yours is a work of beauty.

=D>

I second that.

If we ever come up with a BABB Award Program, I nominate Grey's latest post for the Elegantly Simple and Simply Elegant Explanation category.

[freddo]

But how can my choice of reference frame change what fields are present? Either there's a coriolis field there or there isn't, and an observer's motion can't have anything to do with it, you might complain. Yet the presence or absence of a coriolis field is indeed changed by how the person observing it is moving. Why isn't this a problem, with this field thing popping in and out of existence? Because it's not a "thing" the same way the projectiles themselves are. It's part of our mathematical description of the situation, and we can certainly choose to ascribe some kind of "reality" to it, but it would be an error to expect it to be "real" in the same way physical objects are.


This is almost poetic in its explanation. Thankyou! =D>

[SeanF]

But you haven’t yet learned that “relative motion” alone can not make any clock slow down. Maxwell and Faraday knew that, but you don’t.

You just going to ignore what I pointed out about SR predicting an effect on time and not clocks? I noticed you never answered Tensor's question about your definition of "time."

And this is wrong. If the website wants to say that all the students will “measure” or “see” something different, than that’s ok, but to say that the motion of a student makes the electric field disappear from the immediate vicinity of the coil and magnet, then that is wrong. The moving students have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on at the magnet and the coil. The “disappearing field” at the coil and magnet is an error fostered by the erroneous Kinematical part of the 1905 SR paper.

So how about the Electrodynamical part of the 1905 SR paper? Specifically, this part:

We see that electromotive force plays in the developed theory merely the part of an auxiliary concept, which owes its introduction to the circumstance that electric and magnetic forces do not exist independently of the state of motion of the system of co-ordinates.

[Sam5]

There are two "laws" involved (using the definition of law which you seem to prefer, dividing electricity and magnetism*), and we know exactly when each should be used: it depends on whether you decide the magnet or the coil is stationary. In each case, I can use Maxwell's equations to derive the correct value for the current. I know exactly when to apply which equations to the situation, and it gives me the right answer. That's confirmation by experiment, always the test of a physical theory.

What you might have with the two “laws” is, perhaps, different ways to determine what each student “sees” or “measures”, but not what the coil feels or what fields are around the magnet and the coil when the relative motion takes place. Remember, we can do this without any motion of the coil and magnet at all, if we use an electromagnet.

What that website says about the electric field disappearing when students move is like saying that there are no reflections in a mirror unless someone is looking into the mirror, and that is wrong.

Sorry, the first example here involves cosmological distances and the second is a theoretical statement from the presentation of general relativity. I'll repeat: Remember, no using experiments involving gravitational fields or cosmological distances, since we already know that we need general relativity to handle such situations, so any such measurements would not be tests of the validity of special relativity. If you want to show that it is an invalid postulate of special relativity to assume the velocity of light is always measured to be the same relative to yourself, regardless of your motion, then of course you have to show contradictory evidence within the purview of special relativity, not in circumstances where we already know special relativity cannot fully describe the situation.

The Kinematical part of SR isn’t true under any circumstances. Einstein misinterpreted the reason for the atomic clock slowdown in the Lorentz theory. It has nothing at all to do with “relative motion”. It has only to do with an atom moving through fields, or existing in a changing field. It’s like the Faraday experiment. It’s got nothing to do with relative motion, it’s got to do with the changing field strength at the coil or at the atom.

So, the Kinematical part of SR doesn’t work under any set of circumstances. What happens to an atom, the tick rate of which becomes less, is due to Lorentz theory, not Einstein SR theory.

Remember, nobody has ever said that you'll see your own clock slow down because someone is moving somewhere else. Only that the other person will see your clock slowing down.

The paradox in the SR theory has my clock slow down if I “move” relative to someone in another galaxy. It also has me “seeing” his clock “slow down” while in reality his clock rate doesn’t change at all. It has me “seeing” his clock slow down while his clock is ticking normally and while my clock is “really” slowing down. This is nonsense. It has me just shutting up about what I “see”, when the two of us get together, and it has the other guy telling you that my clock really did “slow down”. It also has me moving “in a closed curve”, but without experiencing any acceleration. It has me starting and stopping without experiencing any acceleration.

These are all conceptual errors and they are silly. That’s why he had to add the gravitational “patch” to the theory in 1918. And if you study the 1905 theory very carefully, you’ll discover that it is actually Einstein himself who manually sets the rate of the “moving” clock to run slow. He changes the rate of the “moving” clock himself in the 1905 theory, but then in his 1916 book he claimed that the rate changed all by itself, just due to “relative motion”.

[Sam5]

If you understood how to apply Einstein's equations of special and general relativity to this particular experiment, specifically dealing with the fact that the Earth's surface is not an inertial frame, you'd see that the predictions match the experimental results quite nicely. Of course if you insist on calculating the predictions from special relativity incorrectly, you'll think those predictions are mistaken.

The Hafele-Keating East-West “predictions” actually match the predictions of the 1895 Lorentz theory of relativity, but not the 1905 Einstein Special Theory of relativity. Lorentz predicted the effect as early as 1895, in a paper titled: “Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Krpern.” In Einstein’s 1907 paper, “Uber das Relativitatsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogene Folgerungen”, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitat und Elektronik 4 (1907), Einstein even credited Lorentz for his discovery of the tick rate slowdown of moving electrodynamical clocks.

But in his own 1905 paper, Einstein misunderstood the reason for the effects produced by the predictions in the 1895 Lorentz theory, and Einstein attributed it just to “relative motion”. But he later learned that the effects were related directly to the motion of atoms through the “fields” that Lorentz discussed in his theory. That’s why Einstein had to add the gravitational field patch to his own 1905 theory in 1918.

As I said, it doesn’t matter to the 1905 theory that the surface of the earth is not an “inertial frame”, because he didn’t use the term “inertial frame” in the entire 1905 theory, and of course he just disregarded all “acceleration” in the 1905 theory, including the start up and slow down effects, and the effects of the motion “in a closed curve”. And of course, the earth’s gravitational field is along Einstein’s 1905 z axis, not his x axis. I’m surprised you don’t know that, and I’m surprised you aren’t aware of Lorentz’s predictions and Einstein’s praise of Lorentz for those predictions.

The correct East – West rate “predictions” of the HK experiment were Lorentz predictions. In 1905 Einstein erroneously predicted the same amount of slowdown for clocks moving in either direction.

In fact, Hafele did not quite tell the whole full truth in his first “prediction” paper of July 18, 1970 in Nature magazine. He said derived his East – West prediction equation not directly from Einstein, but from a modified equation he got from Moller (Chapter VIII) “The Theory of Relativity” (Oxford University Press) 1952, and of course Moller’s equation considered Einstein’s GR theory, post-1911 era, after Einstein finally discovered that just “relative motion” alone will not slow down any clock at all, but motion of an atom through a gravitational field will slow down the atom’s harmonic oscillation rate, which is what Lorentz had predicted in 1895. I’ve read Moller’s book, and he also added the acceleration “patch” to the Einstein 1905 SR theory.

You will recall from “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Einstein said:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img51.gif

And that’s why he has the 1905 clocks slowing down the same amount in BOTH directions of travel.

But of course this doesn’t happen in real life, we shouldn’t leave out “acceleration” in real life, and “relative motion” does not slow down any clocks in real life.

The Moller equation modifies the 1905 Einstein theory to conform to the original Lorentz prediction, but Hafele doesn’t admit that in his 1970 paper. He says:

“This direction dependence reflects the prediction of relativity theory that the relative rate of two clocks does not depend solely on the relative speed when both clocks experience acceleration.”

Well, you see, Hafele wasn’t even using 1905 SR theory when he made his East – West “predictions”, since “acceleration” was left out of 1905 SR theory, and he wasn’t using the original 1905 Einstein Φ (v) = Φ (-v) equation either, because it does not work in real life. What Hafele did was use the original 1895 Lorentz concept of motion through fields, but Hafele falsely attributed the idea to Einstein and claimed the Eastbound slowdown and Westbound speedup was Einstein’s idea, whereas in reality, it was Lorentz’s idea.

You should be thankful that I’ve gone to all the trouble to research this, so you now know who originally predicted the E-W rate difference. It was Lorentz, not Einstein.

[frenat]

if all you can do is troll and flame, then just leave me alone, because I’m busy here talking optics, astronomy, and physics with a few intelligent people.

Noboby here has been trolling or flaming you. We have all been patiently trying to get consistent answers from you. If somebody had been trolling or flaming then the BA would have stopped by and warned them or banned them. A 51 page thread would not escape his notice. If you still disagree then by all means email him and let him know what's going on.
badastro@badastronomy.com
But be sure to include the fact that you have avoided questions, twisted other's words, and often tried to change the subject when the discussion wasn't going your way. Also point out your comparison to Joan of Arc. I sure he'll find that amusing. :D

[Tensor]

Since this more properly belongs in the "Twin Paradox" I am answering Sam5's post here. His post in is the "question about photons and light and things" thread, on page 9.


Interesting. How do you explain that the amount of time dilation from relative motion (which you claim is wrong) matches the amount of dilation due to acceleration and movement through the earth's fields (which you claim is why time dilation occurs)?

LOL, because Lorentz developed this theory in 1895 and the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION equation is HIS, based on his "motion through fields" theory. His Lorentz Transformation equation WAS DESIGNED for his "motion through fields" theory. HE invented "time dilation", Length Contraction, and Mass Increase due to motion through fields.

I went out and looked at Lorentz's "Theory", and along with some other research, found out some interesting things. First off, Lorentz relies on an absolute frame of reference. This means that the laws of Physics will not be the same in all frames. As far as the contraction goes, Lorentz may have invented the contraction equation, but in his "Theory", Lorentz simply introduces the contraction equation to show how much length, time, and mass will contract, so it will match with experimental results. He doesn't show why this effect occurs or where the derivition comes from. This comment, from Lorentz's 1904 paper is quite revealing:

Surely this course of inventing -special hypotheses for each new experimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system.

This shows that even Lorentz was aware that his "Theory" was on shaky ground. Note the use of of the bolded phrase in the paper. Guess what, it's exactly what Einstein did with his postulates in formulating SR a year later. Also deriving the contraction equation.


One quote I found is this "It was a last gasp try to save the aether".

Walther Ritz in 1908 identified several problems with Lorentz's "Theory". The three biggest problems being: 1)it Permits and infinite number of solutions. 2)Action and reaction are not equal. 3)Does not allow gravity to be included.
Can you present ONE current theory that uses Lorentz's 1904 ideas as he presented them?


Einstein borrowed the equation in 1905 and messed it up.


He did no such thing. He derived the equations from the first priciples of SR. Something Lorentz couldn't do (see the bolded phrase above) in his "theory". The fact that Einstein's derived equations can predict what should be observed, something Lorentz's "Theory" can't do from first principles, is powerful evidence that Einstein, and not Lorentz, is correct.

Einstein credits Lorentz more in one of Einstein’s 1907 papers. He notes that in an 1895 paper, Lorentz called dilated time “local time”, and in Einstein’s 1905 paper he just renamed it “time”, which is the “time” of his local “frames” or “systems” in the 1905 paper.

Here's a nice quote from Lorentz in his 1916 book "The Theory of Electrons", reprinted by Dover Publications Inc., 1952.

If I had to write the last chapter now, I should
certainly have given a more prominent place to
Einstein's theory of relativity (sect. 189) by which
the theory of electromagnetic phenomena in moving
systems gains a simplicity that I had not been able to
The attain.


Einstein tried to explain it in the Kinematical part of his 1905 paper, and he messed up big time. That’s why he had to correct the paper with a “patch” in 1918. He added a gravitational field to the “moving” k frame.

I also think I now understand why you claim there is an error in the Kinematical part of Einstein's theory. Lorentz's paper (in addition to trying to save the aether) also leans heavily on Classical Kinematics. Einstein pulls the rug out from under Classical kinematics. It may simply be that you don't fully understand what Einstein is trying to say in the Kinematical part of the paper, because it isn't classical, that causes you to belive there is an error there. An error, which no one working with the SR thinks is there. One other thing should be mentioned. "Quatum Field Theory (QFT) does not work without the inclusion of SR. As Grey asked "Are you claiming that QFT doesn't work?

Get off the internet and go out to a big university library and start reading.

Heheheheh, I did. Give me a couple more days with it and I'll give you some more.

I'm a retired journalist. I used to get paid to do these types of investigations. I've got no emotional ties to any of these people or their theories, so I can investigate them objectively.

Hey, I don't either. I'm a simple Programmer/analyst. The main difference between the two of us, is that I went out and learned the basic physics, and then math , then the theories. I now have an understanding of the how and why the theories work and where the equations come from. Can you say the same?


edited to fix a grammar and spelling mistake.

[Diamond]

Face it, Sam5.

I did not change anything you wrote. You are making stuff up again. If you say I changed stuff, then post what you wrote and what I said you wrote.

I already have. You're busted on that one. You deliberately changed what I had said in order to avoid answering the points raised.

Regarding the pendulum and the atom, there are two different laws of physics at work. One involves a swinging mass inside a gravitational field, and the other involves an internal electrodynamical oscillation rate. But neither the pendulum nor the atom’s oscillation rate represents “all of time” at the places where they are located.

I'll translate. It means you post stuff about pendulum clocks, knowing fine well it has nothing to do with relativity. And post stuff about relativity knowing fine well it has nothing to do with pendulum clocks, EM interference with electronic devices, chewing gum, friction in clock bearings. It lengthens the thread and is designed to throw people off the track.

If you don’t know enough to talk about the physics issues, if all you can do is troll and flame, then just leave me alone, because I’m busy here talking optics, astronomy, and physics with a few intelligent people.

Actually its difficult for you to discuss any physics issues since you spend a lot of time running from people who clearly know when you're full of it.

The entire point of your trolling technique is to get everyone to give up on you as a hopeless nutcase, leaving you to proclaim "They can't answer me! I've won!"

[Tensor]

The entire point of your trolling technique is to get everyone to give up on you (Sam5) as a hopeless nutcase, leaving you to proclaim "They can't answer me! I've won!"

Nahhhh, Sean is still here. And while I haven't been as diligent as Sean, I've stuck around. Several others have chimed in at different times. I think there are enough of us to keep him from "winning".

[Diamond]

The entire point of your trolling technique is to get everyone to give up on you (Sam5) as a hopeless nutcase, leaving you to proclaim "They can't answer me! I've won!"

Nahhhh, Sean is still here. And while I haven't been as diligent as Sean, I've stuck around. Several others have chimed in at different times. I think there are enough of us to keep him from "winning".

I'm sorry if I've given the game away.... 8-[

[SeanF]

You will recall from “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Einstein said:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img51.gif

And that’s why he has the 1905 clocks slowing down the same amount in BOTH directions of travel.

ø(v) originally appears in Section 3, where he first derives the transformation equations:

τ=ø(v)Β(t-vx/c^2)
Ε=ø(v)Β(t-vt)
η=ø(v)y
ζ=ø(v)z

where

Β=1/sqr(1-v^2/c^2)

and ø is an as yet unknown function of v.

Then, later, he says

In the equations of transformation which have been developed there enters an unknown function ø of v, which we will now determine.

To do this, he first shows that ø(v)ø(-v)=1, and then shows that ø(v)=ø(-v). And then:

It follows from this relation and the one previously found that ø(v)=1, so that the transformation equations which have been found become:

τ=Β(t-vx/c^2)
Ε=Β(t-vt)
η=y
ζ=z

where

Β=1/sqr(1-v^2/c^2).

Do you see that? ø(v) is completely removed from the equations because it always has a value of 1, regardless of the sign or magnitude of v. It is a meaningless function, and the only reason it's in the paper is because he needs to show that it's meaningless. Why do you keep harping on ø(v)=ø(-v) as if it's somehow relevent to reciprocity? It is meaningless.

Your arguments would hold a lot more water if you wouldn't continually misuse equations, especially after it's been pointed out to you that you're misusing the equations.

[Sam5]

I also think I now understand why you claim there is an error in the Kinematical part of Einstein's theory. Lorentz's paper (in addition to trying to save the aether) also leans heavily on Classical Kinematics. Einstein pulls the rug out from under Classical kinematics. It may simply be that you don't fully understand what Einstein is trying to say in the Kinematical part of the paper, because it isn't classical, that causes you to belive there is an error there. An error, which no one working with the SR thinks is there.

Einstein saw the error in 1911 and he corrected it in 1918.

You are right about the original Kinematical part of SR theory not being “classical”, but not because it’s just “different”, but because it is filled with errors. But his new improved GR theory is classical, since it conforms to classical principles. It just contains many more fine details about variable light speed and variable atomic clock rates than Newton’s theory contained. Newton wasn’t even aware of atomic clocks in 1687, but his prediction that light would curve as it passed astronomical bodies, due the varying gravitational field strength at greater distances from those bodies, conforms to and was proven by Einstein in his 1911 theory.

I’ve been trying to tell you that Einstein changed his mind about the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper after he began working with gravity, acceleration, and the GR theory. See what he said in the first major GR theory paper of 1911. Einstein himself discovered the errors in the 1905 paper, and I learned that from him and his 1911 paper. That’s why he said in the 1911 paper:

“To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity [the 1905 paper], and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.”

And that’s what I’m telling you that you should do also. Just completely “disregard” the original 1905 Kinematical part of the SR theory, because it’s filled with errors, because it is wrong, and because Einstein disregarded it when he began to develop GR theory, and that’s why he added acceleration and gravity to the 1905 paper, retroactively, in 1918.

Until you face this fact, that the original 1905 Kinematical part of SR is wrong, and that by 1911 Einstein realized it was wrong, and by 1918 he corrected one of the paper’s major errors, then you aren’t going to learn much. As long as you try to continue to claim that the original Kinematical part of the 1905 paper is correct and not flawed, you will continue to not understand what Einstein did when he switched over to GR theory.

What you need to do is ask yourself why Einstein said in 1911 that we should “disregard” the 1905 “theory of relativity” when we think about light moving through gravitational fields. He said that long before I said it, and you need to figure out, on your own, why he said it, because you refuse to take my word for why he said it. And you also need to understand that his 1905 postulate, ““light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”, is not correct, since it calls space “empty” and it disregards all gravitational fields in space. You need to also figure out what he meant in the 1911 theory when he said, “The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.”

What did he mean by “in a different form”? Figure that out, and figure out why he said we should “disregard” the 1905 paper, and you will understand what I’m talking about.

When I say we should “disregard” the Kinematical part of the original 1905 paper, you guys howl and yell at me, and insult me, and call me a “crackpot”, but whenever I point out to you that Einstein himself said in 1911 that we should “disregard” the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper, you guys just sit there and go “doh” in unison, because you have no idea why he said it.

[SeanF]

When I say we should “disregard” the Kinematical part of the original 1905 paper, you guys howl and yell at me, and insult me, and call me a “crackpot”, but whenever I point out to you that Einstein himself said in 1911 that we should “disregard” the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper, you guys just sit there and go “doh” in unison, because you have no idea why he said it.

SIXTEEN FREAKING DAYS AGO: (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9731&postdays=0&postorder=asc&high light=complications&start=759)

By 1911 Einstein realized the basic error in his 1905 paper, and that is why he said in the 1911 paper:

To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity [the 1905 theory], and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.

And that is what you and everyone else should do: Completely “disregard” the kinematical part of the 1905 SR theory.

Is "[the 1905 theory]" in the original, or did you add that?

I have read lots of books where the author said something along the lines of "To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard..." and not once did they mean "Completely 'disregard', because it's wrong." You are misinterpreting what you're reading.

(And hey, see that question in there about whether "[the 1905 theory]" is something you added or in the original? That's another question you avoided and never answered!)

[Sam5]

SIXTEEN FREAKING DAYS AGO

snip

(And hey, see that question in there about whether "[the 1905 theory]" is something you added or in the original? That's another question you avoided and never answered!)

Sorry, bub, but I’ve got about a dozen guys asking me questions and demanding immediate answers and demanding exclusive rights to all my spare time, plus other guys on other boards are also asking me questions, but I don’t have time to devote to each one of you as if I were your own private tutor. Every one of you seems to think that when you ask me questions, you and I are the only ones on this board and that I’m just sitting around waiting to devote all my attention to just you.

So you need to learn how to be patient, wait your turn, and control your temper.

I added the “[the 1905 theory]”, because in 1911 he was still calling the 1905 theory “the theory of relativity”. He didn’t begin to call it the “special” theory until about 1915 or 1916. So, when some people read the 1911 paper, in isolation, out of sequence and out of the context of history, they might think he means either “both” theories of relativity or the “GR” theory of relativity.

[Eroica]

I’ve been trying to tell you that Einstein changed his mind about the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper after he began working with gravity, acceleration, and the GR theory. See what he said in the first major GR theory paper of 1911 ... [snip]...:

“To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity [the 1905 paper], and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.”
That's not my reading of this passage. In the 1911 paper Einstein does indeed begin by demonstrating (in §1) that the Principle of Equivalence is clearly true in a Newtonian world (ie one in which we for the present disregard the theory of relativity).

He then goes on to assume that this Principle of Equivalence holds in all cases. In other words, the Principle of Equivalence is one of the postulates of GR.

We shall now show, first of all, from the standpoint of the ordinary theory of relativity [ie the 1905 paper], what degree of probability is inherent in our hypothesis.
He then goes on to show that the Principle of Equivalence is entirely consistent with the SR developed in his 1905 paper. This does not sound to me like a man who has recanted and started anew.

[Eroica]

And hey, see that question in there about whether "[the 1905 theory]" is something you added or in the original?
Sam5 did add that "[the 1905 paper]." But to be fair to him, it's quite clear from the context that Einstein is referring to that paper.

[SeanF]

And hey, see that question in there about whether "[the 1905 theory]" is something you added or in the original?
Sam5 did add that "[the 1905 paper]." But to be fair to him, it's quite clear from the context that Einstein is referring to that paper.

Yeah, if you've got the whole paper, which I didn't sixteen days ago.

And the mention of that unanswered question was not hardly the most important thing in my last post, but I note it's the only thing Sam5 felt it necessary to discuss.

If he spent as much time answering questions as he does explaining why he doesn't have time to answer questions . . .

[Sam5]

He then goes on to show that the Principle of Equivalence is entirely consistent with the SR developed in his 1905 paper. This does not sound to me like a man who has recanted and started anew.


The principle of equivalence was not Einstein’s invention and the idea that “the laws of physics are the same everywhere” wasn’t his invention either. These are Galileo/Newtonian ideas that were used throughout the 19th Century. The “equivalence” concept was demonstrated in Galileo’s discovery that different sized masses fall (accelerate) at the same rate.

Einstein had to disregard the Kinematics principles of the 1905 theory in 1911 because they didn’t work, because they didn’t consider gravitation or acceleration, and they didn’t consider the effects of gravitation and acceleration on the speed of light and on the vibration rates of atoms. Also, he used any kind of clocks, even his “wristwatch” in the 1905 theory, whereas in the 1911 theory he specifically used atomic clocks. A wristwatch and a pendulum clock doesn’t work the same way as an atomic clock. The first two represent classical “mechanics” while the atomic clocks represent the new field of “electrodynamics”, which is now called “quantum mechanics”. It is somewhat different from large-mass “mechanics”, since it deals with smaller objects and tiny local magnetic and electric fields, whereas a pendulum clock and a mechanical wristwatch don’t have to deal much with electric and magnetic fields in ordinary space, but atoms do, since these tiny fields are contained inside each atom.

This GR theory was a major switch from the old and mostly all-mechanical theories of the 19th Century, since Einstein (and Lorentz too) were trying to figure out what was going on inside an atom, even though they could not directly see what was going on.

His 1905 postulate that stated that “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c” was not correct, and he realized that in 1911, and that’s why he had to change the postulate to include local atomic clocks as the time measuring device for local light speed.

But of course, you are free to think whatever you want to think, and you are free to disregard his addition of the gravity field to the 1905 k frame clock in 1918. And you are also free to believe in his original 1905 light speed postulate, rather than in his corrected 1911 postulate.

Einstein tried to expand his GR theory into quantum mechanics, by introducing the gravitational field into the insides of an atom, and that’s what he called his “unity field theory”, but it didn’t work out. So, while he improved upon some of the fine details of Galileo/Newton mechanics, on the small scale of the atom, all the new young quantum mechanics guys went on out ahead of Einstein in their work inside atoms, with their own new quantum mechanics “relativity” theories and their new, post-1920, way of thinking.

So, things sort of went this way in the history of science:

Galileo = gravitational field and large-scale mechanics

Newton = gravitational field, large-scale mechanics, and some small-scale mechanics regarding light, but without a full understanding of magnetic and electric fields

Lorentz = large scale mechanics with gravity, magnetic, and electric fields, and small scale mechanics with gravity, magnetic, and electric fields, and this become known as “electrodynamics”

Einstein = SR theory: erroneous when fields are left out; GR theory: with large scale mechanics with gravity, magnetic, and electric fields, and electrodynamical small scale mechanics (atoms, electrons, light) with gravity, magnetic, and electric fields

Modern Quantum Mechanics: mostly small-scale mechanics, electrodynamics, and sub-particle mechanics, with gravity, magnetic, and electric fields, and some other different kinds of very small-scale fields included; new kinds of fields that Galileo, Newton, Lorentz, and Einstein didn't know about, that work on the very small scale

[Sam5]

Eroica,


So, NASA uses Galileo/Newton large-scale mechanics to plot the basic trajectories of rockets, but they use Lorentz/Einstein GR small-scale electrodynamical mechanics when dealing with radio frequencies and atomic clock rates and with the exact times of rocket retro-firing when spacecraft are about to land on the moon, Mars, etc. If they use SR theory and the 1905 light speed postulate, their spacecraft might be a little closer to Mars than they realize and its rockets will be retro-fired too late, and the craft will crash into Mars. And also, if JPL uses the 1905 light speed postulate, the Pioneer and Voyger craft will be slightly further away than they realize.

Biologists and chemists use quantum mechanics when dealing with the smallest scale molecules, atoms, and smaller particles

[Tensor]

I’ve been trying to tell you that Einstein changed his mind about the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper after he began working with gravity, acceleration, and the GR theory. See what he said in the first major GR theory paper of 1911. Einstein himself discovered the errors in the 1905 paper, and I learned that from him and his 1911 paper. That’s why he said in the 1911 paper:

“To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity [the 1905 paper], and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.”

And that’s what I’m telling you that you should do also. Just completely “disregard” the original 1905 Kinematical part of the SR theory,

Ahhh Sam, have you even read the entire 1911 paper and not just quote mined it. The paper (I have it in front of me) introduces his concept of the Principle of Equivalence (He calls it our hypothesis). After your quote above, there are four paragraphs. In the first he gives the classical equations that apply to moving bodies. In the second he then talks about how objects react classically in both frames. One in a gravitational field and the other being accelerated. The third talks about the equivalence where Newtonian Mechnics are valid (again classically). The reason he disregards SR in the first part of the paper is because he's talking about classical motion. Now, the fourth starts an explaination for gravity and acceleration and the last sentence in that fourth paragraph is this:

We shall now show, first of all, from the standpoint of the ordinary theory of relativity, what degree of probability is inherent in our hypothesis.

He then goes on to show the motion of bodies in gravity, using SR. He specifcally mentions the results of the Gravity/Acceleration equations match SR.

If he is (as you claim) telling us to disregard SR, WHY DOES HE USE IT TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE PRICIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE?

because Einstein disregarded it when he began to develop GR theory,

Er, wrong, thank you for playing. I've just shown his 1911 paper uses SR to develop the major postulate of GR.

and that’s why he added acceleration and gravity to the 1905 paper, retroactively, in 1918.

Er, wrong again. Gravity and acceleration are part of his 1915 GR theory.
SR is a limiting case of GR.

Until you face this fact, that the original 1905 Kinematical part of SR is wrong, and that by 1911 Einstein realized it was wrong, and by 1918 he corrected one of the paper’s major errors, then you aren’t going to learn much.

Until you face the fact that you don't really don't understand the 1905 paper and that the 1911 paper uses SR to lay the groundwork for GR and he completed GR in 1915, not 1918 you won't understand either SR or GR.

As long as you try to continue to claim that the original Kinematical part of the 1905 paper is correct and not flawed, you will continue to not understand what Einstein did when he switched over to GR theory.

As long as you continue not to understand the math behind the two theories, you will not understand that the 1905 paper is correct and definitely not understand how he used SR to developed GR.

What you need to do is ask yourself why Einstein said in 1911 that we should “disregard” the 1905 “theory of relativity” when we think about light moving through gravitational fields.

What you need to do is ask yourself why you continue to quote only those parts of the papers that support your position, completely disregarding those parts that disprove your contentions . Is it because you don't understand what the paper is saying?

He said that long before I said it, and you need to figure out, on your own, why he said it, because you refuse to take my word for why he said it.

Then why does he use SR later in the paper?

And you also need to understand that his 1905 postulate, ““light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”, is not correct, since it calls space “empty” and it disregards all gravitational fields in space.

As pointed out to you several time, SR does not include gravity. It is valid where gravitation or acceleration effects can be ignored. Your assertion is just plain silly. We use either Newton, SR, or GR depending on where each of them is valid. If we go by your comment, we shouldn't use Newtonian Mechanics either, because it ignores effects that happen close to the speed of light. But we can use Newton's equations where they are valid, just like we can use SR's equations where they are valid.

You need to also figure out what he meant in the 1911 theory when he said, “The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity. What did he mean by “in a different form”?

SR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames
GR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in local inertial frames


When I say we should “disregard” the Kinematical part of the original 1905 paper, you guys howl and yell at me, and insult me, and call me a “crackpot”,

And now you know why. He said disregard it while he was explaining classical motion and brought it back and used it when developing the POE.

but whenever I point out to you that Einstein himself said in 1911 that we should “disregard” the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper,

LOL. If you say it enough, maybe it will come true.

you guys just sit there and go “doh” in unison, because you have no idea why he said it.

Now that I've showed that you had no idea why he said it....

[Tensor]

He then goes on to show that the Principle of Equivalence is entirely consistent with the SR developed in his 1905 paper. This does not sound to me like a man who has recanted and started anew.


The principle of equivalence was not Einstein’s invention and the idea that “the laws of physics are the same everywhere” wasn’t his invention either. These are Galileo/Newtonian ideas that were used throughout the 19th Century. The “equivalence” concept was demonstrated in Galileo’s discovery that different sized masses fall (accelerate) at the same rate.

Again, you show you don't understand Einstein. The POE in GR refers to gravity and acceleration are equivalant, not that different masses fall at the same rate. The two are different principles.

[Sam5]

SR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames
GR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in local inertial frames

LOL! No, no, no, no. You are being a little redundant, aren’t you? :D

What he means in 1911 is that the speed of light varies as it travels around different places in space, but if you use a local atomic clock to measure the local speed of light at the clock, you will measure “c”. But if you use a local atomic clock to measure the speed of light that is moving someplace else, a long way away from your clock, then you will generally get a speed of more or less than “c”. This is the most likely reason for the Pioneer spacecraft anomaly. It’s not a “gravity anomaly”. They probably aren’t closer to the sun than they should be. The anomaly most likely represents a faster light speed in the part of the solar system where the spacecraft are now located. So, the radio signals get out there and back a little faster than NASA expects, and this causes SR trained engineers to think that the spacecraft are closer to the earth than they actually are.

I mean, it’s right there in the 1911 paper. And Newton even mentioned something about it Optics, but he wasn’t as clear about it as Einstein was.

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

Whillikers, I guess you haven’t noticed that I make a clear distinction between the Kinematical part of 1905 SR and the Electrodynamical part. The Kinematical part contains the big mistakes, but the Electrodynamical part is more like the original Lorentz theory.

Einstein here in the 1911 paper is trying to make the transition between classical Newtonian mechanics and the new modern Lorentzian electrodynamics. So he knows he has to set aside his error-filled Kinematical part of the 1905 paper, but he can continue on developing the Electrodynamical part.

He realizes the Kinematical part of SR theory is wrong, but he returns to the Electrodynamical part, which is basically based on the Lorentz theory of electrodynamics.

Also, Einstein is trying to salvage his “constancy” postulate and his “relativity” priciple.

Well, I say his relativity principle isn’t his, it’s Galileo’s and Newton’s, and his 1905 constancy postulate is just flat out wrong, and he corrects it in the 1911 paper, and he makes it conform more to the Lorentz electrodynamics theory, but he doesn’t make it very clear what his is doing.

[Sam5]

SR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames
GR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in local inertial frames

In this, you are basically saying the same thing twice. All you’ve done is add the word “local” to the second sentence, but the first sentence implies “local” too.

And the term “inertial frame” is misleading too. The surface of the earth is essentially an “inertial frame” along the x and y axes. That’s why the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t blow away into space. We were all born being “inertial” along our x and y axes. That’s why we didn’t go flying off into space at 18.6 mps when we were babies. Hey, the “escape velocity” of the earth is only about 17,000 mph. We are non-inertial along our z axis.

[SeanF]

This is the most likely reason for the Pioneer spacecraft anomaly. It’s not a “gravity anomaly”. They probably aren’t closer to the sun than they should be. The anomaly most likely represents a faster light speed in the part of the solar system where the spacecraft are now located. So, the radio signals get out there and back a little faster than NASA expects, and this causes SR trained engineers to think that the spacecraft are closer to the earth than they actually are.


LOL! :D

You guys sure seem to know more than NASA knows about high-speed space travel! Have you called NASA and told them your theories?

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

You shouldn't be asking other people about more complex stuff like this as long as you can't even understand simple things like what ø(v) means in the 1905 paper.

[Sam5]

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

You shouldn't be asking other people about more complex stuff like this as long as you can't even understand simple things like what ø(v) means in the 1905 paper.

I take that to mean that you don’t know what c’dt and cdt mean in the 1911 paper.

[Sam5]

Anybody?

What did Einstein mean by c’dt and cdt?

If “c” is a universal “constant”, then how can there be a c’ and a c?

So what makes the light bend as it passes the sun?

[SeanF]

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

You shouldn't be asking other people about more complex stuff like this as long as you can't even understand simple things like what ø(v) means in the 1905 paper.

I take that to mean that you don’t know what c’dt and cdt mean in the 1911 paper.

And I take that to mean that you don't know what ø(v), c'dt, or cdt mean.

[Tensor]

SR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames
GR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in local inertial frames

LOL! No, no, no, no. You are being a little redundant, aren’t you? :D

In this, you are basically saying the same thing twice. All you’ve done is add the word “local” to the second sentence, but the first sentence implies “local” too.

Sam, I moved the second comment from your second post so both of them are here. Why does the first sentence imply local? Ok try this, in SR there is a global coordinate system and so the metric tensor is equal to the Minkowski metric. In GR the the coordinate system is only local and the metric tensor is only approximately equal to the Minkowski metric. Now can you tell me why?


What he means in 1911 is that the speed of light varies as it travels around different places in space, but if you use a local atomic clock to measure the local speed of light at the clock, you will measure “c”. But if you use a local atomic clock to measure the speed of light that is moving someplace else, a long way away from your clock, then you will generally get a speed of more or less than “c”.

Close enough, I'll give it to you, although I woldn't say generally. There usually has to be something that affects spacetime to cause it.

I mean, it’s right there in the 1911 paper. And Newton even mentioned something about it Optics, but he wasn’t as clear about it as Einstein was.

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

They are not speeds, they are distances. It's the speed of light (c) multiplied by the change in time. Which gives a distance. If you look carefully, you will see he defines the radii of the circles with it. If you want to know why circles, look up Huyghens's principle.

Whillikers, I guess you haven’t noticed that I make a clear distinction between the Kinematical part of 1905 SR and the Electrodynamical part. The Kinematical part contains the big mistakes, but the Electrodynamical part is more like the original Lorentz theory.

Yes, I've notice. But what you still don't get is that in situations where gravity and acceleration are small enough, the GR equations (which you keep saying "fixed" SR), will give near enough the same result as the SR equations, even the Kinematical part you claim is wrong. Which means if you claim SR doesn't work, you have to claim GR doesn't work either.

Einstein here in the 1911 paper is trying to make the transition between classical Newtonian mechanics and the new modern Lorentzian electrodynamics.

Nope, it doesn't matter if you call it mechanics or elctrodynamics, they're both classical. Both Newton and Lorent both use a absolute frame of referece. Einstein doesn't.

he returns to the Electrodynamical part, which is basically based on the Lorentz theory of electrodynamics.

Some of the principles used by Einstein were floating around near the turn of the century. Lorentz, Lamor, Fitzgerald, Poincare, among others, were kicking the ideas around . But they all were stuck in the mindset of an absolute frame of referece. Only Einstein broke out of that way of thinking.

Also, Einstein is trying to salvage his “constancy” postulate and his “relativity” priciple. Well, I say his relativity principle isn’t his, it’s Galileo’s and Newton’s,

Who ever said it was his alone? Jeez, if you know anything about the history of this, you know that many of those involved had ideas about it. But only Einstein brought all the ideas together in one,self-consistant theory. The others had their chance, but didn't do anything with it.

and his 1905 constancy postulate is just flat out wrong, and he corrects it in the 1911 paper, and he makes it conform more to the Lorentz electrodynamics theory, but he doesn’t make it very clear what his is doing.

Say what you will, but if that is the case, then SR, GR and QFT all won't work. And all three have been experimentally verified to work. Which means your assertion is wrong. The same applies to your assertion that the Kinematical part of the paper is wrong.

[Sam5]

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

You shouldn't be asking other people about more complex stuff like this as long as you can't even understand simple things like what ø(v) means in the 1905 paper.

I take that to mean that you don’t know what c’dt and cdt mean in the 1911 paper.

And I take that to mean that you don't know what ø(v), c'dt, or cdt mean. :^o :^o :^o


Lol, you’re funny. You know I’ve explained all three several times already.

Now it’s your turn.

[Tensor]

Anybody?

What did Einstein mean by c’dt and cdt?

If “c” is a universal “constant”, then how can there be a c’ and a c?
Have you actually read the paper or is it you just don't understand it? He doesn't use c', he uses c1 and c2 (sorry, I still can't get sub and super scripts). He defines all those terms in the paragraph above the equation. And it's only a constant in the local frame of reference.

So what makes the light bend as it passes the sun?

It's following a geodesic in spacetime the sun has warped.

[Tensor]

SR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames
GR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in local inertial frames


And the term “inertial frame” is misleading too. The surface of the earth is essentially an “inertial frame” along the x and y axes. That’s why the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t blow away into space. We were all born being “inertial” along our x and y axes. That’s why we didn’t go flying off into space at 18.6 mps when we were babies.

Exactly where on the surface of the earth are you in free fall? See Grey's explanation a page or two back on why the earth is not an inertial reference frame.

[Sam5]

Why does the first sentence imply local? Ok try this, in SR there is a global coordinate system and so the metric tensor is equal to the Minkowski metric. In GR the the coordinate system is only local and the metric tensor is only approximately equal to the Minkowski metric.

Barf! Gag!! Wretch!

Man, just say gravity slows down the speed of light and the internal vibraiton rates of atoms.


Close enough, I'll give it to you, although I woldn't say generally. There usually has to be something that affects spacetime to cause it.

Gravity, just gravity.

I mean, it’s right there in the 1911 paper. And Newton even mentioned something about it Optics, but he wasn’t as clear about it as Einstein was.

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

They are not speeds, they are distances. It's the speed of light (c) multiplied by the change in time. Which gives a distance. If you look carefully, you will see he defines the radii of the circles with it. If you want to know why circles, look up Huyghens's principle.

c'dt is the speed of light passing by the sun at that distance from the surface of the sun. cdt is the speed of the light at that closer distance to the sun. It's the different speeds of light as we are looking at the plane wave pass from the top of the page to the bottom (on the website) or bottom to top in the book version of the graph.

The c'dt is local light speed at the sun, at that distance from the sun, as measured by a distant clock. The c' is the local speed, the c is a slower speed as light passes closer by the sun. That's what makes the light refract around the sun. This is gravitational refraction just like light going into a prism is dense-media refraction, but it moves in a curve around the sun since the sun's surface is curved. This happens when the speed of light changes gradually along different parts of the wavefront of a beam.

This is why he had to disregard the kinematical part of SR theory, because this didn't happen in SR theory.

[Jobe]

I, for one, would like to hear Sam5's answers to SeanF's as yet unanswered questions.

[Musashi]

Jobe, can't you tell he is too busy to fool around with trolls like SeanF? :wink:

[Sam5]

Tensor,

Now here’s the hard part to understand.... you measure the speed of light change only if you use a clock that is not influenced by the sun’s gravitational field. That’s why he uses a distant clock.

Because if you use local atomic clocks, located at the places where the c’dt and cdt are located on the chart, you’ll measure “c” for the speeds of light passing those points. Why? Because the tick rate of an atomic clock slows down in a gravitational field at the same rate the light speed slows down, so you don’t notice the light speed slowdown if you use an local atomic clock at that location to measure the local speed of light at that location.

That is actually a very weird thing about nature, but it makes sense, because it is atoms that emit light. So, light speed and atomic vibration rates are tied right together and both are slowed down by more gravity. When the atomic clock slows down under strong gravity, so does the speed of light, but you can’t tell it if you are there under the same gravity, using a local atomic clock, and timing the local speed of light.

But, if you are away from that area, away from the strong field of the sun, looking at the light beam pass by the sun, using an atomic clock or any clock away from the sun that is not affected by the gravitational field of the sun, then you’ll measure the inside part of the beam nearest the sun slow down more, and the outside part of the beam (farthest from the sun) slow down less.

These slowdowns are actually very slight, but they do occur.

So his c'dt and cdt are two different speeds of light, as measured by a clock that is not affected by the gravitational field of the sun. And when he says "disregard" the 1905 paper, this is the part you are supposed to disregard, because he finally realized light speed is NOT constant every place in space.

[Sam5]

Yes, I've notice. But what you still don't get is that in situations where gravity and acceleration are small enough, the GR equations (which you keep saying "fixed" SR), will give near enough the same result as the SR equations, even the Kinematical part you claim is wrong. Which means if you claim SR doesn't work, you have to claim GR doesn't work either.

No, that’s just not true. Both SR and GR are capable of calculating either low velocities or low gravitational fields and low acceleration, or high velocities and high gravitational field.

The thing he realized in 1911 was that the speed of light is NOT constant everywhere, because in 1911 he figured out that it slows down when passing through a strong gravitational field. He did not know that in 1905. But he figured it out in 1911.

Nope, it doesn't matter if you call it mechanics or elctrodynamics, they're both classical. Both Newton and Lorent both use a absolute frame of referece. Einstein doesn't.

Well, he does in the 1911 paper in that graph. He's using an absolute frame of reference from where he views the light beam passing the sun and from where he measures its different speeds. Even in SR theory, his "stationary" system is his "absolute frame of reference". That's why the other frame is always "moving" relative to it.

he returns to the Electrodynamical part, which is basically based on the Lorentz theory of electrodynamics.

Some of the principles used by Einstein were floating around near the turn of the century. Lorentz, Lamor, Fitzgerald, Poincare, among others, were kicking the ideas around . But they all were stuck in the mindset of an absolute frame of referece. Only Einstein broke out of that way of thinking.

Yes and no. Lorentz's theory was differenent, since it was the first to change the rate of a moving clock. Einstein liked that. In the 1911 theory, he had two absolute frames, one at the sun and one at the earth. Different things happened within them, but both were absolute "references systems" for people resting within them.

Also, Einstein is trying to salvage his “constancy” postulate and his “relativity” priciple. Well, I say his relativity principle isn’t his, it’s Galileo’s and Newton’s,

Who ever said it was his alone? Jeez, if you know anything about the history of this, you know that many of those involved had ideas about it. But only Einstein brought all the ideas together in one,self-consistant theory.

The 1905 theory was not "self consistant". It was too highly speculative and artificial. It left out acceleration and gravity and that was fatal to the theory. But the 1911 theory was very self consistant.

and his 1905 constancy postulate is just flat out wrong, and he corrects it in the 1911 paper, and he makes it conform more to the Lorentz electrodynamics theory, but he doesn’t make it very clear what his is doing.

Say what you will, but if that is the case, then SR, GR and QFT all won't work. And all three have been experimentally verified to work. Which means your assertion is wrong. The same applies to your assertion that the Kinematical part of the paper is wrong.

No.

This is very difficult to understand and to explain. The H-K experiment did NOT prove SR, it proved Lorentz theory. The moving clocks were moving through fields, and that’s what changed their rates. It had nothing to do with just “relative motion”. This was a confirmation of Lorentz’s 1895 theory. That theory was published in 1895 in a 155 page book. I just found out it was a whole book, not just a paper.

Look at it this way: In 1895 Lorentz said atoms would be affected when they move through fields. In 1905 Einstein said they didn’t have to move through fields to be affected, they only had to “move” to be affected. But, in 1911 he realized his mistake and changed is “relativity” theory to conform more to reality and to the original Lorentz theory. Lorentz was delighted because that gave more support to his theory.

So, the H-K experiment proved the Lorentz “motion through fields” theory and Einstein GR theory.

[Sam5]

I, for one, would like to hear Sam5's answers to SeanF's as yet unanswered questions.

I've answered his questions many time. But he has avoided answering my questions about c'dt and cdt.

What he does is ask questions, and I answer them. Then a week later, when my answers are lost in back pages, he DEMANDS that I answer those questions. But I've already answered them and you can find them in the archives.

If you want to ask me a question, then go ahead. Give me your answer to it and I'll give you my answer to it, just like I'm doing now with Tensor.

[Sam5]

Anybody?

What did Einstein mean by c’dt and cdt?

If “c” is a universal “constant”, then how can there be a c’ and a c?
Have you actually read the paper or is it you just don't understand it? He doesn't use c', he uses c1 and c2 (sorry, I still can't get sub and super scripts).

Yes, you are right. I got the c'dt and the cdt from that kid's physics website, since more people here have access to it rather than Einstein's book. The kid changed the c1 and c2 to c'dt and cdt.


So what makes the light bend as it passes the sun?

It's following a geodesic in spacetime the sun has warped.

Jeez!!! PLEASE! That's BS code words and double talk. I hate them because they say NOTHING!

The light bends because the inside of the beam near the sun slows down more than the outside of the beam. That's the same reason light suddenly bends when it goes into a prism. It's going from a faster to a slower speed and it bends when it does that while going in at an angle to a prism. It does the same thing when it passes very near the sun, but it does it in a curve around the sun rather than at a sharp angle.

[Jobe]

I, for one, would like to hear Sam5's answers to SeanF's as yet unanswered questions.

I've answered his questions many time. But he has avoided answering my questions about c'dt and cdt.

What he does is ask questions, and I answer them. Then a week later, when my answers are lost in back pages, he DEMANDS that I answer those questions. But I've already answered them and you can find them in the archives.

If you want to ask me a question, then go ahead. Give me your answer to it and I'll give you my answer to it, just like I'm doing now with Tensor.

Okay fair enough. Here's my question:

Can you please answer those questions asked of you by SeanF that you haven't yet answered?

And in the spirit of you:


Anybody?

What did Einstein mean by c’dt and cdt?

If “c” is a universal “constant”, then how can there be a c’ and a c?

So what makes the light bend as it passes the sun?


I won't provide my own answer first :)

[Sam5]

SR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames
GR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in local inertial frames


And the term “inertial frame” is misleading too. The surface of the earth is essentially an “inertial frame” along the x and y axes. That’s why the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t blow away into space. We were all born being “inertial” along our x and y axes. That’s why we didn’t go flying off into space at 18.6 mps when we were babies.

Exactly where on the surface of the earth are you in free fall? See Grey's explanation a page or two back on why the earth is not an inertial reference frame.

You are in free fall when you fall off a cliff or building. But that is along the z axis. On the x and y axes, we are inertial, on the z axis we are not. We are accelerating constanty. The 1 g we feel is "acceleration", just as if we were accelerating in a rocket in space at 1 g. When we stop accelerating in the rocket we are in free fall.

Einstein didn't use the term "inertial frame". He used the term "system" where the laws of Newton hold good, just like here on the earth.

[Sam5]

I, for one, would like to hear Sam5's answers to SeanF's as yet unanswered questions.

I've answered his questions many time. But he has avoided answering my questions about c'dt and cdt.

What he does is ask questions, and I answer them. Then a week later, when my answers are lost in back pages, he DEMANDS that I answer those questions. But I've already answered them and you can find them in the archives.

If you want to ask me a question, then go ahead. Give me your answer to it and I'll give you my answer to it, just like I'm doing now with Tensor.

Okay fair enough. Here's my question:

Can you please answer those questions asked of you by SeanF that you haven't yet answered?

And in the spirit of you:


Anybody?

What did Einstein mean by c’dt and cdt?

If “c” is a universal “constant”, then how can there be a c’ and a c?

So what makes the light bend as it passes the sun?


I won't provide my own answer first :)



I don’t know what you are talking about, either list the specific questions or just shut up.

I answered the c’dt and cdt questions to Tensor 20 minutes ago.

Pay attention and stop harassing me.

[Jobe]

I don’t know what you are talking about, either list the specific questions or just shut up.

I answered the c’dt and cdt questions to Tensor 20 minutes ago.

Pay attention and stop harassing me.

You could simply scroll back a few pages and get them straight from the source. But since all you want to do is continually evade, no line of reasoning I can think of will make you answer them.

"No YOU shut up ... bub/kid/sonny/<insert patronising Sam5 terminology here>!"

[SeanF]

Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

You shouldn't be asking other people about more complex stuff like this as long as you can't even understand simple things like what ø(v) means in the 1905 paper.

I take that to mean that you don’t know what c’dt and cdt mean in the 1911 paper.

And I take that to mean that you don't know what ø(v), c'dt, or cdt mean. :^o :^o :^o


Lol, you’re funny. You know I’ve explained all three several times already.

Now it’s your turn.

I know you've referenced ø(v) several times - that's how I know you don't understand it, because everytime you've referenced it, you've been wrong (BTW, I see you're back to altering quotes with your own commentary, again).

Given the number of times people in this thread had already mentioned that gravity affects light but that does not violate SR, I really don't understand what you thought you were going to "prove" with the cdt and c'dt question.

And if you want one (we'll start with one) of my questions that you never answered, try this one on for size:

What is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)?

And don't try to just say you answered it a long time ago - if you answered it, provide a link to the post with your answer. Otherwise, we'll all know you're just blowing smoke.

[Sam5]

Jobe, SeanF

Why don’t you two become nice guys and stop with all the personal insults. Let’s just try to have a science discussion on this thread about relativity, like Tensor and I and Grey are doing. You waste too much time and space on this board with your childish personal insults.

[Tensor]

Why does the first sentence imply local? Ok try this, in SR there is a global coordinate system and so the metric tensor is equal to the Minkowski metric. In GR the the coordinate system is only local and the metric tensor is only approximately equal to the Minkowski metric.

Barf! Gag!! Wretch!

Man, just say gravity slows down the speed of light and the internal vibraiton rates of atoms.

Why? Weren't you the one that was complaining that the schools don't teach the truth? You scoffed at the simple explanation, so I gave you that one. Well, which do you want?


Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?

They are not speeds, they are distances. It's the speed of light (c) multiplied by the change in time. Which gives a distance. If you look carefully, you will see he defines the radii of the circles with it. If you want to know why circles, look up Huyghens's principle.

c'dt is the speed of light passing by the sun at that distance from the surface of the sun. cdt is the speed of the light at that closer distance to the sun. It's the different speeds of light as we are looking at the plane wave pass from the top of the page to the bottom (on the website) or bottom to top in the book version of the graph.


Again, c1dtand c2dt are distances. That is the way he defines it in the paper:

by describing circles round the points P1 and P2 with radii c1 dt and c2 dt respectively, where c1 and c2 denote the velocity of light at the points P1 and P2 respectively

P1 and P2 are points, c1 and c2 is the speed of light at each of those points. c times dt (change in time) is a distance, not a speed. You don't measure the radius of a circle with a speed.

The c'dt is local light speed at the sun, at that distance from the sun, as measured by a distant clock. The c' is the local speed, the c is a slower speed as light passes closer by the sun.

No, no, no. He uses those terms to establish a relationship between the two points and the wavefronts (the circles), then uses that relationship to derive the equation (equation 4) that can be used to determine the deflection around any body, not just the sun. He also gives an estimate for the deflection around Jupiter, for example. No where in that paper is c1dt or c2dt said to be related to the sun. The sun isn't even mentioned until after equation 4 is derived. I'll ask you again, do you really understand the paper? I don't think so, because you don't even understand the definitions, when they are clearly given in the paper.

This is why he had to disregard the kinematical part of SR theory, because this didn't happen in SR theory.

You can keep saying this as long as you want, it still isn't true. Repeating, in cases where gravity can be ignored, all of the SR theory works.

[SeanF]

Jobe, SeanF

Why don’t you two become nice guys and stop with all the personal insults. Let’s just try to have a science discussion on this thread about relativity, like Tensor and I and Grey are doing. You waste too much time and space on this board with your childish personal insults.

Can I assume that means you're not going to answer the question?

I'll ask you again, do you really understand the paper? I don't think so, because you don't even understand the definitions, when they are clearly given in the paper.

Way to go, Tensor, now Sam5's going to have to put you in with me and Jobe as throwing "personal insults."

[russ_watters]

So what makes the light bend as it passes the sun?

It's following a geodesic in spacetime the sun has warped.

Jeez!!! PLEASE! That's BS code words and double talk. I hate them because they say NOTHING!

The light bends because the inside of the beam near the sun slows down more than the outside of the beam. That's the same reason light suddenly bends when it goes into a prism. It's going from a faster to a slower speed and it bends when it does that while going in at an angle to a prism. It does the same thing when it passes very near the sun, but it does it in a curve around the sun rather than at a sharp angle. IF gravitational bending were like what happens in a prism, then the result would look like what happens in a prism, right? For the reason you stated, a prism separates light by wavelength (prisms create rainbows). Gravity does not. Therefore, your comparison is wrong.

[Sam5]

Why? Weren't you the one that was complaining that the schools don't teach the truth? You scoffed at the simple explanation, so I gave you that one. Well, which do you want?

The simplest explanation is that, “A gravity field slows down the speed of light, a stronger gravity field slows it down more”, and, “A strong gravity field slows down atomic clocks while a weak gravity field speeds them up.”

For young kids, you can compare the gravity field to air. If you throw a large ball in thin air, it will travel further than if you throw it in thick air, because in thin air, the air resistance is less. Like trying to throw a ball in air compared to trying to throw it under water.

A parachute catches thick air inside it and it slows down a falling person who is wearing a parachute. Light travels fastest in a weak gravity field (a “thin” gravity field), like in deep space. Light travels slowest in a very strong gravity field that is near the surface of a big astronomical body like a massive star (a “thick” gravity field).

A single light “beam” bends when it passes near an astronomical body because the inside of the beam (nearest the body) slows down more than the outside of the beam (the part of the beam farthest away from the body).

For a simple analogy, compare this to disconnecting your two left-wheel car brakes, so that only your right two brakes work. Then drive and hit the brake peddle with your foot, and your car will swerve to the right since those two right wheels are turning slower than the left two wheels, or you can say the right two wheels are experiencing more friction with the road than the left two wheels.

That’s the way to explain it to kids, and adults too.

Your complex-phrase method is just meaningless to most people.

For example, when you say a light beam curves when it passes the sun because:

It's following a geodesic in spacetime the sun has warped.

That’s meaningless to all but the top college-level physics people and a few high school guys who like fancy physics terms.

When you say:

SR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames
GR: The speed of light is the same for all observers in local inertial frames

That’s meaningless because you are saying the same thing twice.

When you say:

in SR there is a global coordinate system and so the metric tensor is equal to the Minkowski metric. In GR the coordinate system is only local and the metric tensor is only approximately equal to the Minkowski metric.

Then that’s even more meaningless.

What you need to say is that the Kinematical part of SR, which deals with clock speed slowdowns due only to “relative motion” is WRONG, because it places no physical “force” on the clocks that slow down.

GR is basically RIGHT about ATOMIC clock slow-downs and speed-ups due to more or less gravity. An atomic clock resting in a strong gravity field slows down, while an atomic clock resting in a weak gravity field speeds up.

Mechanical, electronic, and pendulum clocks slow down and speed up for various other mechanical-force, electrodynamical (field-force), and thermodynamic (heat related) reasons, and also for “acceleration” related reasons.

Save all that “Minkowski metric” stuff for college level physics-major people.

[Tensor]

Yes, I've notice. But what you still don't get is that in situations where gravity and acceleration are small enough, the GR equations (which you keep saying "fixed" SR), will give near enough the same result as the SR equations, even the Kinematical part you claim is wrong. Which means if you claim SR doesn't work, you have to claim GR doesn't work either.

No, that’s just not true. Both SR and GR are capable of calculating either low velocities or low gravitational fields and low acceleration, or high velocities and high gravitational field.

Yes it is true. Ok Sam, tell you what. Show us your GR calculations where gravity can be ignored and then the SR calculations. As soon as you show us the two calculations don't match, you can claim that GR "fixed" SR. Until then, quit making this claim.


Nope, it doesn't matter if you call it mechanics or elctrodynamics, they're both classical. Both Newton and Lorent both use a absolute frame of referece. Einstein doesn't.

Well, he does in the 1911 paper in that graph. He's using an absolute frame of reference from where he views the light beam passing the sun and from where he measures its different speeds. Even in SR theory, his "stationary" system is his "absolute frame of reference". That's why the other frame is always "moving" relative to it.

Again, you don't understand. Yes, he uses a stationary system, but that doesn't mean it's absolute. What you don't seem to get is that it doesn't matter which system he choses as stationary. If you don't like the frame he picked, use the other one. It doesn't matter. Lorentz uses one frame to make all his measurements. It matters what frame you choose in Lorentz's paper.

Some of the principles used by Einstein were floating around near the turn of the century. Lorentz, Lamor, Fitzgerald, Poincare, among others, were kicking the ideas around . But they all were stuck in the mindset of an absolute frame of referece. Only Einstein broke out of that way of thinking.

Yes and no. Lorentz's theory was differenent, since it was the first to change the rate of a moving clock. Einstein liked that.

Lorentz didn't change the rate, the observations were out there. He found the amount of the change, but not why it changed. Liking it had nothing to do with Einstein. The changes are derived straight from his postulates.

In the 1911 theory, he had two absolute frames, one at the sun and one at the earth. Different things happened within them, but both were absolute "references systems" for people resting within them.

I keep asking, did you read the paper? There is no mention of earth in that paper. And the sun is only mentioned becuase he computes the amount of deflection the sun would cause. Those two points he picked, P1 and P2, have nothing to do with the Sun or Earth.

Also, Einstein is trying to salvage his “constancy” postulate and his “relativity” priciple. Well, I say his relativity principle isn’t his, it’s Galileo’s and Newton’s,

Who ever said it was his alone? Jeez, if you know anything about the history of this, you know that many of those involved had ideas about it. But only Einstein brought all the ideas together in one,self-consistant theory.

The 1905 theory was not "self consistant". It was too highly speculative and artificial. It left out acceleration and gravity and that was fatal to the theory. But the 1911 theory was very self consistant.

If this is the case, then you must agree that Newtonian mechanics is speculative and artificial. It doesn't work at relativistic speed or within extremely large gravitational fields. You have been told this several times, Netwon, SR, and GR work within their areas of validity.

and his 1905 constancy postulate is just flat out wrong, and he corrects it in the 1911 paper, and he makes it conform more to the Lorentz electrodynamics theory, but he doesn’t make it very clear what his is doing.

Say what you will, but if that is the case, then SR, GR and QFT all won't work. And all three have been experimentally verified to work. Which means your assertion is wrong. The same applies to your assertion that the Kinematical part of the paper is wrong.

No.

This is very difficult to understand or explain.

Considering you've misunderstood several basic ideas of Relativity and misunderstood basic definitions within the 1911 paper, when they were defined in the paper, I'd say you are having difficulty understanding.

Look at it this way: In 1895 Lorentz said atoms would be affected when they move through fields. In 1905 Einstein said they didn’t have to move through fields to be affected, they only had to “move” to be affected. But, in 1911 he realized his mistake and changed is “relativity” theory to conform more to reality and to the original Lorentz theory. Lorentz was delighted because that gave more support to his theory.

Again, QFT has been proven experimentally to work. QFT uses SR not GR. QFT does not use Lorentz's paper. If SR didn't work, QFT wouldn't work. What part of this do you disagree with?

So, the H-K experiment proved the Lorentz “motion through fields” theory and Einstein GR theory.

Again, Show us your GR calculations where gravity can be ignored and then show us the SR calculations. As soon as you show us the two calculations don't match, you can claim either GR "fixed" SR. Until you show this, quit making the claim.

[SeanF]

The school's are teaching kids that Relativity is the only thing (we know of) that actually affects time, not that it's the only thing that affects clocks!
So what is your defintion of "time"?
Time is the fourth dimension of our space-time continuum. In the specific context in which I was using it above, it refers to the duration of said dimension between two events within said continuum.
What is your definition of "time".

My point is, every time I ask you to define “time”, you only define a “clock”. Then I tell you it is the “clock” that slows down, then you say “no”, it is “time” that slows down.

He gave it to you earlier on this page . . . Which I agree with. Now, What is your definition of time?
As I said, time is the fourth dimension which, combined with the three spatial dimensions, makes up our space-time continuum. You think that's a definition of a "clock"?


Sam5 (11 Jan 2004 23:09) got distracted by Grey and never gave us a definition of "time."

What you need to say is that the Kinematical part of SR, which deals with clock speed slowdowns due only to “relative motion” is WRONG, because it places no physical “force” on the clocks that slow down.

Ever get the feeling you're going around in circles?

[milli360]

The simplest explanation is that, “A gravity field slows down the speed of light, a stronger gravity field slows it down more”, and, “A strong gravity field slows down atomic clocks while a weak gravity field speeds them up.”

Except it is wrong. We saw that in the "potential box" discussion.

We simplify things for kids all the time as you suggest below.

For young kids, you can compare the gravity field to air. If you throw a large ball in thin air, it will travel further than if you throw it in thick air, because in thin air, the air resistance is less. Like trying to throw a ball in air compared to trying to throw it under water.

A parachute catches thick air inside it and it slows down a falling person who is wearing a parachute. Light travels fastest in a weak gravity field (a “thin” gravity field), like in deep space. Light travels slowest in a very strong gravity field that is near the surface of a big astronomical body like a massive star (a “thick” gravity field).

A single light “beam” bends when it passes near an astronomical body because the inside of the beam (nearest the body) slows down more than the outside of the beam (the part of the beam farthest away from the body).
And that works for a ball thrown through a garvity field too, do you think? Then why is the bending of the light twice what it is for the ball?
That’s the way to explain it to kids, and adults too.

Except it is oversimplified, so it's wrong.

Your complex-phrase method is just meaningless to most people.

No one ever said it was easy.

Had you spent 12 years learning math, instead of trying to prove something wrong that thousands of others had tried to prove wrong and failed, you might be well along the road to understanding. I think you still have time, especially with your analytic skills and indefatigable energy.

[Kaptain K]

Ever get the feeling you're going around in circles?
...and at warp factor 10, we're going nowhere fast!
Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott

[Tensor]

The simplest explanation is that, “A gravity field slows down the speed of light, a stronger gravity field slows it down more”, and, “A strong gravity

... snip

Your complex-phrase method is just meaningless to most people.

No one ever said it was easy.

Had you spent 12 years learning math, instead of trying to prove something wrong that thousands of others had tried to prove wrong and failed, you might be well along the road to understanding. I think you still have time.

Thank you Milli, you too Russ. The number of posts, along with the amount of misunderstood information, sometimes make it difficult to respond, intelligently, to all of them.

[Sam5]

IF gravitational bending were like what happens in a prism, then the result would look like what happens in a prism, right? For the reason you stated, a prism separates light by wavelength (prisms create rainbows). Gravity does not. Therefore, your comparison is wrong.

I think maybe the refraction of red and blue might be the same or very similar with gravitational refraction because of the curvature of the gravitational field at an astronomical body. This would work similar to the way a curved lens works, as compared to the way a flat surface of a prism works. A curved lens tends to not separate the separate colors while a flat prism face does. this is why you see the separate spectra when you look through a prism but not when you look through a lens.

However, if a narrow beam of light were to pass a sharp-edged astronomical object, something like a “knife edge” rather than a sphere, then we might see the red and blue separation. This might be what is happening in this gravitational lensing effect shown on this website.

www.geocities.com/wcsscience/gravitational/lenses.html+gravitational+lensing+refraction+blue+ red&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]see (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:WimjhCE2gZwJ:[url) blue dots[/url]

The small blue dots in these little gravitational-lensing photos could give us a clue, since the blue color of the quasar’s light might bend more than the red, due to gravitational refraction along the "sharp edge" of the foreground galaxy. See the earth/lens/quasar graph. With the exact positions of the objects in the graph (and in space), the red light might be bent less and in a way so that it bypasses the earth from our current position. The “sharp edges” of the foreground galaxy might be acting as a kind of “knife edge”, which could diverge the blue background light from the red.

[Kaptain K]

A curved lens tends to not separate the separate colors while a flat prism face does. this is why you see the separate spectra when you look through a prism but not when you look through a lens.
Have you never heard of chromatic aberation??????? Amateur astronomers spend thousands of dollars per inch of aperture on apochromatic refractors that do not "separate the colors".

In fact, it was the severe color fringing of then current refractors that motivated your hero Sir Isaac Newton to invent the reflecting telescope!

[milli360]

A curved lens tends to not separate the separate colors while a flat prism face does. this is why you see the separate spectra when you look through a prism but not when you look through a lens.
Hey, hey, watch it. This is an astronomy board.

[Sam5]

Amateur astronomers spend thousands of dollars per inch of aperture on apochromatic refractors that do not "separate the colors".

Yes, so do photographers. But a curved lens will diverge the light rays less than a flat prism. The sun is curved, not flat.

In fact, it was the severe color fringing of then current refractors that motivated your hero Sir Isaac Newton to invent the reflecting telescope!

Yes, I read his book.

[Kaptain K]

The sun is curved, not flat.
Huh!!! Exactly what does the shape of the Sun have to do with it? Are you saying that if the Sun were flat, that lenses would not suffer from chromatic abberation? :-?

[Jobe]

Ok Sam, here's my question.

(can you guess what it is?)

What is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)?

:P

[russ_watters]

The sun is curved, not flat.
Huh!!! Exactly what does the shape of the Sun have to do with it? Are you saying that if the Sun were flat, that lenses would not suffer from chromatic abberation? :-? No, he's saying since the sun is curved, there is no chromatic abberation in gravitational lensing....which makes no sense because even in a curved lens there is chromatic abberation. Open mouth, insert foot, swallow, repeat.
Ok Sam, here's my question.

(can you guess what it is?)

What is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)? Oh boy, good luck with that.

I'll be back again in 10 more pages...

[Sam5]

Ok Sam, here's my question.

(can you guess what it is?)

What is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)?

:P

Would you understand my answer? I mean, if I answer you, would you be able to converse about it intelligently and express your opinion about it too, or would you just sit back and laugh as some of the other guys jump on me for various reasons? I smell a trap. :D

[Tensor]

Ok Sam, here's my question.

What is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)?

:P

Would you understand my answer? I mean, if I answer you, would you be able to converse about it intelligently and express your opinion about it too, or would you just sit back and laugh as some of the other guys jump on me for various reasons? I smell a trap. :D

There are several people here who have an understanding of the GR equations. Not to mention you have my offer to show us how wrong we are by showing us that the SR and GR equations (when gravity can be ignored) don't match. So go for it. :D

[Sam5]

No, he's saying since the sun is curved, there is no chromatic abberation in gravitational lensing....which makes no sense because even in a curved lens there is chromatic abberation.


I said, “I think maybe”. It’s just an idea. I see no chromatic aberration when I look through a single thin lens, but I do see it when I look through a prism.

Have you ever seen a spectrum projected by a single lens or magnifying glass? If so, I would like to buy one of those lenses. How much would you charge me for one?

I think probably the lack of refraction spread or divergence between red and blue at the sun is probably due to the very slight difference between the speeds, the very slight difference in the speed of light change at the sun.

By the way, how can you account for the redshifted quasar in the photo I linked to turning blue after being gravitationally lensed by the edge of a galaxy?

You love to criticize others, but what is your theory about this?

[Sam5]

There are several people here who have an understanding of the GR equations. Not to mention you have my offer to show us how wrong we are by showing us that the SR and GR equations (when gravity can be ignored) don't match. So go for it. :D


There is no gravity term in any of the 1905 equations.

What the 1905 math matches is Lorentz’s 1895 theory in which he introduced the Lorentz Transformation equation for atoms moving through fields. Not “relative to” but “through”. This is what Einstein eventually changed his relativity theory to conform to, since just “relative motion” won’t do anything at all except produce a classical Doppler effect.

All those “test” that are supposed to “confirm” SR theory actually confirm the 1895 and 1904 Lorentz theory.

Einstein was in high school when Lorentz published his first major electrodynamical relativity theory in 1895 in his book, "Versuch einer Theorie der Elektrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern".

In 1911 Einstein finally realized that his 1905 paper was absent something very important, a gravity field. Without the field, Einstein’s “relative motion” of 1905 could not slow down any clocks. That’s why he added the gravity field to the 1905 k frame in 1918.

[Sam5]

There are several people here


Do you understand what I’m saying about the basic difference between the Lorentz electrodynamics relativity theory and the first half of Einstein’s first 1905 SR paper?

Do you understand why I say that “relative motion” alone can’t do anything to influence the actual tick rate of any clock?

Do you understand why Einstein had to change his first “relativity” theory to include gravity fields?

What "electrodynamical" effects does "relative motion" have on atoms?

[Tensor]

There are several people here who have an understanding of the GR equations. Not to mention you have my offer to show us how wrong we are by showing us that the SR and GR equations (when gravity can be ignored) don't match. So go for it. :D

There is no gravity term in any of the 1905 equations.

Ah, OK. here's a clarification. All I am asking you to do is show that the SR equations will produce a different result than the GR equations, where or when gravity can be ignored in the GR equations.

What the 1905 math matches is Lorentz’s 1895 theory in which he introduced the Lorentz Transformation equation for atoms moving through fields. Not “relative to” but “through”.

You better read it again. Exactly where does he say "moving through fields" in his paper? He's talking about moving through aether, which is not the same as fields.

This is what Einstein eventually changed his relativity theory to conform to, since just “relative motion” won’t do anything at all except produce a classical Doppler effect.

All those “test” that are supposed to “confirm” SR theory actually confirm the 1895 and 1904 Lorentz theory.

No they don't. Lorentz's theory is wrong Sam. Remember Witz objections to the theory? One of them was it couldn't be made to include gravity. SR could through GR. Lorentz's equations could be shown to produce an infinte number of solutions. SR produces unique results, where it is valid. I will give you that the measured contraction matches the Lorentz's theory, but Lorentz could not explain why. It's really interesting that you continue to play up Lorentz's theory when it's been shown to be wrong, but won't accept SR, when it has been verified to be correct within it's validity.

Einstein was in high school when Lorentz published his first major electrodynamical relativity theory in 1895 in his book, "Versuch einer Theorie der Elektrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern".

Irrelavant. Einstein wasn't even born, when Newton produced his theory. So what?

In 1911 Einstein finally realized that his 1905 paper was absent something very important, a gravity field. Without the field, Einstein’s “relative motion” of 1905 could not slow down any clocks. That’s why he added the gravity field to the 1905 k frame in 1918.

Again, Show us your GR calculations, where gravity can be ignored and then show us the SR calculations. As soon as you show us the two calculations don't match, you can claim GR "fixed" SR. Notice I'm asking for the calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation.

[Tensor]

There are several people here


Do you understand what I’m saying about the basic difference between the Lorentz electrodynamics relativity theory and the first half of Einstein’s first 1905 SR paper?

Yes I do. Darn shame that Lorentz's theory is wrong and we can ignore it, isn't it?

Do you understand why I say that “relative motion” alone can’t do anything to influence the actual tick rate of any clock?

Yes I do. It's because you don't understand the underlying ideas in Einstein's paper.

Do you understand why Einstein had to change his first “relativity” theory to include gravity fields?

Cause he wanted to?

What "electrodynamical" effects does "relative motion" have on atoms?

It slows down time in the atoms reference frame, from your point of view, if your reference frame and the atoms frame are moving relatively. It does not slow down time in the atoms referece frame from the atom's point of view. Of course the atom thinks time in your reference frame has slowed down.

Now, Show us your GR calculations, where gravity can be ignored and then show us the SR calculations. So you can show us how the two calculations don't match and you can claim GR "fixed" SR. Notice I'm asking for the calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation.

[Kaptain K]

Have you ever seen a spectrum projected by a single lens or magnifying glass? If so, I would like to buy one of those lenses. How much would you charge me for one?
:roll: I wear glasses to correct severe myopia (-8 diopters correction). I see color fringes around bright lights, especially mercury vapor lights have a violet fringe around them.

Go to the nearest office supply store and get a magnifying glass. Use it to try to focus a light source to the smallest point possible. You find that you cannot focus all the colors simultaneously. If you get the red focussed, it will have a violet fringes. If you move the lens so that the violet is focussed, it will have a red fringe. This is the reality of single lenses. They have chromatic abberations.

[SeanF]

I said, “I think maybe”. It’s just an idea. I see no chromatic aberration when I look through a single thin lens, but I do see it when I look through a prism.

Then you need to look closer.

Have you ever seen a spectrum projected by a single lens or magnifying glass? If so, I would like to buy one of those lenses. How much would you charge me for one?

A spectrum is just extreme chromatic aberration. There is some chromatic aberration just about any time light is refracted by a change in media.

I think probably the lack of refraction spread or divergence between red and blue at the sun is probably due to the very slight difference between the speeds, the very slight difference in the speed of light change at the sun.

By the way, how can you account for the redshifted quasar in the photo I linked to turning blue after being gravitationally lensed by the edge of a galaxy?

First of all, red-shifting or blue-shifting of a distant object (galaxy or quasar) does not necessarily make the object look red or blue! It moves the emission lines within the spectrum in the red or blue direction.

Second, I doubt that those pictures are true-color representations.

Third, when light is refracted, it doesn't make a blue copy of the image here and a green copy here and a red copy here. White light consists of all frequencies, red and blue and everything in between. A spectrum of white light is a continuous band of colors that fade into each other - if that quasar were being refracted like that, we'd see a rainbow streak across the sky, not a single blue dot.

Now, what is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)?

[SeanF]

Do you understand why Einstein had to change his first “relativity” theory to include gravity fields?

Special Relativity is not valid inside of gravitational fields. He knew that when he wrote it. That doesn't make it wrong.

What "electrodynamical" effects does "relative motion" have on atoms?

The temporal difference and spatial difference between two events will not be the same when viewed from two relatively-moving reference frames. There's no change in the atoms (or the clocks), it's just a difference in how much time it takes to get from one event to the other.

[Jobe]

Ok Sam, here's my question.

(can you guess what it is?)

What is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)?

:P

Would you understand my answer? I mean, if I answer you, would you be able to converse about it intelligently and express your opinion about it too, or would you just sit back and laugh as some of the other guys jump on me for various reasons? I smell a trap. :D

You haven't used "Uh, my dog ate my equations" yet, Sam.

[Sam5]

You haven't used "Uh, my dog ate my equations" yet, Sam.

Hey, Newton invented that line, didn’t he?

You know, you could just spend $10 on the book and get all the equations and the Lorentz theory too.

[Sam5]

There is no gravity term in any of the 1905 equations.

Ah, OK. here's a clarification. All I am asking you to do is show that the SR equations will produce a different result than the GR equations, where or when gravity can be ignored in the GR equations.

Well, I would say only at “infinity”. As I understand it, light traveling through the solar system is a little slower than light traveling in deep space. So light would apparently travel the fastest in the weakest gravitational field.

Or, are you talking about atomic clocks? I suppose they would “tick” the fastest in the weakest gravitational field of deep space.

You better read it again. Exactly where does he say "moving through fields" in his paper? He's talking about moving through aether, which is not the same as fields.

The Lorentz theory encompasses many papers and ideas. When NASA put the tether up, they were using Lorentz’s “movement through fields” theory. It was the movement of the tether through the earth’s magnetic field that produced the current flow in the tether.

Those two papers in that relativity book you've got were certainly not all their was to Lorentz theory. He wrote dozens and dozens, and books too, mainly in the late 19th Century. He was famous and received a Nobel Prize. Einstein got his “relativity” ideas from Lorentz when Einstein was still just a teenager. I’ve just ordered a rare copy of Lorentz’s 1895 book, "Versuch einer Theorie der Elektrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern"

This is the very beginning of modern “relativity” theory.

See in your book the footnote on page 6, where Lorentz says:

“... if we apply to these molecular forces the law which in another place we deduced electrostatic actions.” And the footnote refers to his 1895 book, "Versuch einer Theorie der Elektrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern"

Lorentz use a form of “relative motion” in his theories, but his “relative motion” was always “through” a field of some kind. That gave him a physical reason for increased mass, atomic clock tick rate slowdown, length contraction, etc. The fields put up a resistance to the motion. This is why the NASA tether snapped and broke away from the space shuttle! LOL! Lorentz predited this in 1895!

I would have thought that NASA would have known the tether would snap if it was too weak to go up against the resistance put up by the earth's magnetic field, but apparently they didn't study Lorentz's 1895 book well enough.

[Sam5]

Tensor,

This “resistance” and the “electrostatic actions” that Lorentz was talking about, could be the reason why a mass can not be accelerated to “c” inside a strong gravity field. The field apparently puts up a resistance to the motion of the particle, and the faster the particle goes, the more resistance the field puts up.

He described it in terms of an atom or an electron “shrinking” in the direction of motion. So, it might be that the electrons, atoms, and other particles can just “shrink” so much and no more, so they resist traveling “c” inside fields. We can’t shrink atoms, electrons, and particles up into “plane figures”, as Einstein said in section 4 of his 1905 paper. He got that idea directly from Lorentz’s book, which was published when Einstein was still in high school.

[Sam5]

There are several people here

Do you understand what I’m saying about the basic difference between the Lorentz electrodynamics relativity theory and the first half of Einstein’s first 1905 SR paper?

Yes I do. Darn shame that Lorentz's theory is wrong and we can ignore it, isn't it?

Wrong?! Well why do you think NASA used it in their tether experiment?? NASA knows it’s right. Just because you don’t know anything at all about it, that doesn’t mean it’s “wrong”.

Ok, ok, Lorentz was wrong, I am wrong, and NASA was wrong. So you write a letter to NASA and tell them that there really was no current generated in their tether and that their tether really did not snap. I'm sure they would appreciate your insight.

[SeanF]

The fields put up a resistance to the motion. This is why the NASA tether snapped and broke away from the space shuttle! LOL! Lorentz predited this in 1895!

Sorry, that ain't what happened (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html):

The instruments aboard the tether satelite showed that this plasma diverted through the pinhole about 1 ampere, a current comparable to that of a 100-watt bulb (but at 3500 volts!), to the metal of the shuttle and from there to the ionospheric return circuit. That current was enough to melt the cable.

LOL, indeed.

[Sam5]

What "electrodynamical" effects does "relative motion" have on atoms?

It slows down time in the atoms reference frame, from your point of view, if your reference frame and the atoms frame are moving relatively. It does not slow down time in the atoms referece frame from the atom's point of view. Of course the atom thinks time in your reference frame has slowed down.

No, no, no, no! You are just repeating his original mistake! And when you do that, you wind up with the clock paradox. You need to switch over to his “new and improved” relativity theory of 1911.

What you need to learn is how Einstein was influenced by the 1895 Lorentz theory and the Michelson Morley experiment. Einstein knew about this stuff when he was in high school, because this was big phsyics news in the late 19th Century.

But Einstein didn’t like Lorentz’s “ether” idea, so Einstein tried to do away with it in the 1905 paper.

Do you have a copy of “The Principle of Relativity”? If so, read Lorentz’s statement at the top of page 3:

“As Maxwell first remarked and as follows from a very simple calculation, the time required by a ray of light to travel from a point A to a point B and back to A must vary when the two points together undergo a displacement without carrying the ether with them.”

Now, look at Einstein’s statement on page 40 of the same book:

“We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.”

Ok, see? That’s basically the same thought experiment. But in Lorentz’s version in 1895, he was talking about the possible “length contraction” of one arm of the Michelson Morley apparatus, as it moved through a universe-stationary “ether” at 18.6 mps.

Whereas in 1905 Einstein’s version postulated that there was no universe-stationary “ether” and that the speed of light everywhere was “constant” throughout all the space of the “fixed” universe filled with “fixed” stars.

Einstein “postulated” the “constancy”, but that just means he “proclaimed” it. But in 1911 he learned that his proclamation was not true. This was very embarrassing to him, and that is why he didn’t make a big deal about changing the original postulate. He did change it, but not in a very obvious way.

And then later, in the late 1920s, he learned that the universe and the stars aren't "fixed" at all. So all of this new information proved his original postulate to be incorrect.

[Sam5]

Tensor,

Look, I realize this stuff is a little confusing, but try to look at it this way: The electrodynamical part of the 1905 theory is almost exactly like the Lorentz theory. See in Section 10 of the 1905 paper, where Einstein says:

“Let there be in motion in an electromagnetic field an electrically charged particle (in the sequel called an “electron”.....”

See? He is moving the electron THROUGH an electromagnetic field! That is Lorentz theory.

The “stationary system” is the system that the field is stationary within, and the “moving system” is the electron.

So, in the kinematical part of the paper, he deduces CORRECT results.

BUT, in the first half of the paper, he just moves the two systems “relatively”. He doesn’t have their two fields interacting. He doesn’t have one “system” moving THROUGH the fields of the other “system”. So, this is the part of the paper that is wrong, since he's talking about "spooky action at a distance", without any contact betweent he fields of the two systems.

This why I say that just “relative motion” alone can not cause any clock “slowdown”. We’ve got to move the “clocks” through fields, such as moving an atom through a gravitational field, or by placing the atom in a strong gravity field, before any tick rate change can take place.

This is the very reason why atomic clocks today are insulated from stray electric, magnetic, and EM fields and waves. This is because of Lorentz Law. But they can’t be “insulated” from “gravity”. So they change rates when they are moved at the earth and when they are moved to different elevations. This is Lorentz theory, which has become known as “GR” theory. The motion through the fields is now called “SR” theory, but it is NOT the “relative motion” that does it. It is the “motion through the fields” that does it, and that is Lorentz theory. And don’t forget, the earth’s gravity field apparently does not rotate with the earth.

[Sam5]

Sorry

Sorry. But that’s not what I’m talking about. From your link, this is what I’m talking about. This is from Lorentz theory:

“That electric comes at a price: it is taken away from the motion energy ("kinetic energy") of the shuttle, since the magnetic force on the tether opposes the motion and slows it down.”

The magnetic force on the tether puts up a “resistance” to the tether’s motion, and this happens in so-called “empty space”. Lorentz decuced this in 1895. The tether will actually slow down the space shuttle. So, space is NEVER “empty”, because it contains “fields” and they act very much like matter, in the Faradaian sense.

Also see:

“Excellent scientific data was being gathered when tether snapped on flight day three as satellite was just short of full deployment of about 12.8 miles (20.6 kilometers). Satellite immediately began speeding away from orbiter as a result of orbital forces and the crew was never in any danger. Reason for tether break not immediately clear and investigative board convened on ground to determine cause. Crew retracted deployer and remaining tether following day.


Another first was collection of data on the plasma wakes created by moving body through electrically-charged ionosphere. Some experiments conducted using free- flying satellite and attached tether before it re-entered Earth’s atmosphere and broke up.”

LINK (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/chron/sts-75.htm)

This used to be called "the electrodynamics of a moving body", but it requires motion through fields. Just "relative motoin" won't work. Lorentz theory works, SR theory (first half) does not work.

[SeanF]

Sorry

Sorry. But that’s not what I’m talking about.

You said, "The fields put up a resistance to the motion. This is why the NASA tether snapped and broke away from the space shuttle!"

The resistance to motion is not why the tether snapped and broke. It broke because it melted.

And how come you only respond to my posts if they don't say,

What is the GR equation that you believe correctly predicts the rate change for an accelerating atomic clock, and how does it work (what does each variable in it mean)?

[Tensor]

What "electrodynamical" effects does "relative motion" have on atoms?

It slows down time in the atoms reference frame, from your point of view, if your reference frame and the atoms frame are moving relatively. It does not slow down time in the atoms referece frame from the atom's point of view. Of course the atom thinks time in your reference frame has slowed down.

No, no, no, no! You are just repeating his original mistake! And when you do that, you wind up with the clock paradox. You need to switch over to his “new and improved” relativity theory of 1911.

Show us your GR calculations, where gravity can be ignored and then show us the SR calculations. As soon as you show us the two calculations don't match, you can claim GR "fixed" SR. Notice I'm asking for the calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation. If you give me to tonight or tomorrow, I should even be able to come up with a problem for you.

What you need to learn is how Einstein was influenced by the 1895 Lorentz theory and the Michelson Morley experiment. Einstein knew about this stuff when he was in high school, because this was big phsyics news in the late 19th Century. But Einstein didn’t like Lorentz’s “ether” idea, so Einstein tried to do away with it in the 1905 paper.

Tried and succeded. Einstein didn't like the aether, because there is no evidence for it. And as I pointed out to you before, a lot of people at the time new about the different ideas, but Einstein is the only one who rejected the need for aether within a complete theory.

Do you have a copy of “The Principle of Relativity”? If so, read Lorentz’s statement at the top of page 3:

“As Maxwell first remarked and as follows from a very simple calculation, the time required by a ray of light to travel from a point A to a point B and back to A must vary when the two points together undergo a displacement without carrying the ether with them.”

Now, look at Einstein’s statement on page 40 of the same book:

“We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.”

Again, so what. Lorentz (and obviously you) rejected the idea of a space without aether. Einstein rejected the idea of the aether, and with it, the idea of a absolute frame of reference. Making statements and and doing nothing with that statement is a far cry from making a statement and doing something with it.

Ok, see? That’s basically the same thought experiment. But in Lorentz’s version in 1895, he was talking about the possible “length contraction” of one arm of the Michelson Morley apparatus, as it moved through a universe-stationary “ether” at 18.6 mps. Whereas in 1905 Einstein’s version postulated that there was no universe-stationary “ether” and that the speed of light everywhere was “constant” throughout all the space of the “fixed” universe filled with “fixed” stars.

Hey, maybe you are starting to understand it. Well get you there yet.

Einstein “postulated” the “constancy”, but that just means he “proclaimed” it. But in 1911 he learned that his proclamation was not true.

Yes, it's one of his postulates of SR. What you seem not to understand (among other things) is he did more than just postulate it. He took his postulates and created a mathematically self consistant theory that works within its realm of validity. Lorentz's "theory" is not mathmatically self consistant and doesn't have a realm of valitdity (there is no aether). Again, are you saying Newtonian mechanics is untrue do because they don't work at relativistic speeds or high gravity?

This was very embarrassing to him, and that is why he didn’t make a big deal about changing the original postulate. He did change it, but not in a very obvious way.

If he is (as you claim) SR is untrue (or in this statement Einstein is embarassed by it), WHY DOES HE USE IT TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE PRICIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE?

And then later, in the late 1920s, he learned that the universe and the stars aren't "fixed" at all. So all of this new information proved his original postulate to be incorrect.

Unless you are proposing an experiment that lasts for more than a few months (and I'd say years), the stars can be considered fixed.

[swansont]

This is the very reason why atomic clocks today are insulated from stray electric, magnetic, and EM fields and waves. This is because of Lorentz Law. But they can’t be “insulated” from “gravity”. So they change rates when they are moved at the earth and when they are moved to different elevations. This is Lorentz theory, which has become known as “GR” theory. The motion through the fields is now called “SR” theory, but it is NOT the “relative motion” that does it. It is the “motion through the fields” that does it, and that is Lorentz theory.

But, despite the fact that they are shielded, the slow down due to their motion, as well. The corrections to the well-shielded clocks on GPS satellites are wrong for gravitational effect only. There is a kinetic term in the correction, as well. GPS clocks shift to a higher frequency, but for a clock on the shuttle (lower, faster orbit), the kinetic term dominates, and it runs slow. LINK (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html)

[Sam5]

The resistance to motion is not why the tether snapped and broke. It broke because it melted.

It broke because the tether was experiencing an electrodynamical field-drag Lorentz force effect, while the shuttle was not. That’s why the tether fell behind the motion of the shuttle, after it broke. If there had been no field drag effect, the tether would have drifted right along with the shuttle. The hot wire didn’t help matters any.

LOL, this is the latest in “science” theory and astrophysics, from a classical 1895 theory of Lorentzian electrodynamics. You guys need to get with it and catch up to the 19th Century classical theories.....



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

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


As the tether cuts across the magnetic field, its bias voltage is positive at the end farthest from Earth and negative at the near end [step 2 in Fig. 2]. This polarization is due to the action of the Lorentz force on the electrons in the tether. Thus, the "natural" upward current flow is due to the (negatively charged) electrons in the ionosphere being attracted to the tether's far end and then returned to the plasma at the near end, aided by the hollow cathode emitter [steps 3-5]. The hollow cathode is vital: without it, the wire's charge distribution would quickly reach equilibrium, and no current would flow.


Earth's magnetic field exerts a drag force on the current-carrying tether, decelerating it and the payload and rapidly lowering their orbit. Eventually, they re-enter Earth's atmosphere [step 6].


Outfitting the ISS with an electrodynamic tether could drastically cut its dependency on rocket fuel. Atmospheric drag exerts a force of up to 1 N on the station. To counter that drag, NASA has designed a tether capable of delivering 0.5-0.8 N of thrust in return for less than 10 kW of power drawn from the station's solar array. (The power is needed to reverse the direction of the current in the tether.) The tether would consist of a 10-km-long aluminum ribbon, 0.6 mm by 10 mm in cross section. (ProSEDS partner Tether Applications, of Chula Vista, Calif., has built a similar tether for the Mir space station.)”

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

[Sam5]

The corrections to the well-shielded clocks on GPS satellites are wrong for gravitational effect only. There is a kinetic term in the correction, as well. GPS clocks shift to a higher frequency, but for a clock on the shuttle (lower, faster orbit), the kinetic term dominates, and it runs slow. LINK (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html)

Right, the speed of the shuttle would slow down the atomic clocks more. That’s what Lorentz predicted.

Seems that a lateral motion through the gravity field slows down the clocks too. This is Lorentz theory.

[Sam5]

But,

There needs to be a speed function term on this chart from the link that you provided. The altitude is not as related to this fast/slow atomic clock tick rate phenomenon as the speed is. The geostationary clocks would speed up the most, since they are moving the slowest. Lorentz theory.

LINK (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/fig02.gif)

[Tensor]

[quote=swansont]The corrections to the well-shielded clocks on GPS satellites are wrong for gravitational effect only. There is a kinetic term in the correction, as well. GPS clocks shift to a higher frequency, but for a clock on the shuttle (lower, faster orbit), the kinetic term dominates, and it runs slow. LINK (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html)

Right, the speed of the shuttle would slow down the atomic clocks more. That’s what Lorentz predicted.

Er Wrong, He did not predict it. The observations were already there. He found the quantity. The two are different.

[GrapesOfWrath]

Right, the speed of the shuttle would slow down the atomic clocks more. That’s what Lorentz predicted.

Er Wrong, He did not predict it. The observations were already there. He found the quantity. The two are different.
I know you're not talking about atomic clocks on a space shuttle, right? Lindbergh might have carried a pocket watch with him, before poor Lorentz died in 1928, but that probably doesn't count either. :)

[Sam5]

swansont,

This explanation is not fully correct. The lateral motion clock slowdown is due to Lorentz electrodynamical effects on the atoms. The altitude effect is due to GR theory.


LINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I0WqFPjktesJ:www.isset.org/doc.php%3Fpagelocation%3D22%26doc%3D382+shuttle+at omic+clock+slowdown&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

From the link:

“For example, a highly precise atomic clock flying in an experiment called NAVEX on STS-61A/Challenger in 1985 measured a slowdown of 0.000,000,000,295 seconds for each second of flight, almost exactly what Einstein’s formulas predicted.”

This is what Lorentz predicted, not Einstein. Einstein’s 1905 formula was the Lorentz formula of 1895.

There is no “relative motion” effect, but there is a “motion through fields” Lorentz force effect. There is no "time dilation" effect on the humans since their time rate is determined by thermodynamic methods.

[Sam5]

know you're not talking about atomic clocks on a space shuttle, right? Lindbergh might have carried a pocket watch with him, before poor Lorentz died in 1928, but that probably doesn't count either. :)


What Lorentz and Einstein (in GR theory) were talking about was the electrodynamical effect specifically on a moving atomic clock. Maxwell introduced the “atomic clock” concept in 1873. Mechanical clocks work differently. Lindbergh used a mechanical clock.

See, in 1873 Maxwell talked about elementary atoms. In 1895 Lorentz talked about elementary atoms. In 1911 Einstein talked about elementary atoms. Atomic clocks use elementary atoms.

“Elementary”, like in an “atomic element”.

So, what Maxwell talked about in 1873 and what Lorentz talked about in 1895, and what Einstein talked about in 1911, was directly related to modern space shuttle atomic clock slowdowns. Betcha didn’t know that.

Hey, are you Tom Joad?

[Tensor]

swansont,

This explanation is not fully correct. The lateral motion clock slowdown is due to Lorentz electrodynamical effects on the atoms. The altitude effect is due to GR theory.


LINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I0WqFPjktesJ:www.isset.org/doc.php%3Fpagelocation%3D22%26doc%3D382+shuttle+at omic+clock+slowdown&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
From theLINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I0WqFPjktesJ:www.isset.org/doc.php%3Fpagelocation%3D22%26doc%3D382+shuttle+at omic+clock+slowdown&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

"The man who found that out was Albert Einstein, some 80 years ago, and he called it the "twins paradox": if one of a pair of twin sisters flies in space at great speed, at her return to Earth she’ll be younger than her sister who stayed there. It’s because there is no universal time measure; all time is relative, and it’s not a physical/mechanical change in the clock of the astronaut. Einstein’s theory of relativity showed that time itself changes with the speed of motion of the instrument which measures it."

Gee Sam, do some more quote mining.

[Sam5]

Right, the speed of the shuttle would slow down the atomic clocks more. That’s what Lorentz predicted.

Er Wrong, He did not predict it. The observations were already there. He found the quantity. The two are different.

No, they weren’t there in 1895. He deduced the atomic clock slowdown, just as Einstein re-deduced it in 1911. Einstein credits Lorentz in one of his 1907 papers. This was early “quantum mechanics” theory, which back then was called “electrodynamics”.

added to post:

You guys need to read more old books and papers, to see how we got to where we are today in electrodynamics and atomic theory. I’ll bet you didn’t even know that Maxwell talked about atomic clocks as early as 1873.

[Sam5]

Gee Sam,

LOL, Einstein first tried to deny the “twins paradox”.

But by 1918 he finally couldn’t, because physicists were having fits about it in Europe, so, using GR theory, he added the gravitational field to the k frame in 1918 and that did away with the paradox.

But some people, like Ives and Stilwell, still weren’t satisfied with that. They think he should have recalled the first half of the 1905 paper all together.

And hey, I don’t remember any “twin sisters” in the 1905 paper!!

Quote from website:

“The man who found that out was Albert Einstein, some 80 years ago, and he called it the "twins paradox": if one of a pair of twin sisters flies in space at great speed, at her return to Earth she’ll be younger than her sister who stayed there.”

I think that website is too “politically correct”. No wonder American kids aren't getting a good science education today, compared to Japanese and Chinese kids. American kids are being politically indoctrinated, not taught science properly.

[swansont]

swansont,

This explanation is not fully correct. The lateral motion clock slowdown is due to Lorentz electrodynamical effects on the atoms.

What electrodynamical effects, if you have shielded the clock from them?

[SeanF]

And hey, I don’t remember any “twin sisters” in the 1905 paper!!

Sam5, for about the billionth time, the Theory of SR is the math. The fact that Einstein didn't mention women in his paper doesn't mean Special Relativity doesn't apply to them!

[milli360]

The fact that Einstein didn't mention women in his paper doesn't mean Special Relativity doesn't apply to them!
He didn't mention avocados either, which is why they always seem so wrinkled. Years later, at Princeton, he did experiments in the backyard with them, and determined that they aged more in the sun than out of the sun. Up till then, scientists had thought that you'd age less inside the sun. He once wrote that he never enjoyed himself more than when he was dividing up avocados and pitting them against each other.

He called it his avocation.

[SeanF]

The fact that Einstein didn't mention women in his paper doesn't mean Special Relativity doesn't apply to them!
He didn't mention avocados either, which is why they always seem so wrinkled. Years later, at Princeton, he did experiments in the backyard with them, and determined that they aged more in the sun than out of the sun. Up till then, scientists had thought that you'd age less inside the sun. He once wrote that he never enjoyed himself more than when he was dividing up avocados and pitting them against each other.

He called it his avocation.

Did Sam5 get a hold of your user ID? ;)

Never mind, that last sentence is definitely you and not him.

(Speaking of IDs, pick an ID and stick with it, man! Looks to me like you've posted as GrapesofWrath (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=193396&highlight=#193396), kilopi (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=193420&highlight=#193420), and now milli360 within the last hour or so!)

((And how the heck do you do that "posting without upping your post count" trick anyway?))

[milli360]

That was an accident. Bad "timing" as I exited the maw of the Chronosynclastic Infundibulum, and a bunch of posts flew off the Insubstantiator. But I'm back now.

[Sam5]

I wear glasses to correct severe myopia (-8 diopters correction). I see color fringes around bright lights, especially mercury vapor lights have a violet fringe around them.

Go to the nearest office supply store and get a magnifying glass. Use it to try to focus a light source to the smallest point possible. You find that you cannot focus all the colors simultaneously. If you get the red focussed, it will have a violet fringes. If you move the lens so that the violet is focussed, it will have a red fringe. This is the reality of single lenses. They have chromatic abberations.


Hey. After some searching in old boxes, I finally found my single-lens magnifying glass. This thing is about 4 1/4 inches in diameter. I played around with it and I notice that I do see a blue fringe on one side of a pinpoint of light at the edges of the lens, but not when the pinpoint is placed in the center of the lens.

I’ve never noticed that fringe before, but most of my previous single-lens magnifying glasses were small, about 1 to 2 inches in diameter, and they were thinner too.

A few days ago I noticed on a couple of websites, that the human eye is supposed to experience single lens chromatic aberration, but this is supposed to be compensated for by a yellowish fluid inside the eye which filters out some of the blue of the blue fringe.

So I’m wondering, maybe I’ve never noticed this phenomenon before in small thin single lenses because I tend to see blue as a darker color than red.

What about when you aren’t wearing your glasses, do you ever see a faint blue fringe around lights, with just your eyes alone?

On the way back from town, I looked at a lot of signs, and I noticed that I tend to see primary blue as being much darker than primary red. And I’ve noticed that over the years when I’ve looked at rainbows too. What about you? How do you compare the brightness of the red in a rainbow to the brightness of the blue?

[Sam5]

What electrodynamical effects, if you have shielded the clock from them?

Can you “shied” an atomic clock from the gravitational field?

There is apparently some type of electrodynamical effect when an atom is moved sideways, laterally, through a radiating gravitational field.

[Sam5]

And hey, I don’t remember any “twin sisters” in the 1905 paper!!

Sam5, for about the billionth time, the Theory of SR is the math. The fact that Einstein didn't mention women in his paper doesn't mean Special Relativity doesn't apply to them!

No, no.

The important part of the first half of the paper is the “constancy” postulate. Then he incorrectly abuses the math to "prove" his “constantly” postulate. That is a violation of one of the major etiquette laws in physics. And he apparently fooled himself with that trick for a few years. That's why he had to go back and add the gravity field and the gravity term to the 1905 paper later.

[Sam5]

The fact that Einstein didn't mention women in his paper doesn't mean Special Relativity doesn't apply to them!
He didn't mention avocados either, which is why they always seem so wrinkled. Years later, at Princeton, he did experiments in the backyard with them, and determined that they aged more in the sun than out of the sun. Up till then, scientists had thought that you'd age less inside the sun. He once wrote that he never enjoyed himself more than when he was dividing up avocados and pitting them against each other.

He called it his avocation.

Did Sam5 get a hold of your user ID? ;)

Never mind, that last sentence is definitely you and not him.

(Speaking of IDs, pick an ID and stick with it, man! Looks to me like you've posted as GrapesofWrath (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=193396&highlight=#193396), kilopi (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=193420&highlight=#193420), and now milli360 within the last hour or so!)

((And how the heck do you do that "posting without upping your post count" trick anyway?))

Do you mean Milli is actually Richard??

LOL, he must have gone underground when he found out I was right about both Ann and Bob pages being wrong! LOL! :D

[Sam5]

That was an accident. Bad "timing" as I exited the maw of the Chronosynclastic Infundibulum, and a bunch of posts flew off the Insubstantiator. But I'm back now.

Hey R, why don’t you get off an put your wife on. She has more and higher degrees than you do. LOL! How is the brewing coming along?

[Sam5]

Hey, how does everybody here see the brightness of primary blue compared to the brightness of primary red?

[Celestial Mechanic]

Hey, how does everybody here see the brightness of primary blue compared to the brightness of primary red?
You're going off-topic. [-X

Chalk this one up as another red herring! Or should I say a primary red herring?

[Sam5]

Hey, how does everybody here see the brightness of primary blue compared to the brightness of primary red?
You're going off-topic. [-X

No, this is important, because other people might see more of a brighter blue fringe than I do.

How about you? Do you see blue as bright as red or is blue darker than red to you? How tall are you?

[Tensor]

The fact that Einstein didn't mention women in his paper doesn't mean Special Relativity doesn't apply to them!
He didn't mention avocados either, which is why they always seem so wrinkled. Years later, at Princeton, he did experiments in the backyard with them, and determined that they aged more in the sun than out of the sun. Up till then, scientists had thought that you'd age less inside the sun. He once wrote that he never enjoyed himself more than when he was dividing up avocados and pitting them against each other.

He called it his avocation.

You wrote just to get that last sentence in. Have you no shame. :lol:

[Tensor]

Chalk this one up as another red herring! Or should I say a primary red herring?

What? :o Jeez, I log out for a hour or two an the whole board gets bad case of Punitis. You guys should have just got a six-pack instead. #-o

[Tensor]

Heyyyy, I just made bad fellow. I guess that's what a 55 page thread can do for your post count.

[SeanF]

Then he incorrectly abuses the math to "prove" his “constantly” postulate.

What?! Do you know what a "postulate" is?

That is a violation of one of the major etiquette laws in physics.

Physics has etiquette laws?

And he apparently fooled himself with that trick for a few years. That's why he had to go back and add the gravity field and the gravity term to the 1905 paper later.

Nobody's been fooled but you.

BTW, what's with the personal insults against milli360 there?

[milli360]

he must have gone underground when he found out I was right
You're probably projecting. :)

[Tensor]

Right, the speed of the shuttle would slow down the atomic clocks more. That’s what Lorentz predicted.

Er Wrong, He did not predict it. The observations were already there. He found the quantity. The two are different.

I know you're not talking about atomic clocks on a space shuttle, right? Lindbergh might have carried a pocket watch with him, before poor Lorentz died in 1928, but that probably doesn't count either. :)

You are of course, right. After reading your post I can see where there would be confusion. I was trying (very badly as it turns out) in this post to point out that Lorentz did not predict contraction in his papers. He was simply giving the amount of the contraction that would account for then (late 1800s) observations. But hey, are a couple of mistakes ok, as long as I correct them? #-o . And you know what, he didn't even catch it.

edited to add the last sentence.

[Sam5]

What?! Do you know what a "postulate" is?

An assumption, a conjecture, a guess, a hypothetical “what if”, a hoax, a gnome, a leprechaun, a nixie, a will-o-the-wisp, a humbug, and.... a 98 year old error.

[Sam5]

he must have gone underground when he found out I was right
You're probably projecting. :)

Ok, now for a test. First, study this diagram....

LINK TO FIGURE (http://bio-mics.kist.re.kr/Teams/biomics/psd/config_axis-s.gif)

[SeanF]

What?! Do you know what a "postulate" is?

An assumption, a conjecture, a guess, a hypothetical “what if”....

Close. The pertinent definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=postulate) is this:

Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument.

"Without proof", of course, being the key words. The 1905 paper is not intended in any way to "prove" the postulates, and if you read it with that expectation, you're going to misunderstand it.

[frenat]

That is a violation of one of the major etiquette laws in physics.

Physics has etiquette laws?


But of course it does! Hasn't anybody else read Miss Manner's Big Book of Physics Etiquette? The most important thing to remember is to always extend your pinky when picking up your textbook. :D

[frenat]

BTW, what's with the personal insults against milli360 there?

That's why he didn't take my suggestion to report the supposed "trolling" to the BA. He knows he would get nailed for the insults he throws around.

[Sam5]

.....I was trying (very badly as it turns out) in this post to point out that Lorentz did not predict contraction in his papers. He was simply giving the amount of the contraction that would account for then (late 1800s) observations. But hey, are a couple of mistakes ok, as long as I correct them? #-o . And you know what, he didn't even catch it.

edited to add the last sentence.


Are you trying to say that Lorentz did NOT “predict” contractions in his 1895 book, when he used the Lorentz Transformation equation and he talked about “contractions”, at a time when Einstein was still in high school, but Einstein DID “predict” contractions in 1905 while using the 1895 Lorentz Transformation contraction equation and the Lorentz contraction concept??

[Sam5]

That's why

Lol, R and I have been going at each other for about 4 years. He plays tricks on me such as signing in under different names and he feigns sundry personas. Actually, I like his Milli persona the best, since its the most friendly. I never noticed that all these different guys lived in nc.

[Kaptain K]

That’s why the tether fell behind the motion of the shuttle, after it broke.
Wrong The tether fell behind because it was in a higher, slower orbit. As long as it was attached to the shuttle, tidal forces kept it aligned perpendicular to the orbit. The inertia of moving faster than the natural orbital speed kept the tether taut. As soon as the tether broke, it assumed its natural orbital speed and began to fall behind the shuttle.

[Sam5]

"Without proof", of course, being the key words. The 1905 paper is not intended in any way to "prove" the postulates, and if you read it with that expectation, you're going to misunderstand it.

I know. It’s some kind of literary allegory. The old Twilight Zone show used to use it as a main plot for its episodes every now and then.

But my favorite one was where the three astronauts went up, but only two came back, and one of the two swore there never was a third one. So the guy who came back who knew there was three, tried to prove that three had gone up, and he tried to convince the other guy of that fact. But then the one who said there was three just up and disappeared, and that left the third guy trying to convince his doctors that at least TWO of them went up, but his doctors told him that only 1, he, went up.

Then at the end of the show, he disappeared.

added

Oh, oh, and I liked the one about the NAB investigator who tried to figure out how the airplane landed with no pilot and crew.

But some of you guys seem to believe the 1905 paper as if it is real.

[milli360]

R and I have been going at each other for about 4 years.
True,
He plays tricks on me such as signing in under different names
that was never for your benefit
and he feigns sundry personas.
nor have I feigned a persona.

Actually, I like his Milli persona the best, since its the most friendly. I never noticed that all these different guys lived in nc.
Thanks, but I don't see any differences. At least none of mine have ever been banned. :)

I posted under my real name for years--still do. The only aliases I've ever used are the three that I'm known for here.

[SeanF]

"Without proof", of course, being the key words. The 1905 paper is not intended in any way to "prove" the postulates, and if you read it with that expectation, you're going to misunderstand it.

I know. It’s some kind of literary allegory.

No, it's not a "literary allegory." In a scientific theory, a postulate is simply what I said above. Something assumed to be true. The theory does not prove the postulate, and doesn't even try to.

[Sam5]

nor have I feigned a persona.


Maybe it’s a subconscious thing. I find Milli to be very friendly and funnier.

[Sam5]

The theory does not prove the postulate,

That's what I've been telling you for the past month.

[SeanF]

The theory does not prove the postulate,

That's what I've been telling you for the past month.

The theory does not try to prove the postulate. The theory is not intended to prove the postulate. The theory is not supposed to prove the postulate.

Nobody, not me, not Einstein, not Tensor, not Grey, not milli360, not Pauli, not Davis, not Lineweaver, not Wright, nobody ever said anything about thinking the Theory of Relativity was an attempt to prove the constancy of the speed of light.

Nobody except you.

[Sam5]

Wrong The tether fell behind because it

Study Lorentz theory and see this:

“Earth's magnetic field exerts a drag force on the current-carrying tether, decelerating it and the payload and rapidly lowering their orbit.”

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

[Sam5]

The theory does not prove the postulate,

That's what I've been telling you for the past month.

The theory does not try to prove the postulate. The theory is not intended to prove the postulate. The theory is not supposed to prove the postulate.

Nobody, not me, not Einstein, not Tensor, not Grey, not milli360, not Pauli, not Davis, not Lineweaver, not Wright, nobody ever said anything about thinking the Theory of Relativity was an attempt to prove the constancy of the speed of light.

The net result is, everybody on this thread but me thinks the theory is true and that “relative motion” can cause a clock to slow down, because of something about the “speed of light” being “constant” everywhere, and that is wrong. The 1905 postulate and the theory are not true. The 1911 theory is accurate as far as I can tell.

Are you trying to tell me now that you know now, you finally realize, that the 1905 theory and postulate are NOT true??

[Sam5]

The theory does not try to prove the postulate.



Ok, let’s take a whole thread vote:


The Kinematical part of the 1905 theory is:

NOT TRUE IN REAL LIFE

IS TRUE IN REAL LIFE



The 1905 “constancy” postulate is:

NOT TRUE IN REAL LIFE

IS TRUE IN REAL LIFE



I vote “not true” on both.

[Sam5]

Wrong

Lorentzian electrodynamics relativistic threory, 1895:


“How it works

At 250 miles of altitude, the drag created by the tether isn’t from air resistance, it’s from the Earth’s magnetic field. The first 5 kilometers of the tether are a conductive wire that captures passing electrons and sends them streaming toward the Delta II rocket booster. The interaction between that electrical current and the Earth’s magnetosphere results in a sort of drag that slows the rocket stage down and makes it start to fall. The tether also generates about 100 watts of electricity that can recharge the experiment’s batteries and keep its instruments running. Icarus is powered by some space-grade C batteries and solar panels.”

LINK (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:EymCjy19tZsJ:www.umich.edu/~urecord/9900/Jan31_00/2.htm+nasa+tether+drag&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[milli360]

Maybe it’s a subconscious thing. I find Milli to be very friendly and funnier.
I think you've put your finger on it

[Sam5]

Maybe it’s a subconscious thing. I find Milli to be very friendly and funnier.
I think you've put your finger on it

Ok, now, the question is, is it a subconscious thing for me or for you or for both? Or, maybe it doesn't matter.

[Tensor]

The important part of the first half of the paper is the “constancy” postulate. Then he incorrectly abuses the math to "prove" his “constantly” postulate.

Exactly which equations were abused.

[Sam5]

That’s why the tether fell behind the motion of the shuttle, after it broke.
Wrong .


Ok, I finally found just the right key words for Google: Try [nasa tether drag]:


“TUI is developing a system called the “Terminator Tether” that will use electrodynamic tether drag to deorbit defunct communications satellites and spent upper stages from LEO. This system has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of deorbiting satellites to mitigate the growth of orbital debris. TUI is also developing concepts under a NASA contract for a micrometeoroid- survivable, low drag tether for experimental studies of the upper atmosphere.”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:S8pIxXLpiNkJ:sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/successes/ss/8-002text.html+nasa+tether+drag&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[Tensor]

What?! Do you know what a "postulate" is?

An assumption, a conjecture, a guess, a hypothetical “what if”, a hoax, a gnome, a leprechaun, a nixie, a will-o-the-wisp, a humbug, and.... a 98 year old error.

So your understanding of this is the same as your understanding of Points P1 and P2. You don't understand.

[Tensor]

The net result is, everybody on this thread but me thinks the theory is true and that “relative motion” can cause a clock to slow down, because of something about the “speed of light” being “constant” everywhere, and that is wrong. The 1905 postulate and the theory are not true. The 1911 theory is accurate as far as I can tell.

Sam has been making this claim for this whole thread. Sam has been challanged to show us his GR calculations, where gravity can be ignored and then show us his SR calculations. As soon as he shows us the two calculations don't match, he can claim GR is accurate and SR is not. He has yet to do so. Notice I'm asking for his calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation.


Are you trying to tell me now that you know now, you finally realize, that the 1905 theory and postulate are NOT true??

No, we've been trying to tell you that you do not understand relativity.

[SeanF]

The theory does not try to prove the postulate.



Ok, let’s take a whole thread vote:


The Kinematical part of the 1905 theory is:

NOT TRUE IN REAL LIFE

IS TRUE IN REAL LIFE



The 1905 “constancy” postulate is:

NOT TRUE IN REAL LIFE

IS TRUE IN REAL LIFE



I vote “not true” on both.

Well, I'll go on record as voting "true" on both - within the limits of Special Relativity (flat, empty space).

However, I am compelled to ask why you quoted me above in this post.

The questions you asked:

Q: Is the theory true?
Q: Is the postulate true?

Are entirely unrelated to the questioned referred to in my post:

Q: Does the theory attempt to prove the postulate?

But I have a feeling that you don't understand that distinction, either.

[SeanF]

Maybe it’s a subconscious thing. I find Milli to be very friendly and funnier.
I think you've put your finger on it

Ok, now, the question is, is it a subconscious thing for me or for you or for both? Or, maybe it doesn't matter.

It's gotta be you. It's pretty apparent that they're all the same guy even if you don't read the posts where he says it's him.

Speaking of which, he has let us know every time he's changed screen names (and why, for that matter). I can truthfully say that I've never posted on Bad Astronomy under any user ID other than SeanF.

How about you, Sam5? Ever posted on Bad Astronomy under a different ID?

[Sam5]

It's gotta be you. It's pretty apparent that they're all the same guy even if you don't read the posts where he says it's him.


I think if you do a smiley face count, you’ll find that Milli posted more smiley faces than the other personas.

[Sam5]

I vote “not true” on both.

Just "relative motion" can not cause "time dilation" even in flat empty space, and anyway, space is not "empty", because it 's filled with fields. Are you not aware that he changed the "postulate" in 1911?

[Sam5]

Q: Does the theory attempt to prove the postulate?

Of course it does, and he actually thought he proved it, but he got razzed for it for 13 years, then he finally added the gravitational field to the k frame.

[Normandy6644]

Sam5, you keep referencing the kinematical part of SR, specifically Einstein's original postulate that the speed of light is constant, and saying that it's wrong. So I ask you this:

Do you believe the speed of light is constant for all reference frames?

Do you know of any experiment where light has been shown to travel faster than c?

[Sam5]

Sam5, you keep referencing the kinematical part of SR, specifically Einstein's original postulate that the speed of light is constant, and saying that it's wrong. So I ask you this:

Do you believe the speed of light is constant for all reference frames?

Do you know of any experiment where light has been shown to travel faster than c?


I can try to explain it to you if you like. It's a little complicated. For example, if you measure "c" for the speed of light at sea level, with an atomic clock at sea level, that clock will measure a speed slightly faster than "c" for light traveling from mountain top to mountain top. But this is very difficult to measure under such distant conditions. It actually has to be carefully calculated to notice the difference. I can explain the basics of the 1911 theory if you would be interested.

[Normandy6644]

You didn't actually answer my question. Well, I suppose you answered my first question. You're saying you don't believe that the speed of light is constant. Fine. How about my second question? Do you know of any experiment that has given the aforementioned result?

[Sam5]

You didn't actually answer my question. Well, I suppose you answered my first question. You're saying you don't believe that the speed of light is constant. Fine. How about my second question? Do you know of any experiment that has given the aforementioned result?

I think it would just be better for me to explain the basics of the 1911 theory. Is that ok?

[Tensor]

Sam5, you keep referencing the kinematical part of SR, specifically Einstein's original postulate that the speed of light is constant, and saying that it's wrong. So I ask you this:

Do you believe the speed of light is constant for all reference frames?

Do you know of any experiment where light has been shown to travel faster than c?


I can try to explain it to you if you like. It's a little complicated.

Translation: I don't understand it.

[Sam5]

Tensor,

[-X

Don't be rude. Wait your turn.

[Normandy6644]

If you feel it's necessary, I don't mind. Keep in mind that I'm not exactly new to relativity. I might not have as much experience as some of the other people here, but I have studied it. Afterwards, I would still like some experimental evidence, if you don't mind.

[Sam5]

If you feel it's necessary, I don't mind. Keep in mind that I'm not exactly new to relativity. I might not have as much experience as some of the other people here, but I have studied it. Afterwards, I would still like some experimental evidence, if you don't mind.

Ok, let me try to explain it this way. This took me about 8-10 years to figure out, and another few years to understand. This is from Einstein’s 1911 theory. But I’m going to try to explain it with a simple classical explanation.

So, we are at sea level with a perfect Harrison chronometer. We adjust the chronometer to tick off one second, as judged by the sea level speed of light, which we assume to be “c”, that is 186,000 mps.

Ok, now we arrange for a light beam to travel from one mountain top to another, at about 20,000 feet altitude. We know when the mountain beam first starts out by means of a flash of light from the first mountain to us when the beam starts, and a flash from the second mountain to us when the beam arrives at the second mountain. We are half-way in between the two mountains.

We calculate the time when we see the first flash and the time when we see the second flash, using our perfect Harrison chronometer, and we measure the distance between the mountain tops. We will then measure or calculate a mountain to mountain speed of light that is slightly faster than “c” for the light beam going between the two mountain tops.

Now, here’s the hard part....

If the two guys on the two mountain tops use atomic clocks to measure the speed of the light, mountain to mountain, they will measure “c” for the mountain to mountain beam. If they look down on us and if we send a sea level beam for a few miles, and if the mountain guys calculate the signal time for our sea level light beam, by means of our start and stop flashes, they will calculate or measure less than “c” for the speed of our sea level light beam.

But when we use our own atomic clock or the perfect and well-adjusted Harrison clock, we will measure “c” for our sea-level light beam.

Why? What’s going on here??

Simple....

Einstein deduced in 1911 that an ATOMIC CLOCK (specifically, a harmonically oscillating atom) will slow down its vibration rate in a strong gravitational field, at the same rate that light-speed slows down in that same field. So, the slowed down atomic clock will measure “c” for the slowed down speed of light in that same field.

If we take our atomic clock up to the top of the mountain, it will tick slightly more rapidly than it did at sea level, and the light beam will travel slightly more rapidly at that altitude, from mountain to mountain, in that gravitational field. So we will also measure “c” for the mountain to mountain light beam, if we use our ATOMIC clock. But, if our “perfect” Harrison chronometer is not affected by any gravity field or any thing else, and if it ticks at the same rate on top of the mountain as it did at sea level, it will measure a faster speed than “c” for the mountain to mountain light beam.

See? Einstein deduced that atomic clocks slow down at the same rate light-speed slows down inside a strong gravitational field, and atomic clocks speed up at the same rate light speeds up in a weak gravitational field. So, the new 1911 “Law” that replaced the old 1905 “postulate” says that an ATOMIC CLOCK resting inside a gravitational field will always measure “c” as the LOCAL speed of light, at that clock, when the light passes right by that clock or is absorbed by it.

There are some additional complications if we start moving an atomic clock laterally inside a gravitational field, but without changing elevation. There might be some other complications under other conditions, but what I’ve just explained is the basic theme of the 1911 theory. That is how it is different from the 1905 conjecture.

On the website below, this kid tries to explain the same thing, but I think his explanation is more complicated and more difficult to understand......

LINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Z48FPjGkBWoJ:www.physicspost.com/articles.php%3FarticleId%3D101%26page%3D12+light+s lows+down+physics+near+sun&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

The kid’s “far away reference time” is just like my “perfect” Harrison chronometer that does not change rates under any circumstances or under any gravity field changes. That kind of hypothetical clock will see c’dt and cdt as two different speeds for light. However, if we place two local atomic clocks resting at the c’dt and cdt positions, they will slow down the appropriate amounts for each place, and they will both measure “c” at both places.

This is exactly what Einstein was talking about in his 1916 book, page 76, Chapter 22, when he said:

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.”

See? His word “position” refers to the place or position the photons/waves are located inside a gravitational field or, some other place outside the field. IE, light photons/waves slow down inside a strong gravity field, and they speed up when they leave the gravity field and when they go into deep space. They travel the fastest in deep space, where they are a long way away from any strong gravity field.

Light speed at sea level of the earth is slightly slower than light speed at an elevation of 20,000 feet above sea level. Also, atomic clocks tick a little more slowly at sea level than they do at 20,000 feet.

Light speed is even slower at the “surface” of the sun.

The first “experiment” that proved or supported this 1911 deduction by Einstein was Eddington’s 1919 eclipse photos that showed the bending of star light as it passed the sun. Einstein deduced in 1911 that the star light passing near the sun would bend slightly. The light beam curves when it passes near the sun because the inside part of the beam, nearest the sun, slows down more than the outside part of the beam, since the inside of the beam passes through a stronger gravitational field than the outside of the beam.

=========

Reference:

“Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. In fact, one way to understand the bending of light by the gravitational field of a star is to regard it as resulting from the refraction of the wavefront due to the fact that the part of the wavefront that is nearer to the star moves more slowly than the part farther away from the star. The result is that the direction of advance of the wavefront is deflected toward (or around) the star.

Most of us have heard of the result from _special_ relativity that the speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames.

The result is _not_ the same in general relativity. In general relativity, the statement becomes that the speed of light is the same (i.e., good old 'c') for all observers in _local_ inertial frames.

So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.

Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:

'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:bRQvl1A7hzsJ:www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm+%22on+the+influence+of+gravitation+on+the +propagation+of+light%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[Tensor]

Sam, How do you reconcile your statement here:

However, I do support the Newtonian relativity principle that says the laws of physics are the same everywhere and in every frame of reference

With this:

Lorentz relies on an absolute frame of reference. This means that the laws of Physics will not be the same in all frames.

[Sam5]

Sam, How do you reconcile your statement here:

However, I do support the Newtonian relativity principle that says the laws of physics are the same everywhere and in every frame of reference

With this:

Lorentz relies on an absolute frame of reference. This means that the laws of Physics will not be the same in all frames.

You said that about Lorentz, right? Those are your words?

Lorentz basically uses an “earth based” reference frame and basically so does Einstein in many of his thought experiments. In the second part of the 1905 paper, Einstein basically uses an earth-based reference frame because that’s the place where all the 19th Century electrodynamical experiments were conducted on the surface of the earth. Later Einstein began to branch out and try to deduce what would take place if an atom was on the surface of the sun and the same atom was on the surface of the earth. That’s when he came up with “non moving” but basically “different” reference frames, but ALL of them after his 1911 paper obeyed the Laws of Physics. The first half of his 1905 paper and some of his 1907 and 1909 SR papers do not obey the Laws of Physics in both frames.

It’s ok to deduce the Laws of Physics from the perspective of the surface of the earth, since, well, that’s where we all live.

[Normandy6644]

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.”

See? His word “position” refers to the place or position the photons/waves are located inside a gravitational field or, some other place outside the field. IE, light photons/waves slow down inside a strong gravity field, and they speed up when they leave the gravity field and when they go into deep space. They travel the fastest in deep space, where they are a long way away from any strong gravity field.

Light speed at sea level of the earth is slightly slower than light speed at an elevation of 20,000 feet above sea level. Also, atomic clocks tick a little more slowly at sea level than they do at 20,000 feet.

Ok, that's all fine. I was pretty much aware that a strong gravitational field will influence the way the light travels. HOWEVER, it is not going faster than c, but slower. Slower than c is just fine. I'm talking about light (or anything else) travelling faster than c, which is what Einstein postulated is not possible.

[Sam5]

Tensor,


A strange thing about Lorentz theory and Einstein GR theory, is that Lorentz’s “universal ether” becomes Einstein’s “gravity field” on a local level. Einstein’s GR theory is a “local ether” theory, with local gravitational fields being the “local ethers” of the universe.

The “comoving” space of Ned Wright’s page and the Davis-Lineweaver paper are the “local gravitational fields” inside the various galaxies, and they move through space with the galaxies. The distant galaxies can travel faster than “c” relative to the earth because they are NOT moving through Lorentz’s “universal ether” or through any of Einstein’s “local gravitational fields”.

Even though light might be completely “self propagating” in totally empty (field-less) space, its local speed is still regulated by local gravitational fields, and this turns all local and distant gravitational fields into a quasi “local ether”, or at least a local c-regulator. Light travels faster in weak fields in deep space, and slower in stronger fields around astronomical bodies.

Also, think of this: The reason some of the laws of Newtonian mechanics don’t work on the atomic and sub-atomic level, is simply because different laws apply on the different size levels. Why? Because, for example, a pendulum clock is large and “mechanical” and it does not have to deal with very small ambient electric and magnetic fields. But atoms, internally, do have to deal with them. Atoms are so small, they react to very small electric and magnetic fields that are inside and around the atoms, but a plumb bob on a pendulum clock doesn’t have to bother with those tiny fields. You’ve got to put a really big magnet near a pendulum clock before it begins to react to the magnetic field.

On the smaller sub-atomic level, even more different laws apply, because there are different kinds of weird fields on that extra small level.

So, the Laws of Physics all fit together, but some different laws apply on the astronomical/macro level, others apply on the atomic/electron level, and still others apply on the sub-atomic level.

Newton never quite made it down to the atomic level in much detail. Einstein never quite made it down to the ultra small sub-atomic level in much detail. This is why we have three different groups of physics Laws: large mechanical, small atomic, and quantum sub-atomic.

[Sam5]

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.”

See? His word “position” refers to the place or position the photons/waves are located inside a gravitational field or, some other place outside the field. IE, light photons/waves slow down inside a strong gravity field, and they speed up when they leave the gravity field and when they go into deep space. They travel the fastest in deep space, where they are a long way away from any strong gravity field.

Light speed at sea level of the earth is slightly slower than light speed at an elevation of 20,000 feet above sea level. Also, atomic clocks tick a little more slowly at sea level than they do at 20,000 feet.

Ok, that's all fine. I was pretty much aware that a strong gravitational field will influence the way the light travels. HOWEVER, it is not going faster than c, but slower. Slower than c is just fine. I'm talking about light (or anything else) travelling faster than c, which is what Einstein postulated is not possible.


Not correct. His 1905 postulate was just wrong.

Light moving at sea level will be going slower than light on the mountain top, and light on the mountain top will be going slower than light in deep space. That means that light in deep space will be going faster than light at sea level. If you set your atomic clock at sea level, and you measure “c” at sea level, then you will measure faster than “c” for light traveling in deep space, if you measure it using your clock at sea level.

If you set your atomic clock in deep space, then you’ll only see light slow down. But if you set your clock at the surface of the sun, you’ll only see light speed up when it leaves the sun and moves through the solar system.

Uhh, the speed of light is sort of “relative”. It depends on where your atomic clock is located.

I figure light travels fastest in deep space in between galaxies that are far apart. That speed is most likely a little faster than any speed we measure as “c” here on earth.

[Normandy6644]

Ok, this is all what you think. Like I said, do you have any experimental basis for light travelling faster than c?

[Tensor]

If you feel it's necessary, I don't mind. Keep in mind that I'm not exactly new to relativity. I might not have as much experience as some of the other people here, but I have studied it. Afterwards, I would still like some experimental evidence, if you don't mind.

Ok, let me try to explain it this way. This took me about 8-10 years to figure out, and another few years to understand. This is from Einstein’s 1911 theory. But I’m going to try to explain it with a simple classical explanation.

And you still don't understand it. Within the last two days these statements from you:

“To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity [the 1905 paper], and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.”

And that’s what I’m telling you that you should do also. Just completely “disregard” the original 1905 Kinematical part of the SR theory,

Four paragraphs later in the paper is this:

We shall now show, first of all, from the standpoint of the ordinary theory of relativity, what degree of probability is inherent in our hypothesis.

Indicating he is using SR in his paper.

We were also discussing the same paper when you said this:
Anybody?
What did Einstein mean by c’dt and cdt?
If “c” is a universal “constant”, then how can there be a c’ and a c?

Then a few posts later, with no answer to your question you said this:
c'dt is the speed of light passing by the sun at that distance from the surface of the sun. cdt is the speed of the light at that closer distance to the sun.?

You obviously went from not know what it meant, to coming up with your own definition. Even though in the paper itself it says:
by describing circles round the points P1 and P2 with radii c1 dt and c2 dt respectively, where c1 and c2 denote the velocity of light at the points P1 and P2 respectively

If you read the definitions, you didn't understand them. Or, you missed the definitions completely. Either way, how can you claim you understand it.

LINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Z48FPjGkBWoJ:www.physicspost.com/articles.php%3FarticleId%3D101%26page%3D12+light+s lows+down+physics+near+sun&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

The kid’s “far away reference time” is just like my “perfect” Harrison chronometer that does not change rates under any circumstances or under any gravity field changes.

Sam, you realize you just defined an absolute reference frame, right? And by doing so, you can no longer invoke GR, because GR doesn't use an absolute reference frame.

That kind of hypothetical clock will see c’dt and cdt as two different speeds for light.

LOL, this was explained to you within the last two days and you still don't understand it. c'dt and cdt are distances. Again, the same quote from the 1911 paper:
by describing circles round the points P1 and P2 with radii c1 dt and c2 dt respectively, where c1 and c2 denote the velocity of light at the points P1 and P2 respectively

Hey everybody, lets have a vote. From the definition in the 1911 paper, what do you see c1dt and c2dt as? Distance or speed?

However, if we place two local atomic clocks resting at the c’dt and cdt positions,

Now you are claiming that c'dt and cdt are positions?

This is exactly what Einstein was talking about in his 1916 book, page 76, Chapter 22, when he said:

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.

Sam, we have never claimed otherwise. How many times have we told you that SR is only valid where the effects of gravity or acceleration can be ignored.

[Sam5]

Ok, this is all what you think. Like I said, do you have any experimental basis for light travelling faster than c?

It's not just what I "think", it's GR theory.

I think you can ask NASA about that. They have to calculate Doppler shifts for radio transmitters and receivers, and I’m pretty sure their people know that radio signals start out on earth slow and speed up as they go out into space. Ask the GPS guys.

[Tensor]

Sam, How do you reconcile your statement here:

However, I do support the Newtonian relativity principle that says the laws of physics are the same everywhere and in every frame of reference

With this:

Lorentz relies on an absolute frame of reference. This means that the laws of Physics will not be the same in all frames.

You said that about Lorentz, right? Those are your words?

Yes, Sam. Lorentz uses aether in his "Theory". Aether is an absolute reference frame. With an abosolute reference frame, the laws of physics will not be the same in all reference frames.

That’s when he came up with “non moving” but basically “different” reference frames, but ALL of them after his 1911 paper obeyed the Laws of Physics. The first half of his 1905 paper and some of his 1907 and 1909 SR papers do not obey the Laws of Physics in both frames.

Sam, QFT has been shown to be experimentally correct. QFT uses SR (1905)(all of it) , not GR. IF SR(1905)(all of it) is wrong, QFT is wrong. How do you explain it.



It’s ok to deduce the Laws of Physics from the perspective of the surface of the earth, since, well, that’s where we all live.[/quote]

[Tensor]

Ok, this is all what you think. Like I said, do you have any experimental basis for light travelling faster than c?

It's not just what I "think", it's GR theory.

I think you can ask NASA about that.

Sam evades answering another question.

[Tensor]

Not correct. His 1905 postulate was just wrong.


Sam has been making this claim for this whole thread. Sam has been challanged to show us his GR calculations, where gravity can be ignored and then show us his SR calculations. As soon as he shows us the two calculations don't match, he can claim GR is accurate and SR is not. He has yet to do so. Notice I'm asking for his calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation.

[Sam5]

If you feel it's necessary, I don't mind. Keep in mind that I'm not exactly new to relativity. I might not have as much experience as some of the other people here, but I have studied it. Afterwards, I would still like some experimental evidence, if you don't mind.

Ok, let me try to explain it this way. This took me about 8-10 years to figure out, and another few years to understand. This is from Einstein’s 1911 theory. But I’m going to try to explain it with a simple classical explanation.

And you still don't understand it. Within the last two days these statements from you:

“To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity [the 1905 paper], and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.”

And that’s what I’m telling you that you should do also. Just completely “disregard” the original 1905 Kinematical part of the SR theory,

Four paragraphs later in the paper is this:

We shall now show, first of all, from the standpoint of the ordinary theory of relativity, what degree of probability is inherent in our hypothesis.

Indicating he is using SR in his paper.


Then he says:

“ONE result yielded by the theory of relativity is that the inertia mass of a body increases with the energy it contains; “

Well, actually, Newton said something like that. Bigger mass, more energy, more inertia. Newton said light can be turned into mass and mass into light. Einstein tries to take Newton’s ideas and Lorentz’s ideas and claim them as his own as part of his “relativity” theory.

Then a few sentences later he says:

“On the other hand, the usual theory of relativity does not provide us with any argument from which to infer that the weight of a body depends on the energy contained in it.“

So he’s trying to improve his “relativity” theory. He’s desperately trying to salvage SR. A couple of years later he finally realized he had to split the two theories into SR and GR. The correct part of SR, the electrodynamical part, is basically Lorentz’s 1895 theory.

Hey, look, the guy was smart, but he was just human like the rest of us.

[Tensor]

Tensor,

A strange thing about Lorentz theory and Einstein GR theory, is that Lorentz’s “universal ether” becomes Einstein’s “gravity field” on a local level. Einstein’s GR theory is a “local ether” theory, with local gravitational fields being the “local ethers” of the universe.

You have quote from Einstein for it right?

Newton never quite made it down to the atomic level in much detail. Einstein never quite made it down to the ultra small sub-atomic level in much detail. This is why we have three different groups of physics Laws: large mechanical, small atomic, and quantum sub-atomic.

We've been telling you this for a long time now. Newton's laws work in their realm of validity and, SRs work in it's realm of validity. If you don't accept the idea for SR, you can't accept it for Newton.

[Tensor]

Hey, look, the guy was smart, but he was just human like the rest of us.

You mean like all those definitions you misunderstood that you cut out of this post?

[Normandy6644]

Ok, this is all what you think. Like I said, do you have any experimental basis for light travelling faster than c?

It's not just what I "think", it's GR theory.

I think you can ask NASA about that. They have to calculate Doppler shifts for radio transmitters and receivers, and I’m pretty sure their people know that radio signals start out on earth slow and speed up as they go out into space. Ask the GPS guys.

You're ignorning the question. The Doppler shifts that NASA calculates are most certainly due to GR theory, yet NOWHERE do they say that the signals are travelling faster than c. I think you are misusing the gravitational redshift equation

delta (lambda)/(lambda) = gh/c^2

where delta lambda over lambda is the change in wavelength over the original, g is the strength of the field, and h is the height. Notice that it says nothing about velocity exceeding c. If you have an equation that says otherwise, please share it.

[freddo]

I think you are misusing the gravitational redshift equation


Or more likely, he didn't know what it was until you posted it.

[Sam5]

Hey everybody, lets have a vote. From the definition in the 1911 paper, what do you see c1dt and c2dt as? Distance or speed?

LOL! On the graph they are speeds and positions, different speeds for the light at different distances from the sun. They are different speeds because of their different positions. Their positions are different positions and distances away from the sun along a single light “wave-front” that passes the sun, and that's why their speeds are different.

LOL!

[freddo]

So c1dt and c2dt are speeds, distances, and positions? I can't tell with this mouthful of word salad.

[Normandy6644]

Hey everybody, lets have a vote. From the definition in the 1911 paper, what do you see c1dt and c2dt as? Distance or speed?

LOL! On the graph they are speeds and positions, different speeds for the light at different distances from the sun. They are different speeds because of their different positions. Their positions are different positions and distances away from the sun along a single light “wave-front” that passes the sun, and that's why their speeds are different.

LOL!

Light does not slow down when it passes the sun. The gravitational field most certainly has an effect on the light, i.e., the light loses energy, not velocity. The energy comes in the form of its frequency, from the equation E=hf. This is where the redshift comes from, a change in frequency, not velocity.

[Tensor]

Hey everybody, lets have a vote. From the definition in the 1911 paper, what do you see c1dt and c2dt as? Distance or speed?

LOL! On the graph they are speeds and positions, different speeds for the light at different distances from the sun. They are different speeds because of their different positions. Their positions are different positions and distances away from the sun along a single light “wave-front” that passes the sun, and that's why their speeds are different.

LOL!

Sam, look at the quote from the paper. How do you define the length of a radius with a speed or position

From the 1911 paper

by describing circles round the points P1 and P2 with radii c1 dt and c2 dt respectively, where c1 and c2 denote the velocity of light at the points P1 and P2 respectively

Why do you claim that c1dt and c2dt are something other than distance when Einstein precisely defines it as a distance.

[Sam5]

Ok, this is all what you think. Like I said, do you have any experimental basis for light travelling faster than c?

It's not just what I "think", it's GR theory.

I think you can ask NASA about that. They have to calculate Doppler shifts for radio transmitters and receivers, and I’m pretty sure their people know that radio signals start out on earth slow and speed up as they go out into space. Ask the GPS guys.

You're ignorning the question. The Doppler shifts that NASA calculates are most certainly due to GR theory, yet NOWHERE do they say that the signals are travelling faster than c. I think you are misusing the gravitational redshift equation

delta (lambda)/(lambda) = gh/c^2

where delta lambda over lambda is the change in wavelength over the original, g is the strength of the field, and h is the height. Notice that it says nothing about velocity exceeding c. If you have an equation that says otherwise, please share it.

As I explained to you, “c” is relative to the atomic clock you are using and what kind of gravitational field it is in.

If you measure “c” at sea level with an atomic clock at sea level, then light will gain speed as it gets higher away from the sea level surface of the earth. So it will be going faster than the “c” you measured at sea level with your sea level clock.

I told you that was the hard part.

As Einstein said in his paper:


“We obtain the corresponding wave front at time t + dt , or, rather, its line of section with the plane of the paper, by describing circles round the points P1 and P2 with radii c1 dt and c2 dt respectively, where c1 and c2 denote the velocity of light at the points P1 and P2 respectively, and by drawing the tangent to these circles.”

[Tensor]

“We obtain the corresponding wave front at time t + dt , or, rather, its line of section with the plane of the paper, by describing circles round the points P1 and P2 with radii c1 dt and c2 dt respectively, where c1 and c2 denote the velocity of light at the points P1 and P2 respectively, and by drawing the tangent to these circles.”

And that means what? And what is he using it for. And what do those circles mean? And gee whiz, look, it's the definition of c1dt and c2dt. That you claim is the speed of light.

[Normandy6644]

Your quote has NOTHING TO DO with light going faster than c. Look at the equation again, it incorporates the gravitational field as well as the height. It shows exactly what happens when light travels from a stronger field to a weaker one. No change in velocity, only frequency. Here is the equation again from another site, since it looks nicer.

http://www.nikhef.nl/~henkjan/astro/img218.gif

Edited to mention that the first v looking things are greek "nu's" for frequency.

[Sam5]

Hey everybody, lets have a vote. From the definition in the 1911 paper, what do you see c1dt and c2dt as? Distance or speed?

LOL! On the graph they are speeds and positions, different speeds for the light at different distances from the sun. They are different speeds because of their different positions. Their positions are different positions and distances away from the sun along a single light “wave-front” that passes the sun, and that's why their speeds are different.

LOL!

Sam, look at the quote from the paper. How do you define the length of a radius with a speed or position

From the 1911 paper

by describing circles round the points P1 and P2 with radii c1 dt and c2 dt respectively, where c1 and c2 denote the velocity of light at the points P1 and P2 respectively

Why do you claim that c1dt and c2dt are something other than distance when Einstein precisely defines it as a distance.

I was talking about the c’dt and cdt on that kid’s website, because everyone can see that. The kid left off the P1 and P2 positions, so I used the c’dt and cdt as the speeds of the light wave-front at those positions c’dt and cdt.

I found a gif that’s more like a copy of Einstein’s original drawing:

http://www.itba.edu.ar/cargrado/fismat/fismod/transf/imagenes/ae_19113.gif

So, in this case, P1 and P2 are positions, distances of the wave-front from the sun’s surface, and c1dt and c2dt are the two different speeds of the light at distances P1 and P2. In this drawing n’ is the direction toward the sun’s surface.

In other words, from position P1 along the radius line of that circle, c1dt will be the speed of that part of the wave-front. And from position P2 along that shorter radius line, c2dt will be the speed of that part of the light wave-front. Since the P2 radius line is shorter and the speed c2dt is slower, the light wave front will bend.

This stuff is a little difficult to understand, but it’s not as difficult as you are trying to make it.

[Tensor]

Your quote has NOTHING TO DO with light going faster than c. Look at the equation again, it incorporates the gravitational field as well as the height. It shows exactly what happens when light travels from a stronger field to a weaker one. No change in velocity, only frequency. Here is the equation again from another site, since it looks nicer.

http://www.nikhef.nl/~henkjan/astro/img218.gif

Edited to mention that the first v looking things are greek "nu's" for frequency.

Hey, do you have references for the partial derivative symbol? Or maybe sub and super scripts?

[Normandy6644]

Your quote has NOTHING TO DO with light going faster than c. Look at the equation again, it incorporates the gravitational field as well as the height. It shows exactly what happens when light travels from a stronger field to a weaker one. No change in velocity, only frequency. Here is the equation again from another site, since it looks nicer.

http://www.nikhef.nl/~henkjan/astro/img218.gif

Edited to mention that the first v looking things are greek "nu's" for frequency.

Hey, do you have references for the partial derivative symbol? Or maybe sub and super scripts?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. I'll post a link to the site if you want to see the derivation and where it goes from there (though I think you know it), but as far as partials and indices go, there aren't any on that particular equation.

Link (http://www.nikhef.nl/~henkjan/astro/node15.html)

[Tensor]

Your quote has NOTHING TO DO with light going faster than c. Look at the equation again, it incorporates the gravitational field as well as the height. It shows exactly what happens when light travels from a stronger field to a weaker one. No change in velocity, only frequency. Here is the equation again from another site, since it looks nicer.

http://www.nikhef.nl/~henkjan/astro/img218.gif

Edited to mention that the first v looking things are greek "nu's" for frequency.

Hey, do you have references for the partial derivative symbol? Or maybe sub and super scripts?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. I'll post a link to the site if you want to see the derivation and where it goes from there (though I think you know it), but as far as partials and indices go, there aren't any on that particular equation.

Sorry, my fault for not being more clear (dang, that's twice today). I was asking if you knew the code, or where I could get the code for displaying the partial symbol. But I see now that it is an image, not code.

Link (http://www.nikhef.nl/~henkjan/astro/node15.html)

I'll look up the link though. Thanks

[Sam5]

Your quote has NOTHING TO DO with light going faster than c. Look at the equation again, it incorporates the gravitational field as well as the height. It shows exactly what happens when light travels from a stronger field to a weaker one. No change in velocity, only frequency. Here is the equation again from another site, since it looks nicer.

http://www.nikhef.nl/~henkjan/astro/img218.gif

Edited to mention that the first v looking things are greek "nu's" for frequency.
Some guys don’t like to admit that the speed changes, so they assume “c” as a “universal constant”, and they just change the frequency or the wavelength.

The emitted frequency is determined by the harmonic oscillation rate of the atom, such as a sea level atom. As the emitted redshifted light leaves the sea level surface of the earth, the already redshifted wavelength begins to redshift more because of the speed change. The higher waves/photons get out a little ahead of the lower ones. So, there is an emitted frequency shift toward the red at emission, and there is a speed-change-related redshift too as the light gradually speeds up when going up from the earth and out into space.

I usually change all nus to “f” so people will know it is “frequency”. No nus is good news.

[Normandy6644]

I don't see how you can pick and choose where the redshift comes from, since it's determined by the equations. In the equation for frequency, velocity, and wavelength v(or c)=Lf (L=lambda), something must be held constant. You appear to be saying that they all change at the same time, which is not possible.

No nus is good news.

Very funny! =D> Just so you know, that was copied and pasted image, so I couldn't control what kind of "nus" you got. :lol:

[Sam5]

But I see now that it is an image, not code.

Do you guys need some Greek math symbol codes, like this Φ ?

[Normandy6644]

But I see now that it is an image, not code.

Do you guys need some Greek math symbol codes, like this Φ ?

Yes! How do you get them in here?

[Sam5]

I don't see how you can pick and choose where the redshift comes from, since it's determined by the equations. In the equation for frequency, velocity, and wavelength v(or c)=Lf (L=lambda), something must be held constant. You appear to be saying that they all change at the same time, which is not possible.

No nus is good news.

Very funny! =D> Just so you know, that was copied and pasted image, so I couldn't control what kind of "nus" you got. :lol:

Thanks. :D

What I explained is the physical explanation in classical terms. I explained what happens. If your equation or that other website doesn't explain what happens, then that is not my problem.

[Normandy6644]

What I explained is the physical explanation in classical terms. I explained what happens. If your equation or that other website doesn't explain what happens, then that is not my problem.

Well, actually it is your problem, since the math is the basis for any theory and you're only proposing a thought experiment to violate it, not any hard evidence. The Pound and Rebka experiment showed exactly what I'm trying to tell you, that the frequency changes, not the velocity.

This is how they did it. (http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/gravity/redshift/redshift.html)

[Sam5]

But I see now that it is an image, not code.

Do you guys need some Greek math symbol codes, like this Φ ?

Yes! How do you get them in here?



Here:

MATH CODES (http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/demos/symbol.html#s0370)

Use the codes in the “Numeric reference” column, such as Γ and Δ

[Normandy6644]

But I see now that it is an image, not code.

Do you guys need some Greek math symbol codes, like this Φ ?

Yes! How do you get them in here?



Here:

MATH CODES (http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/demos/symbol.html#s0370)

Use the codes in the “Numeric reference” column, such as Γ and Δ

Thank you! Incidentally I want to make a correction to some of my earlier posts. It seems that photons do not "lose energy" while travelling through space, even in the presence of a gravitational field. The real reason is some quantum mechanical model that I don't know enough about to explain very well. However, I do understand enough to know that the redshift still is explained by a change in frequency, not velocity.

Source for quantum mechanical model (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/origin-redshift-15.html)

[Sam5]

What I explained is the physical explanation in classical terms. I explained what happens. If your equation or that other website doesn't explain what happens, then that is not my problem.

Well, actually it is your problem,

It is!!!?? #-o


From your link:

“The equivalence principle is used to transform the gravitational potential to a speed”

And remember, the atomic clocks tick slower in the stronger field. They tick faster in the weaker field.

A light-emitting atom vibrates slower in a strong field and emits a lower frequency of light to start with. But, an atomic clock resting in that same field ticks more slowly, so it doesn't notice the lower frequency of the emitted light.

Then that light speeds up as it leave that stronger field and moves up.

[Normandy6644]

“The equivalence principle is used to transform the gravitational potential to a speed”

I don't see this quote anywhere. I did a search for the word "speed" as well and only came up with two instances of its usage:

According to the strong equivalence principle, the speed of light equals in all directions in this box"

In this thought experiment the speed of light is explicitly shown...

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see it. If I missed it, please correct me in context.

[Sam5]

However, I do understand enough to know that the redshift still is explained by a change in frequency, not velocity.


It is a little more complicated than that.

A redshift can be due to a change in emitted frequency or a change in wavelength due to motion or a change in light speed.

If you want to understand the “speed” part, you’ve got to study the 1911 paper or some website that explains it.

[Normandy6644]

However, I do understand enough to know that the redshift still is explained by a change in frequency, not velocity.


It is a little more complicated than that.

A redshift can be due to a change in emitted frequency or a change in wavelength due to motion or a change in light speed.

If you want to understand the “speed” part, you’ve got to study the 1911 paper or some website that explains it.

Where in his paper does he mention anything about the speed changing?

[Sam5]

#-o

The "speed" quote is in this link:

This is how they did it. (http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/gravity/redshift/redshift.html)

[Normandy6644]

#-o

The "speed" quote is in this link:

This is how they did it. (http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/gravity/redshift/redshift.html)

Ahh! Sorry about that, I thought you meant the other link! My apologies! :oops:

[Sam5]

Where in his paper does he mention anything about the speed changing?


#-o

In the part about light speeds c1 and c2.

[Normandy6644]

Notice that in that link, the speed to which they are refering is c. Nowhere do they say anything about c changing.

[Sam5]

Notice that in that link, the speed to which they are refering is c. Nowhere do they say anything about c changing.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_wall.gif

That's because they assume "c" for each clock, but each clock is running at a different rate at the different elevations.

[Normandy6644]

It follows, then, that a ray of light emitted in S2 with a definite gravitational potential, and possessing at its emission the frequency v2 -- compared with a clock in S2 -- will, at its arrival in S1 , possess a different frequency v1 -- measured by an identical clock in S1

He's saying (as you might expect) what I've been saying, that the frequency is changing.

Also notice that
f=f0(1+(phi)/c^2

Which is the equation I provided before though in a different form.

[Sam5]

Notice that in that link, the speed to which they are refering is c. Nowhere do they say anything about c changing.


Look, some guys in physics won’t tell you the entire truth about this. As long as you don’t know the whole truth, then they have the monopoly on understanding it. They get the big government contracts. They get to write the important papers. While you sit at home trying to figure this all out.

Other guys in physics just don’t know it. They don’t work with it, but they like to pretend that they are experts on it.

Other guys try to preserve the “Einstein was infallible” myth. So they try to cover up his 1905 errors.

[Normandy6644]

Notice that in that link, the speed to which they are refering is c. Nowhere do they say anything about c changing.


Look, some guys in physics won’t tell you the entire truth about this. As long as you don’t know the whole truth, then they have the monopoly on understanding it. They get the big government contracts. They get to write the important papers. While you sit at home trying to figure this all out.

Other guys in physics just don’t know it. They don’t work with it, but they like to pretend that they are experts on it.

Other guys try to preserve the “Einstein was infallible” myth. So they try to cover up his 1905 errors.

You have provided absolutely NO experimental evidence to corroborate your claims. To say that all the experiments I'm citing are somehow forms of an "Einstein Conspiracy" is a total copout. To prove your points you must have evidence. I've given you mine, which you just dismiss as being wrong without citing any counter-evidence. Until you do, your claims wouldn't hold up in any court.

[Sam5]

He's saying (as you might expect) what I've been saying, that the frequency is changing.

Two things happen on the sun:

1) The atom is oscillating slowly and so it emits light of a lower frequency.

2) As the light leaves the surface, it speeds up, further redshifting the light.

Both of those concepts are in the 1911 paper.

[Normandy6644]

He's saying (as you might expect) what I've been saying, that the frequency is changing.

Two things happen on the sun:

1) The atom is oscillating slowly and so it emits light of a lower frequency.

2) As the light leaves the surface, it speeds up, further redshifting the light.

Both of those concepts are in the 1911 paper.

This is where you're wrong. Nowhere does he mention the light accelerating, only a change in frequency. That's all there is to it.

I'm off to sleep now. I'm sure we'll pick this up tomorrow. Night for now!

[Sam5]

You have provided absolutely NO experimental evidence to corroborate your claims. To say that all the experiments I'm citing are somehow forms of an "Einstein Conspiracy" is a total copout. To prove your points you must have evidence. I've given you mine, which you just dismiss as being wrong without citing any counter-evidence. Until you do, your claims wouldn't hold up in any court.

Look, if you don’t understand what I’m trying to explain to you, that’s not my problem. There is nothing more I can do for you. I’m sorry. You’ll never learn anything by insulting your professor when you don’t understand what he is trying to tell you. I think maybe some people are just incapable of understanding this. But that’s not my problem.

That kid on his website understands it, and Dr. Davis on his website understands it. If you don’t understand my explanation, then why don’t you email those two people and try to get them to explain it to you.

[Sam5]

This is where you're wrong. Nowhere does he mention the light accelerating, only a change in frequency. That's all there is to it.


From his 1911 paper:

“FROM the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the place”

[Eroica]

In the 1905 paper, Einstein never says that the speed of light is c in all frames of references. What he actually wrote was:
2. Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Earlier, in setting up his "stationary" system, he explicitly restricted himself to inertial frames of references:
Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.
When I studied physics, this was the definition of an inertial frame of reference:
College Physics[/i], 5th Edition)]an inertial reference system is one in which Newton's first law correctly describes the motion of a body on which no force acts.

So the speed of light relative to a reference frame that is in a gravitational field is only relevant to the 1905 postulate if the reference frame is in freefall (in which case it is, I believe, inertial - if we ignore tidal effects).

Question: what is the speed of light as measured by an observer in freefall in a (preferably, homogeneous) gravitational field? Does it vary with the motion of the source? If, for example, you were in freefall towards the Sun, would you measure the speed of the sunlight as greater or less than c?

[Eroica]

Hey, do you have references for the partial derivative symbol? Or maybe sub and super scripts?
If your operating system is Windows, a simple way to include symbols in your posts is to use Charmap:

Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Character Map

OR

Start > Run > [then type "charmap" and click OK]

Eg: §c²v³e°yª∂∆√∞≈≡≠∑½¼¾⅛⅜⅝⅞∫≤≥

[AstroSmurf]

Just for the record, I didn't see all of those symbols properly rendered. I suspect it's a problem with my browser/operating system setup, but I wouldn't assume that everyone can see those math symbols.

(Linux and Firebird 0.6.1, in case you were wondering)

[milli360]

I think if you do a smiley face count, you’ll find that Milli posted more smiley faces than the other personas.
Interesting! I learn more about myself everyday.

I tried to check it out--I counted the last hundred posts of kilopi and found 22 smilies, but the last hundred of milli360 had 27. I thought maybe I'd evolved over the persona time frame and I started to count the first hundred, but unfortunately I don't have that many posts. So, it looks like, over the past few months or so, I've been averaging a bit better than 2 per ten posts, no matter who I was. I don't think it has reflected an attitude adjustment on my part.

[Corrected counts--that's the last time I'm going to depend upon a computer for counting]

[Eroica]

Just for the record, I didn't see all of those symbols properly rendered. I suspect it's a problem with my browser/operating system setup, but I wouldn't assume that everyone can see those math symbols.

(Linux and Firebird 0.6.1, in case you were wondering)
Interesting. Maybe you need Windows to see them all properly?

[frenat]

Just for the record, I didn't see all of those symbols properly rendered. I suspect it's a problem with my browser/operating system setup, but I wouldn't assume that everyone can see those math symbols.

(Linux and Firebird 0.6.1, in case you were wondering)
Interesting. Maybe you need Windows to see them all properly?

All you should need is the symbols font installed

[Tensor]

So, it looks like, over the past few months or so, I've been averaging a bit better than 2 per ten posts, no matter who I was. I don't think it has reflected an attitude adjustment on my part.

I'm willing to bet that it depends more on which forum and which thread your posting in. I know I find I use them more in BABBling than in any other forum.

[Corrected counts--that's the last time I'm going to depend upon a computer for counting]

You know you can't trust those new fangled things. You want to borrow my 19th century abacus?

[Tensor]

Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Character Map

OR

Start > Run > [then type "charmap" and click OK]

Eg: §c²v³e°yª∂∆√∞≈≡≠∑½¼¾⅛⅜⅝⅞∫≤≥


wrote:
Do you guys need some Greek math symbol codes,
Here:

MATH CODES
Use the codes in the “Numeric reference” column, such as Γ and Δ


Thank you both for info and the link

[milli360]

I'm willing to bet that it depends more on which forum and which thread your posting in. I know I find I use them more in BABBling than in any other forum.
And on how well it's received.

You know you can't trust those new fangled things. You want to borrow my 19th century abacus?
Naw, thanks. I would have used a smiley back there but I'd used up my quota.

[Sam5]

In the 1905 paper, Einstein never says that the speed of light is c in all frames of references. Earlier, in setting up his "stationary" system, he explicitly restricted himself to inertial frames of references:

In his first statement, he has light always traveling at “c” in “empty” space:

“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”

And this is not correct. Space is not “empty”. It contains gravitational fields that slow down the speed of light.

Also, in 1905 he has the clocks changing rate and the lengths contracting for no physical reason, and this is wrong. Clocks must have a physical reason before they can slow down, and lengths must have a physical reason before they can contract.

What he does in the first half of the 1905 theory is take the Lorentz electrodynamic theory and he tries to remove the “ether”, while retaining Lorentz's idea of time dilation and length contraction. But Lorentz's ether acts like a local gravitational field, as far as electrodynamics is concerned. Einstein left out that field in the 1905 theory and that was an error.

Later, in 1911, he realizes the gravitational fields act like a “ether” around local astronomical bodies, since the fields control the speed of light and slow it down around the bodies. The stronger the field, the more light slows down.

Also, in 1911 he discovers a real physical reason for Lorentz’s atomic clock slowdowns, which is the “force” put on them by the local gravitational field. In 1911 he abandons mechanical and other kinds of clocks, and he begins to concentrate on atomic clocks.

That’s why he changes his 1905 postulate to his new 1911 Law. Light speed changes in gravitational fields, but the change is not noticed when the local speed is measured by a local atomic clock.

If you try to reconcile is 1905 postulate with his 1911 Law, you’ll be perpetually confused about relativity theory, just as many people are today. That’s why there are dozens of slightly different “resolutions” of the clock paradox, and none of them is correct.

The true “resolution” is to toss out the first half of the 1905 paper and start over with the 1911 paper. Then we can say that the atomic clock that is resting in a strong gravity field or that is accelerating, slows down its tick rate, while the non-accelerating clock resting in a weak field speeds up its tick rate.

So, the “twin” clock on the sun is running more slowly than the “twin” clock on earth. And the twin clock on the sun “sees” the earth clock tick faster, while the twin clock on the earth sees the sun clock tick slower. In this there is no paradox.

But don’t apply these rules to humans, because their time is measured thermodynamically, by biologists, not atomically. If you want to know about human time, ask a biologist, not a physicist.

[Normandy6644]

You have provided absolutely NO experimental evidence to corroborate your claims. To say that all the experiments I'm citing are somehow forms of an "Einstein Conspiracy" is a total copout. To prove your points you must have evidence. I've given you mine, which you just dismiss as being wrong without citing any counter-evidence. Until you do, your claims wouldn't hold up in any court.

Look, if you don’t understand what I’m trying to explain to you, that’s not my problem. There is nothing more I can do for you. I’m sorry. You’ll never learn anything by insulting your professor when you don’t understand what he is trying to tell you. I think maybe some people are just incapable of understanding this. But that’s not my problem.

That kid on his website understands it, and Dr. Davis on his website understands it. If you don’t understand my explanation, then why don’t you email those two people and try to get them to explain it to you.

This is the best you can do? I ask you for experimental evidence of your claim, and your response is to say that I don't understand? All I'm asking you for is a single experiment that agrees with you. Or how about you post an equation showing how the velocity of light can exceed c? Anything?

[Normandy6644]

This is where you're wrong. Nowhere does he mention the light accelerating, only a change in frequency. That's all there is to it.


From his 1911 paper:

“FROM the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the place”

My apologies. Nonetheless, he never says anything about the light travelling faster than c.

[Tensor]

It’s ok to deduce the Laws of Physics from the perspective of the surface of the earth, since, well, that’s where we all live.

I never said otherwise. You still don't understand that Lorentz's uses an absolute frame of referece. And if you have an absolute frame of referece, the laws of physics will not be the same in all frames.

[Tensor]

If you try to reconcile is 1905 postulate with his 1911 Law, you’ll be perpetually confused about relativity theory, just as many people are today. That’s why there are dozens of slightly different “resolutions” of the clock paradox, and none of them is correct.

Sam has been making this claim for this whole thread. Sam has been challanged to show us his GR calculations, where gravity can be ignored, and then show us his SR calculations. As soon as he shows us the two calculations don't agree, he can claim GR is accurate and SR is not. He has yet to do so. Notice I'm asking for his calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation.

[AstroSmurf]

I should know better than to engage in this, but here we go...
In the 1905 paper, Einstein never says that the speed of light is c in all frames of references. Earlier, in setting up his "stationary" system, he explicitly restricted himself to inertial frames of references:
In his first statement, he has light always traveling at “c” in “empty” space:

“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”

And this is not correct. Space is not “empty”. It contains gravitational fields that slow down the speed of light.
So let's perform the experiments on a surface where the gravitational potential is constant, and the gravitational gradient is small enough that we can ignore it. That way, all clocks will run at the same speed, provided they're not moving relative to each other. Having eliminated effects from GR, all that should remain is SR effects.

Also, in 1905 he has the clocks changing rate and the lengths contracting for no physical reason, and this is wrong. Clocks must have a physical reason before they can slow down, and lengths must have a physical reason before they can contract.
The length contraction and time dilatation are perspective effects which result from our motion relative to the observed object. The clock itself notices no change simply because we're switching observer frames, any more than a charge notices a change in the force acting on it when we change our view of the EM fields surrounding it. (Oh, and btw, the clock does not slow down - it's running at a constant speed, which is lower than we'd expect it to be in a non-moving frame. It's not a change in speed we're examining.)

[Sam5]

I should know better than to engage in this, but here we go...
In the 1905 paper, Einstein never says that the speed of light is c in all frames of references. Earlier, in setting up his "stationary" system, he explicitly restricted himself to inertial frames of references:
In his first statement, he has light always traveling at “c” in “empty” space:

“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”

And this is not correct. Space is not “empty”. It contains gravitational fields that slow down the speed of light.

So let's perform the experiments on a surface where the gravitational potential is constant, and the gravitational gradient is small enough that we can ignore it. That way, all clocks will run at the same speed, provided they're not moving relative to each other. Having eliminated effects from GR, all that should remain is SR effects.

Exactly. If the gravitational field is the same for all the clocks, and the clocks don’t move relatively, then there are no “effects” at all, and, thus, there are no SR “effects”.

[AstroSmurf]

Fine. Now keep the constant gravitational potential&gradient, and let one of the clocks move, still along the same equipotential surface.

[Tensor]

I should know better than to engage in this, but here we go...

All of us should have known better #-o

I hope you have more luck than we've had ](*,)

[milli360]

Fine. Now keep the constant gravitational potential&gradient, and let one of the clocks move, still along the same equipotential surface.
Even worse, is the potential box, which we've discussed before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=187309&highlight=potential+box#187 309). Accelerate two clocks in an inertial reference frame so that they experience the same forces, but one is at a different potential.

[Sam5]

So let's perform the experiments on a surface where the gravitational potential is constant, and the gravitational gradient is small enough that we can ignore it. That way, all clocks will run at the same speed, provided they're not moving relative to each other. Having eliminated effects from GR, all that should remain is SR effects.

When Einstein did away with Lorentz’s “ether” in 1905, he also did away with the local gravitational fields and their effects on moving clocks. This is why Einstein had to add a gravitational field to the 1905 paper in 1918, in reaction to a lot of criticism of the 1905 theory by European physicists.

The length contraction and time dilatation are perspective effects which result from our motion relative to the observed object. The clock itself notices no change simply because we're switching observer frames, any more than a charge notices a change in the force acting on it when we change our view of the EM fields surrounding it.

Right, this is what I've been trying to explain to Grey. The motion of the observer has nothing to do with what is going on at the charge or at the magnet and the coil.

If the motion-related effects do not involve gravity or acceleration or atomic clocks moving through fields, then we are talking about only the classical Doppler effect, such as when a star moves relative to the earth or the earth moves relative to a star.

If we include motion related acceleration and an accelerating atom or atomic clock, we are talking about both classical Doppler Effect AND Einstein GR effect.

If we are talking about gravity-related shifts in atoms and atomic clocks, but not “motion” involved, then we are talking about GR effects.

If we are talking about atoms or atomic clocks moving inside a field, then we are talking about Lorentz theory and Doppler Effect. The “relative motion” causes the Doppler illusion, and the motion through the field causes the Lorentz force effect. There is no GR effect or SR effect.

If we’ve got a massive star moving away from the earth, we see a gravity related redshift, and light speed related redshift (GR) and we see a Doppler shift that is motion-related.

If we see relative motion but no acceleration, no gravity, and no motion through fields, we see a classical Doppler shift.

(I think I got all that right. Let me know if you see an error.)

[Sam5]

Fine. Now keep the constant gravitational potential&gradient, and let one of the clocks move, still along the same equipotential surface.

Relative motion only = Doppler shift illusion

Relative motion through gravity field = Doppler shift and Lorentz shift

No motion, but atom resting in strong gravity field = GR shift

Relative motion and motion through field plus more mass and stronger gravity field at resting emitter = Doppler shift, Lorentz shift, and GR shift.

1955 Ford = stick shift

[Sam5]

Fine. Now keep the constant gravitational potential&gradient, and let one of the clocks move, still along the same equipotential surface.


The way I understand it, this causes a Lorentz shift due to the motion THROUGH the local gravitational field. But this is not an SR shift, since there is no real SR shift since no force in SR is being placed on the clock. This lateral motion causes a Lorentz shift. This is why the Hafele Keating Eastbound clocks slowed down, while the Westbound clocks speeded up. The earth rotates within its own radiated gravity field. The earth-based clocks tick slow, the Eastbound flying clocks tick slower, the Westbound flying clocks tick faster.

In Lorentz theory, a force is being placed on an atomic clock (on the atoms) when they move through a gravity field or other fields.

What you describe, if it leads to an atomic clock slowdown, is most often attributed to an SR “relative motion” effect, but it’s not, it’s actually a “movement through fields” Lorentz force effect.

Too many physics professors and even working physicists are totally unaware of the original Lorentz theory and the reason for the atomic vibration slowdown under Lorentz theory. They generally reject Lorentz theory as soon as they learn it contains an “ether”. However, if you change the Lorentz word “ether” to “a local gravitational field”, then that works and that’s what slows down a moving atomic clock.

So far, after 12 years of investigation, I’ve found only one source in all the world for a full copy of the main Lorentz 1895 book which contains his full theory. Used copies are so rare, I can’t find any on the internet available from any antique bookseller in the world.

Seems that modern physics professors would rather accept an atomic clock slowdown due to “no force at all” because of “relative motion”, than to simply change Lorentz’s “ether” term to “a local gravity field”.

[Normandy6644]

When Einstein did away with Lorentz’s “ether” in 1905, he also did away with the local gravitational fields and their effects on moving clocks. This is why Einstein had to add a gravitational field to the 1905 paper in 1918, in reaction to a lot of criticism of the 1905 theory by European physicists.

Einstein has TWO theories of relativity. SR was in 1905, which did not include gravitational fields. GR was in 1918 and did include gravitational fields. He knew, based on several thought experiments (one of which I mentioned before about gravitational redshift) that SR could not describe anything but a locally flat reference frame, where the curvature of the manifold is 0. He developed GR, using Riemannian and differential geometry, to include curved spacetime made by gravitational fields, or masses. That's why he had to add gravity, since it was an incomplete theory without it!

[SeanF]

Fine. Now keep the constant gravitational potential&gradient, and let one of the clocks move, still along the same equipotential surface.
Even worse, is the potential box, which we've discussed before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=187309&highlight=potential+box#187 309). Accelerate two clocks in an inertial reference frame so that they experience the same forces, but one is at a different potential.

Absolutely. I've asked Sam5 numerous times for the GR equations that predict the effect of acceleration, and he has steadfastly refused to answer.

I haven't yet decided if it's simply because he doesn't understand any of the equations, or if he understands them enough to know why he doesn't dare accept any of them.

[Sam5]

Einstein has TWO theories of relativity. SR was in 1905, which did not include gravitational fields.

And the Kinematical part was flat out wrong.

GR was in 1918 and did include gravitational fields.

No, GR started with his 1911 theory.

He knew, based on several thought experiments (one of which I mentioned before about gravitational redshift) that SR could not describe anything but a locally flat reference frame, where the curvature of the manifold is 0.

The Kinematical part can't describe anything at all.

He developed GR, using Riemannian and differential geometry, to include curved spacetime made by gravitational fields, or masses. That's why he had to add gravity, since it was an incomplete theory without it!

No, he developed GR using Newton and Lorentz theory. Minkowski confused everything in 1908 with his curved spacetime diagrams.

"Curved space" is simply a curved gravity field around a spherical astronomical body floating inside flat Euclidean space. Newton had "curved space" drawings in his 1687 book. They were the gravity fields of astronomical bodies. Newton had curved light beams in "Optics", 1704.

Einstein had to add gravity to the 1905 paper since the original paper had no real "force" that could slow down any clock. Also, he changed the mechanical clocks in the 1905 theory to atomic clocks, since they are the only kind that perform as Lorentz predicted in 1895.

The lateral motion of an atom inside a gravity field causes an “electrodynamical” effect on the atom, so the atom slows down its oscillation rate. That’s Lorentz theory because of motion THROUGH the field. This has nothing to do with "relative motion" and "relative motion" can not slow down the oscillation rate of an atom.

Too many physics professors and even working physicists are totally unaware of the original Lorentz theory and the reason for the atomic vibration slowdown under Lorentz theory. They generally reject Lorentz theory as soon as they learn it contains an “ether”. However, if you change the Lorentz word “ether” to “a local gravitational field”, then that works and that’s what slows down a moving atomic clock.

So far, after 12 years of investigation, I’ve found only one source in all the world for a full copy of the main Lorentz 1895 book which contains his full theory. Used copies are so rare, I can’t find any on the internet available from any antique bookseller in the world.

Seems that modern physics professors would rather accept an atomic clock slowdown due to “no force at all” because of “relative motion”, than to simply change Lorentz’s “ether” term to “a local gravity field”.

[Tensor]

Fine. Now keep the constant gravitational potential&gradient, and let one of the clocks move, still along the same equipotential surface.
Even worse, is the potential box, which we've discussed before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=187309&highlight=potential+box#187 309). Accelerate two clocks in an inertial reference frame so that they experience the same forces, but one is at a different potential.

Absolutely. I've asked Sam5 numerous times for the GR equations that predict the effect of acceleration, and he has steadfastly refused to answer.

I haven't yet decided if it's simply because he doesn't understand any of the equations, or if he understands them enough to know why he doesn't dare accept any of them.
At this point, I think it's combination of both. He flat doesn't understand the GR equations (and a lot of the underlying ideas) , but after all the postings showing how he is wrong, he knows he can't accept them.

[Sam5]

Even worse, is the potential box, which we've discussed before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=187309&highlight=potential+box#187 309). Accelerate two clocks in an inertial reference frame so that they experience the same forces, but one is at a different potential.

I answered that already. Every time I answer a question, but you don't understand my answer, then you claim I didn't answer your question.

Einstein mentions the box in his 1911 theory but he doesn't use the "potential" concept, and he says all the clocks everywhere inside the box will tick at the same rate, just as I said.

[Sam5]

Milli360,

If you go to your book that contains the 1911 theory, I’ll show you his statement about the box. :D

The website that contains the theory left out about 1 1/2 pages of the theory! Including the part about the box. And that website changed about half of his math terms!

[Sam5]

At this point,

At this point, I feel sorry for you guys.

If I were just a "crackpot", you wouldn't have spent 60 pages responding to my posts.

[Tensor]

Even worse, is the potential box, which we've discussed before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=187309&highlight=potential+box#187 309). Accelerate two clocks in an inertial reference frame so that they experience the same forces, but one is at a different potential.

I answered that already. Every time I answer a question, but you don't understand my answer, then you claim I didn't answer your question.

Einstein mentions the box in his 1911 theory but he doesn't use the "potential" concept, and he says all the clocks everywhere inside the box will tick at the same rate, just as I said.


No where in his 1911 paper does Einstein mention that thought experiment or even a box.
Here's (http://www.itba.edu.ar/cargrado/fismat/fismod/transf/htm/einstein_5.htm) a link to that paper. And if you want to clain it somewhere else, provide us with a source.

[Sam5]

Einstein has TWO theories of relativity.

You mean one that applies on MWF and another that applies on TT and the weekends?

There is an additional reason why Einstein adopted the Riemann “curved space” theory in 1916. He was trying to explain why the universe wasn’t expanding, why all the stars were “fixed”, and why the universe didn’t collapse. This was because all the astronomers of that era told him the universe was “fixed” and neither collapsing nor expanding.

So, his Riemann “curved space” idea seemed to work.

But, when Hubble made his announcement in the late 1920s, Einstein had to abandon his universal “curved space” idea.

He did so in a paper he wrote with de Sitter in 1932. In the paper he said:

“There is no direct observational evidence for the curvature, the only directly observed data being the mean density and the expansion, which latter proves that the actual universe corresponds to the non-statical case. It is therefore clear that from the direct data of observation we can derive neither the sign nor the value of the curvature, and the question arises whether it is possible to represent the observed facts without introducing a curvature at all.”

“Although, therefore, the density corresponding to the assumption of zero curvature and to the coefficient of expansion may perhaps be on the high side, it certainly is of the correct order of magnitude, and we must conclude that at the present time it is possible to represent the facts without assuming a curvature of three-dimensional space. The curvature is, however, essentially determinable, and an increase in the precision of the data derived from observations will enable us in the future to fix its sign and to determine its value.”

So, that is why today we have “flat” space on a universal scale. No Riemann space, and no “curved” space. That leaves only the “curved fields” that surround the astronomical bodies.

The old idea that a light beam emitted on earth will traverse the whole universe in a curved line and return to its original source, became obsolete with the Expansion discovery and it was laid to rest with Einstein’s 1932 paper, even though I’ve got a dozen or so books from the 1950s and ‘60s that still claim the idea is valid. These books are simply wrong and they never tell us about the 1932 paper in which Einstein withdrew the entire concept.

You can’t just jump into the middle of this and hope to understand it.

You’ve got to start with Galileo theory, then go to Newton theory, then to Faraday theory, then to Doppler, then to Maxwell and Hertz theory, then to Lorentz theory, then to Einstein SR and GR, and then put it all together, and you wind up with no “curved space”, only “curved fields”, and you wind up with no clock slowdown due only to “relative motion”, but a real atomic clock slowdown due to acceleration, gravity, and motion through gravity fields.

But you can not leave out Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Doppler, Maxwell, Hertz, and Lorentz and think you can learn “relativity”.

[Tensor]

At this point,

At this point, I feel sorry for you guys.

If I were just a "crackpot", you wouldn't have spent 60 pages responding to my posts.

Oh yes we would. First, we have to counter the misinformation that you are putting out. Leaving it unansered is, to me, tacit approval. Second, many of us here have seen people like you come on here and other forums and keep posting nonsense until we finally decide that it just isn't worth it and quit trying. At that point, the person claims "victory" because we aren't answering anymore. Well, I'm going to keep countering misinformation in your posts, you won't be able to claim "victory".

[Sam5]

No where in his 1911 paper does Einstein mention that thought experiment or even a box.
Here's (http://www.itba.edu.ar/cargrado/fismat/fismod/transf/htm/einstein_5.htm) a link to that paper. And if you want to clain it somewhere else, provide us with a source.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_wall.gif

Didn’t I just tell you that THAT website leaves out 1 1/2 pages of his theory!!!

If you’ve got the book version, tell me so and I will show you the “box” part in the book.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_wall.gif

[Sam5]

Oh yes we would. First, we have to counter the misinformation that you are putting out. Leaving it unansered is, to me, tacit approval. Second, many of us here have seen people like you come on here and other forums and keep posting nonsense until we finally decide that it just isn't worth it and quit trying. At that point, the person claims "victory" because we aren't answering anymore. Well, I'm going to keep countering misinformation in your posts, you won't be able to claim "victory".

You wouldn’t know a tacit if you saw one on sale at Wal-Mart.

People like ME? You mean truth-telling people? Honest people? Thinking people? And your gang tries to drive them off, run them out of the neighborhood??

“Victory”??? Geez man, this is SCIENCE, not an international WAR!!!

[Sam5]

Tensor,

Well, do you have the book or not?

If not, why not?

You can't get proper physics education just on the internet alone.

[Sam5]

Milli, do you have the book with the 1911 paper in it?

[Tensor]

No where in his 1911 paper does Einstein mention that thought experiment or even a box.
Here's (http://www.itba.edu.ar/cargrado/fismat/fismod/transf/htm/einstein_5.htm) a link to that paper. And if you want to clain it somewhere else, provide us with a source.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_wall.gif

Didn’t I just tell you that THAT website leaves out 1 1/2 pages of his theory!!!

You posted your's while I was writing my post.


If you’ve got the book version, tell me so and I will show you the “box” part in the book.

I've got it, where is it.

[Tensor]

Tensor,

Well, do you have the book or not?

If not, why not?

You can't get proper physics education just on the internet alone.

You also can't get a proper physics education without knowing the math.

[Sam5]

I've got it, where is it.

Page 106, at the start of the last paragraph:

“This has a consequence which is of fundamental importance to our theory. For if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K’, employing clocks U of identical construction, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places.”

That’s an accelerating “system” but with no gravitational field. Put sides and a lid on it and that is the “box”. The “U” clocks are atomic clocks. They all tick at the same rate everywhere inside the box.