[quote="Sam5"] Again, Sam5, the Lorentz force and his ideas in his 1904 paper are not the same thing. What about this don't you understand?

Again, Sam5, He did no such thing, he computed the difference in a mass at rest, and a mass in motion. He didn't understand why it worked, and from first principles in his paper, there is no way to show why it worked.

No he didn't Sam5, George Fitzgerald came up witht he Fudge factor first.
But neither one could explain why c is the limit.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

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

Again, check George Fitzgerald. His book doesn't matter because it's wrong. It still includes an absolute reference frame.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

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

OK Sam, show us the full GR equation where your statement is supported. Not equations from the 1911 paper, it's already been explained to you that the 1911 paper is not the full GR theory.

More conceptual problems. The constancy postulate and c are not the same thing. c is the result of the constancy postulate. That c varies with postion (actually, since 1916 it's been thought of more as a longer distance through space-time) is something you have to use to keep the constancy postulate viable. You keep saying that the constancy postulate is wrong, but one of the reasons for GR is to keep the constancy postulate.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

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

SR works, Lorentz's 1904 Theory doesn't. Get used to it.

Sam5 has been claiming SR is wrong. He has been challenged to show us his SR calculations, his calculations using Lorentz's 1895 theory, and his GR calculations(where gravity can be ignored). As soon as he shows us Lorent'z theory calculations match the GR calculations, and the GR calculations don't match the SR calculations, he can claim Lorentz is accurate and SR is not. Notice I'm asking for his calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation. Until he does, he is being intelectually dishonest by claiming SR is wrong.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

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

[quote="Eroica"] As veiwed by who, Eroica? In their own reference frame, they will measure the same speed for c. The way you've set up the problem, both observers can considered themselves in an inertial frame. And according to SR, the laws must be the same in all inertial reference frames (actually, this is a good example of SR). Now, if you want to compare the two frames, you have to use GR, because they are in different gravitational potentials.


Well, he actually got this right. And since they can consider themselves in inertial frames, that must mean he agrees with SR now.

Yes, once you do the GR transformations to place them in inertial frames.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

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

Partly because of folks like you, ranting that relativity was wrong. Partly because they finally had portable atomic clocks that could do it.

When the first GPS satellites went up, they had to mollify the anti-relativity crowd by not changing the output synthesizer until after the clocks had been launched, to showe that the were "ticking" at the wrong rate, and had to have the relaivistic corrections made. (But it's often do silly things like that or risk losing funding.)

Well, suffice to say that I don't trust you to not pull things out of context. The context of not being able to use SR equations using the earth-bound clock as a reference is clearly stated in Science 177. They define and use an inertial reference, as one must, and everything works out just fine. I suspect his full comments in Nature say basically the same thing. How about quoting the paragraph before and after the statement?

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

You talk about GR as if it is a political theory, not a science theory. I don’t care if a political theory remains “viable” or not. I’m talking about science here. If you want to talk about what kind of lies and politics it takes to try to save and salvage Einstein’s incorrect and error-filled 1905 paper, then go on a political board and talk about it.

Here’s the situation. It’s very simple:

An atomic clock ticks slow in a valley and fast on a mountain.

An atomic clock in a valley will measure “c” as the speed of a horizontal beam of light in a valley.

An atomic clock on a mountain will measure “c” as the speed of a horizontal beam of light on a mountain.

This means the speed of the light beam in a valley is moving slower than the speed of the light beam on the mountain.

This means the speed of light is variable at different places in a gravity field, which is what Einstein said in his 1911 paper and his 1916 book.

So why is this such a big secret in science today?

I don't rant that "relativity" is "wrong". The 1905 paper is wrong. The 1911 paper and Lorentz relativity theory are both right. Guys like you don't know the difference between SR and Lorentz relativity theory.

Ignoring the issue of how you know what "guys like me" actually know, does this mean you aren't going to provide the context of the comment from the Nature paper? Why am I not surprised?

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

I don't have the time to type up the full Nature paper, and my copy is so crude it won't scan to text properly. Where you live, there are probably half a dozen libraries that contain the paper, so you can get yourself a copy of it as I did. Then we can dicsuss it.

I think perhaps you overestimate how much time and effort I am willing to sacrifice to debunk your ramblings. If and when I get a chance, I'll get the paper, but I'm not making a special trip to do so.

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

Hey, Sam5:

Perhaps I missed this, but what's your explanation of why the standard example used in SR, the light clock, runs slow? Note that there are no fields present in the example. If you've addresssed this already, just point me to the answer, if you'd be so kind.

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

Ok, good.

Here are the articles I have:

Nature 227, July 18, 1970, page 270-271

Science July 1972, Pages 166 – 170 (2 separate articles in same issue)

Maybe you can make better copies than I have and post them here.

NO!! #-o The frequency of the light is different for the mountain and the valley, not the velocity. How many times do I have to tell you this? The equation for redshift explains it just fine! If you have experimental evidence that says otherwise, show it.

Notice in the light clock illustration on your link, a background “ether” is used. That is why the photon has to be aimed to the right in the moving clock. If there were no “ether” or “light speed regulator”, and if the photon had mass, and if the emitter and mirrors were both moving to the right in space, the photon would merely be aimed “up”, and it would go up and down (and sideways at the same time). But since the mirrors are moving through the propagating medium in the illustration, that’s why the photon is aimed to the right.

Think of using a laser. If there is no “ether” and you are moving sideways, you merely aim the laser “up”. But, since there is an “ether”, that is “local ethers”, when you move sideways to the right, you must aim the laser to the right or your beam would miss the top mirror.

What you are doing with a “light clock” like this is measuring the time it takes for a light beam to travel longer distances. The longer distances are caused by the motion of the mirrors, and the necessity of aiming the laser to the right so the beam will hit the top mirror when it is further away from the position it was in when the laser first emitted the photon.

This does not slow down time, it merely moves the mirror from one position to a new position that is further away from the place where the laser first emitted the light beam.

If you think of a “projectile” type photon, like a bullet, if you moved a target in space to the right, and if your gun were stationary, then you would have to aim your gun to the right so you could hit the moving target. But this does not slow down time in any way.

If your gun and the target were both moving to the right together, then you could aim right at the target. The bullet would then move “up” and “sideways” at the same time, and it would hit the target.

If you did this on earth, and you and the target were moving sideways, you would have to “lead” the target a little because of the air wind pressure on the bullet. What your illustration shows is what used to be known as an “ether wind”. Since the laser and the top mirror are moving through a propagating medium, the laser must be aimed to the right instead of straight up. This is basic Lorentz theory.

Didn't hear about that - that's pretty interesting (and vaguely disheartening). But sam, you just acknowledged that time itself runs slower for the guy in the valley. So no, the light beam in the valley is not moving slower than the light beam in the mountain. #-o

Could you post the equation please?

No, his atomic clock ticks slower. His pendulum clock ticks faster. But he uses his atomic clock to measure the speed of light. So he measures "c". But if he used his pendulum clock to measure the speed of light, he would notice a slowdown in the speed of light in the valley.

If we used a third atomic clock, located halfway up the mountain, an observer at that clock would measure the slowdown in the speed of light in the valley and the speed up in the speed of light on the top of the mountain. You are getting biological time, variable atomic clock tick rates, and variable light speed all mixed up. We don't care at what rate the observers are aging. They are just looking at atomic-clock/light-speed print-outs anyway.

I'm looking for the gravitational redshift equation in algebra form. I hope someone can provide it. Thanks.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level.../Kem1_3_2.html

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

No it's you that doesn't understand. Because you don't understand the difference between relative and absolute frames of refereces9or if you do, you refuse to accept it). Lorentz requires you pick one frame of reference and have to stick to it. In SR and GR, it doens't matter what frame you use to take the measurements. Until you understand this subtle difference, you will never completely understand SR or GR. I'll tell you again, Lorentz's 1904 theory and GR are incompatible. You can't claim they both are right.

Sam5 has been claiming SR is wrong. He has been challenged to show us his SR calculations, his calculations using Lorentz's 1895 theory, and his GR calculations(where gravity can be ignored). As soon as he shows us Lorent'z theory calculations match the GR calculations, and the GR calculations don't match the SR calculations, he can claim Lorentz is accurate and SR is not. Notice I'm asking for his calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation. Until he does, he is being intelectually dishonest by claiming SR is wrong.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

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

Nope. The laser is aimed straight up. The picture shows the path, as seen by the other observer. But the laser is pointed at the mirror, directly across from it. If it wasn't, the observer in the same frame would see the light miss the mirror. But it hits the mirror.

Exactly - the path is longer. Now, if we postulated that c is a constant, then t has to change to make the math work out. Do you see this, even if you do not agree with the postulate?

But the observer at rest with the clock can confirm that the laser is pointed at the mirror. Otherwise the laser misses it. The motion of the second observer can have absolutely no effect on where the laser points. It all has to do with observations - you aren't changing the clock; the observer at rest with the clock never sees anything change!

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

Thank you very much. Have you ever seen a gravitational redshift equation that looks like this?

f’ = [√(1 – 2Φ/c^2)] f

This is the kind I’ve been looking for because it contains the Phi term and the 2 Phi. I think this is important, because in the 1911 theory Einstein has 1 factor of slow-down for the atomic clock on the sun, but he has two factors of slowdown for the light vibration rate (the redshifted light frequency). According to my thought experiments, he should have 2 for 2 or 1 for 1. This could be why he doubled his light bending angle for his 1916 theory. But in the 1916 paper he used calculus equations instead of algebra equations, and I can’t read calculus equations. He still has a light speed slow-down in the 1916 theory, but that info is buried in his calculus calculations, and it’s cleverly hidden in the 1916 text.

The photon is clearly slanted to the right in his picture on the right.

Yes. But, the photon on the right clearly takes a longer path, so we don't have to change the rate of the light speed or the rate of our master clock. If light takes a longer path, it is going to take a longer time to get to the mirror. Your "light clock" is just a gimmic.

The photon is clearly slanted to the right, and the laser is clearly aimed to the right. If it wasn't, the photon would miss the mirror.

Well, if I’m such an idiot, then why do you continue to bother with me for 80 pages? You are either trying to deny what I’m telling you, or you’re trying to cover it up, and I want to know why.

I can understand a cover-up in the teens and ‘20s, and also in the ‘30s, and during WW II, and in the ‘50s, but not now. There is no need for a cover-up now, because the Russians, Germans, Japanese, and Chinese already know much of what I’m talking about. They will know it all within the next 10-20 years. In fact, I’m now getting a lot of my information from them, because they understand some of this stuff better than I do. I can understand it being a secret in the 1940s and ‘50s, but not now. That’s one reason why we were the first to get the A-bomb, but it doesn’t need to be a secret any more. If we continue to keep it a secret, then some day our kids will have to go to Russia, China, or Japan to get a good physics education.

Oops, you caught us. We're all part of a US government conspiracy whereby the entire scientific community misrepresents Einstein's Relativity in order to maintain a monopoly on the real way gravity, light, time, and motion work. In doing so, we prevent other countries from setting up their own GPS system.

Don't tell anyone or the feds will come after you. 8-[

This whole story would make a great movie. Not many people would understand it, but we could make it into a si-fi-spy movie. It would be a whole lot more understandable than “2001”. I want Dustin Hoffman to play me.

I don't think Dustin Hoffman would want to portray a character that is so completely ignorant and chooses to remain so.

I’m sure glad a really smart guy like you finally came on this thread. Now maybe we can all get a full scientific answer to these questions:

How does space “expand”?

Does “old space” stretch, or is “new space” added to the “old space”?

If new space is added to the old space, then where does the new space come from?

Also, please refer us to some scientific papers that discuss this.

Your quote, not mine. I've never said you were an idiot. You don't understand relativity as well as you think you do, you don't understand the math, and you refuse to accept some of the ideas and results behind SR . But, I've never called you an idiot. On the contrary, you have shown some intellect. It's a shame that it's so biased against something that has so much experimental proof behind it.

Why do you continue to assert something you either cannot or refuse to provide proof for? Why do you continue to post statements that have been shown to be wrong? Why do you continue to post quotes taken out of context? If you continue to do this, I'll continue to refute your posts.


Well, if you mean deny what you say because it's wrong, I'll agree with you here. Otherwise, as I've told you twice before, you are making statements that are flat out wrong, You then either cannot or refuse to provide proof for your statements. Not refuting those statements is tantamount to accepting them. I don't accept your statements and will continue to post refutations to your incorrect statements until you either post proper support for them or quit posting them. Just so others will not be misled.

I suggest you read up on Yakov Zel'dovich, Igor Novikov, Lev Landau, and Vitaly Ginzburg. Russians who added much to relativity theory in the from the thirties through the eighties. All of whom accepted SR as it is. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar did much for understanding the interior of collapsed stars (Chandrasekhar's Limit for white dwarfs, for example), specifically used SR in his calculations. John Wheeler, the dean of American relativitists, who has written books explaining SR (concepts and math). Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, who (along with Wheeler) wrote one of the definitive textbooks (which is used around the world) on GR, all accept SR. Steven Hawking, Roger Penrose, and Dennis Sciama in England, among others. A quick google search show a over 22 college level SR courses in Russia, Germany, China, and Japan. So, if there is a coverup, it's already world wide. It really comes down to you're just one of many who simply refuse to accept or don't completely understand the ideas or ramifications of SR.

Fine, but I suggest you dig a little deeper and completely understand what they are saying and make sure thier ideas match current observations. Not just pick out quotes, with no mathematical proof, you think support your contentions. And read the whole thing there may be other comments and quotes in those papers that refute what you think support your contentions. Face it Sam5, most of those comments, in the papers, are simply an attempt to explain what the math is telling us. If you don't understand the math part yourself, you will never understand the theory. All you can do is either accept or refuse to accept the approximate word explanation. You can't claim that you understand it.

Well, to be honest, my 19 year old, college sophomore daughter has a better grasp on the math and some the concepts of SR than you've shown.

They are already teaching the same thing we teach here. In fact, many of those same students come here as well as our students going over there for either graduate level or postdoc. So, again, if there is a conspiracy, it's worldwide.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

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