Yes! The A clock slows down for observers in the other frames! The amount of the slowdown depends on the relative speed. That's the claim of SR. The A observer doesn't see his own clock slow down, but observers in other frames see it slow down.

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

I think he's got it. Now, the question is will he accept it.

__________________
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

I'm not "ignoring the problem," Sam5, I honestly don't understand what you think the problem is. Why won't you just explain it?

They "turn up" in the 1905 paper because if one thing is moving at velocity v and the other at velocity c in the same direction, then they will be approaching each other at c+v. If in the opposite direction, at c-v.

He doesn't "get rid of" them, because there's no need to.

__________________
SeanF

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

The contents of this post are ©2010 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

No, you’re thinking of Doppler theory, 1843. Some people always get the Doppler theory mixed up with the 1905 theory.

The 1905 SR theory says that if you see a clock slow down by means of relative motion and light signals, then that clock will really slow down, at the clock that you see, and it will really “lag behind” your clock when it arrives at you or when you arrive at it. That’s wrong, and that’s what he had to change in 1918.

It’s easy to get the Doppler theory and the SR theory mixed up. Just try to remember this rule: The Doppler theory is correct, the SR theory is not. Just “seeing” a distant clock slow down because of your relative motion doesn’t make the clock “really” slow down.

Also remember this rule: In Doppler theory, the clock moving away from you appears to slow down, and the clock moving toward you appears to speed up. But the clock really does not change its rate at all. But in SR theory, the clock “really” slows down in both directions, and that is wrong. Please try to remember his 1918 correction.

Sorry, but....

I think where you and others get mixed up is when you say, “The A observer doesn't see his own clock slow down, but observers in other frames see it slow down.”

This is true in Doppler theory too, but the A clock never really slows down at all, just due to relative motion.

What is different in Einstein SR theory is that the clock “REALLY SLOWS DOWN” and the A observer is supposed to notice the “slow down” ONLY when he meets up with the other observers and their clocks, since their clocks are supposed to be “ahead” of his, while his is supposed to “lag behind” the others. But this is flat out wrong. That’s why he had to correct the 1905 theory in 1918. That’s why Physicists all over Europe were making fun of him until he made the correction.

CORRECT:

DOPPLER THEORY: You see a clock moving away and it appears to slow down. You see a clock moving toward you and it appears to speed up. But the clock NEVER really slows down. This is only a visual illusion. Doppler discovered this in 1842-43.

INCORRECT:

EINSTEIN SR THEORY: You see a clock moving away and it appears to slow down and it really slows down at that clock. You see a clock moving toward you and it appears to slow down and it really slows down at that cock. When you unite with the other clock it really “lags behind” yours. And this is WRONG.

Einstein’s theory creates a “paradox”, because the other observer can see YOUR clock as the one that “really slows down”, so when you and the other clock unite, the other observer sees your clock as “lagging behind” his, while you see his clock “lagging behind” yours, and this is an impossibility. That’s why he was laughed at by physicists all over Europe, until he changed his theory with a correction in 1918.

There is NO paradox in Doppler theory. That’s why we have “Doppler Radar” today, but no “Einstein Radar”. Also notice that we don’t have any Einstein Refrigerators, Einstein Light Bulbs, Einstein Airplanes, Einstein Automobiles, or Einstein Phonographs today either.

Ok, I’ll explain it.

Einstein knew from Lorentz theory that if his “stationary system” had light moving through it at “c”, in both directions of travel along the x axis, then everyone in that frame or “system” would see light move at “c”. But if he had the “moving system” move relative to the “stationary system”, everyone in that “moving frame” would see a “stationary system” light beam move at c – v in one direction of travel and c + v in the other direction of travel.

So, at the beginning of the SR theory, he’s got to get rid of that c – v and c + v problem. He does away with the c – v problem by slowing down the “moving frame's” clocks. So, a “slow ticking” clock will see a slow light beam (a c – v light beam) moving at “c”.

See?

Got it so far?

But that still leaves the c + v problem, and he had to use a different method to get rid of it.

When was the last time the Weather Channel attained relativistic velocity?
Einstein-Szilard refrigerators yes. But you knew that, we talkd about it before.

UCLA teaches that SR theory works at slow speeds too. They teach that the Faraday experiments were governed by Einstein theory, since Einstein mentioned the magnet and the coil in the opening paragraph of the 1905 paper. One day American universities will teach that Dr. Su’s “local ether” theory was Einstein’s idea.

LINK

So you were expecting to notice time dilation while on your train trip??

No, I didn't attend UCLA.

I really wonder why you keep posting this when Dr. Su himself admits his theory doesn't match observations. Here a quote from Dr. Su in another paper he published:

You keep saying that SR, which agrees with experimental observations is wrong, but you keep pushing a theory that the author himself says doesn't match with experimental observations.

__________________
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

There are many yet-to-be-tested exotic theories around, proposed by actual scientists. Here's another one:

"Doubly-Special Relativity" is a theory developed from Special Relativity in 2002 by the Italian physicist Giovanni Amelino-Camelia.

The theory was postulated as an explanation of the effect of high energy cosmic rays which are observed to violate the "Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit." (Known as the "GZK paradox.")

2002 paper

Shorter non-technical review paper

Though 1905 SR is a universally accepted and tested theory, 2002 "DSR" could presently be considered an "exotic theory."

Okay.

Mmm. No, not quite. He knew (based on his constancy postulate) that the "moving" observer should see both light beams as moving at c relative to the "moving" observer, even though the "stationary" observer would see the light beams as moving at c+v and c-v relative to the "moving" observer.

No. The SR-predicted time dilation rate of sqr(1-v²/c²) is not the correct amount to transform c-v into c. If you understood math, you would see that immediately, and you would realize that you are wrong about the time dilation. It does not turn c-v into c and it was not intended to. That is simply not how it works.

Well, you've been wrong about everything else, but how about telling us the "different method" he used to get rid of the "c+v problem" anyway?

__________________
SeanF

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

The contents of this post are ©2010 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Tensor,

You’ve posted that Bragg quote about 20 times already.

What that probably means is there is an added factor that Su and Bragg haven’t accounted for yet. A physicist mentions such things in a paper, thinking that maybe someone else can account for it or find the cause.

Dr. Su has had his paper published in too many mainstream journals for you to deny it. I called this one right three years ago when I called it the "local ether field".

Young people will read his papers and understand what he is talking about, long before they become brainwashed in American universities by the “no ether” error.

Then your observations on the train do not refute special relativity?

No, not in the very beginning of the paper. Not in Section 1. That’s why he had to slow down the “moving” clock’s tick rate to get rid of the c – v problem, and he had to pull some other tricks to get rid of the c + v problem.

Once he finished that project, then he had to get rid of the direction problem.

I suggest you count the number of times I posted this.

Which means the theory is wrong, as it is. And he hasn't changed anything yet, so it's still wrong.

Where did I deny the paper was published. All I'm pointing out is that the author of the, theory you admire so much, admits his theory 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

Well, why don’t you write Dr. Su, Harvard, and NASA and tell them. Why don’t you start your own website and tell the whole world about it? Maybe you can run full-page ads in Taiwan newspapers telling everyone that you are smarter than Dr. Su.

Why? He freely admits it himself.

I never claimed I am smarter than Dr. Su. His work on waveguide and antennae propagation is pretty sharp. However, I am smart enough to understand that when the author of a paper admits his calculations don't match observations, his theory doesn't work.

__________________
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

Well write your own paper. You're smarter than Dr. Su about this, so write your own paper Dr. Tensor.

Don't need to. SR and GR work quite well.

__________________
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

Section 1? There is nothing moving in Section 1, except the light. There is certainly no c+v or c-v in Section 1. What are you talking about?

And in Section 2, where he does introduce the moving clocks, he says:

The "moving" clocks are thus specifically defined as ticking at the same rate as the "stationary" clocks.

__________________
SeanF

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

The contents of this post are ©2010 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

No, the Westbound clocks speeded up. Under SR theory, they should have slowed down relative to the earth-based observer’s system and his clocks. In fact, N,S,E, and Westbound atomic clocks should slow down in the same amount in the SR theory.

However, in the Lorentz theory, they do what the fields tell them to do.

CM's Angels Return -- Part One

Well, it's time for another thought experiment fantasy and again I call on the assistance of "Celestial Mechanic's Angels", or "CM's Angels" for short. My three very lovely (and capable!) assistants, Anne, Barbara, and Charlotte will now perform an experiment similar to the Hafele-Keating experiment. Anne will pilot a jet flying eastwards along the 45th parallel at 250 m/s (900 km/hr), and Charlotte will do likewise except that she will fly west. This time Barbara will stay on the ground. All three carry Cesium-133 atomic clocks. I communicate with them only via a speakerphone.

We will use suitably rounded numbers so that the computations will be easy enough that, "Yes! You can try this at home!" First a little analysis of the experiment.

Hafele and Keating are quite right in stating that merely using sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is wrong. Sam5 is wrong in quoting this out of context as an indication that SR is somehow "wrong". The reason it is wrong, as we shall see, is that GR effects are of the same order of magnitude as the SR effects and so GR must be used to calculate all effects.

How big are these effects? We shall see that they are on the order of 10^-11. This is a small enough that we can ignore squares of these quantities. All velocities are small relative to c, so we can add velocities as we do in Newtonian physics, again with errors only of the second order in small quantities.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

CM's Angels Return -- Part Two

As the Celestial Mechanic said earlier, "A good set of coordinates can make a problem easy to solve, a bad set of coordinates can leave us mired in confusion." None of CM's Angels is in an inertial reference frame, which makes calculations messy. What can we do? We will turn to the Earth to provide us with a reference frame that is close to inertial, at least for a time about as long as that contemplated for the experiment. We will imagine the origin at the center of the Earth, and use spherical coordinates r, theta, and phi, with r as the radius, theta as the colatitude, and phi as longitude. We don't really care what the zero longitude is, other than that it be fixed with respect to the distant galaxies and quasars. The time t will be that of a clock at the center of the Earth. Don't worry about this, we will switch over to the more accessible clocks on the surface for our results.

With the coordinate system chosen above we can write the proper time interval dT using the Schwarzschild metric with M as the mass of the Earth as follows:

c^2 * dT^2 = (1-2*G*M/r/c^2)*c^2*dt^2 - dr^2/(1-2*G*M/r/c^2) - r^2*dtheta^2 - r^2*sin^2(theta)*dphi^2. (Equation 1)

Phew! That's as far into GR as we need to go! If we set M equal to 0 we would get:

c^2 * dT^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2*dtheta^2 - r^2*sin^2(theta)*dphi^2,

which is just the Minkowski metric transformed to spherical coordinates. GR extends SR into new domains just as SR extends Newtonian physics.

Now let's simplify the experiment a bit. We will ignore the time spent ascending and descending to cruising altitude, so we can drop the dr^2 term. Anne and Charlotte are going to use their GPS system to stay at the same latitude, so we can ignore the dtheta^2 term. If we divide Equation 1 through by c^2*dt^2 we get:

(dT/dt)^2 = 1 - 2*G*M/r/c^2 - r^2*sin^2(theta)*(dphi/dt)^2/c^2.

All quantities other than the 1 on the right side are small quantities of the first order, so taking the square root to first order we have:

(dT/dt) = 1 - G*M/r/c^2 - (1/2)*r^2*sin^2(theta)*(dphi/dt)^2/c^2.

This is the rate for a clock at radius r moving along a circle of latitude at an angular rate of dphi/dt. We now have to apply this to Anne, Barbara, and Charlotte's situations. Stay tuned!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

CM's Angels Return -- Part Three

At the close of the last post we derived the following formula for the clock rate:

(dT/dt) = 1 - G*M/r/c^2 - (1/2)*r^2*sin^2(theta)*(dphi/dt)^2/c^2.

We now have to apply this to Anne, Barbara, and Charlotte's situations. Let's start with Barbara.

Barbara is stationed on the ground, so she is carried eastward by the Earth's rotation at an angular rate of 2*pi/(86164 s). (Thankfully we don't have Oriel36 AKA "He Who Will Not Name Einstein" ranting and raving about the equation of time etc., etc.!) This works out to a linear velocity of V = r*sin(theta)*dphi/dt = R*sin(45deg)*(2*pi)/86164, where R is the radius of the Earth. Take R equal to 6,380 km, sin(45deg) to be 0.7 and you should get 326 m/s for the velocity.

Thus for Barbara, dT_B/dt = 1 - G*M/R/c^2 - (1/2)*V^2/c^2. (Equation 2B)

Anne and Charlotte are cruising at an altitude of h = 10 km, so for them 1/r = 1/(R+h) = (1/R)-(h/R^2) to the first order in small quantities. Since Anne is traveling eastward at v = 250 m/s (900 km/hr), her total velocity along the circle of latitude is V+v. Since Charlotte travels westward, her velocity along the circle of latitude is V-v. Thus

dT_A/dt = 1 - G*M/R/c^2 + G*M*h/R^2/c^2 - (1/2)*(V+v)^2/c^2, (Equation 2A)

dT_C/dt = 1 - G*M/R/c^2 + G*M*h/R^2/c^2 - (1/2)*(V-v)^2/c^2, (Equation 2C).

I have taken the liberty of labeling the equations A, B, and C for Anne, Barbara, and Charlotte, respectively. Now we can get rid of the reference to the inaccessible clock at the center of the Earth. What we really want is the rates of Anne and Charlotte's clocks with respect to Barbara's. Using the fact that G*M/R^2 = g = 9.8 m/s^2, we have:

dT_A/dT_B = 1 + g*h/c^2 - (1/2)*(v/c)^2 - (V/c)*(v/c), (Equation 3A)

dT_C/dT_B = 1 + g*h/c^2 - (1/2)*(v/c)^2 + (V/c)*(v/c), (Equation 3C).

In the above computation we made use of the fact that if x and y are small quantities of the first order then (1+x)/(1+y) = (1+x-y), again to the first order.

Now let's crunch some numbers. We will use g=9.8 m/s^2, h=10^4 m, c=3*10^8 m/s, so c^2 = 9*10^16 m^2/s^2 hence g*h/c^2 = 1.09*10^-12.

v is 250 m/s, so (1/2)*(v/c)^2 = 3.47*10^-13 = 0.35*10^-12, keeping everything in units of 10^-12.

Finally, V is 326 m/s, so (V/c)*(v/c) = 0.90*10^-12. Thus all quantities are about 10^-12, justifying our neglect of their squares and products.

Anne's clock runs slow compared to Barbara's by a factor of 1 + (1.09 - 0.35 - 0.90)*10^-12 = 1 - 0.16*10^-12.

Charlotte's clock runs fast compared to Barbara's by a factor of 1 + (1.09 - 0.35 + 0.90)*10^-12 = 1 + 1.64*10^-12.

In more concrete terms, let's say that Anne and Charlotte each fly 5,000 km. They will take 20,000 seconds to do so, during which Anne will lose 3.2 ns and Charlotte will gain 32.8 ns. Note that these are not the same numbers as Hafele and Keating, I just wanted to give some sense of where the corrections come from and how big they are.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

CM's Angels Return -- Part Four

Once again Anne, Barbara and Charlotte are back at the office before the speakerphone as the Celestial Mechanic speaks:

"Although Anne and Charlotte were each traveling away from Barbara at equal velocity, none of you were in an inertial frame. Fortunately, the Earth itself provided one for you, albeit one with an inaccessible clock. A coordinate system can be like the scaffolding of a building, to be removed once it has fulfilled its purpose.

"In this example, based on velocities alone, Anne's clock runs slower than Barbara's which in turn runs slower than Charlotte's. In part this is because Anne is moving faster than Barbara who is moving faster than Charlotte with respect to the center of the Earth. The correction due to altitude does not alter this in this example. It is entirely possible to have a gravitational field strong enough that both Anne and Charlotte's clocks would run faster than Barbara's."

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

That seems like a pretty decent explanation of the issue. What is wrong with Einstein's explanation?

Setting aside the non-constant speed of time (which Einstein couldn't prove, but we have since proven), if we don't somehow reconcile the two speeds for light, we have a contradiction, ie that the speed of light (or anything else) can be quite literally anything depending on how you choose to measure it. That doesn't exactly give us a universe where everything obeys the same laws.

Einstein's solution was simple - it was a restatement of classical notions of Relativity: frame of reference is everything. Thus SR reads 'the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame of reference.

Your arguement that when calculated from another frame, light doesn't travel at C is fine. No one disagrees. But that isn't what SR says. SR is talking about what is going on in your frame of reference.

This is why you can't provide us with an experiment that shows light to be variable in speed - any experiment that can directly measure a speed for light does so in the frame of reference that the light is in (obviously - otherwise you wouldn't see the light). And therfore every experiment that measures the speed of light shows it to be C.

Now, if you wanted to, you could measure a distance traveled in one frame and time measured in another frame and come up with a different speed than C, but that wouldn't be terribly useful, would it? Its completely arbitrary. Or perhaps he's just bein intellectually honest in admitting that his theory is flawed? That's certainly how the quote reads to me. He may still be trying to fix the flaws and thats fine, but until he does, his theory cannot be cited as a valid explanation of anything. We've already discussed GPS, Sam - remember? You balked at acknowledging the facts about how it operates. It is fact that GPS uses SR and GR calculations to synchronize its clocks.

Someone even mentioned recently (which I didn't know) that the first GPS satellite was not set up to account for SR and GR because some government boob wanted the scientists to prove they needed to before letting them do it. Well, at least now you acknowledge that time dilation does exist even if you don't quite understand it. You can't think of something that might affect such an experiment? Perhaps in using a non-inertial frame of reference as your stationary inertial frame of reference?

Once again, your refutation is no refutation. Special Relativity does not include the effects of gravitation. That's why it's special. If gravitation and acceleration can be ignored (for example by specifying inertial frames of reference), SR is an extremely robust theory which explains why time is relative to the motion of the observer and not absolute, and having postulated that the speed of light is measured to be the same for all inertial observers, why such phenomena as muons generated high in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, manage to reach the ground when according to Newtonian theory they would be undetectable.

He did no such thing. Lorentz did no provide an explanation for gravitation at all but to explain an experimental result which appeared to show that the speed of light did not vary with the speed of the Earth through space.

Again not so.

It is you that misunderstands the Kinematic argument in Special Relativity, not Einstein. Lorentz knew fine well that his formulation had no theoretic foundation, and he paid tribute to Einstein for laying that foundation.

Einstein did not correct Special Relativity at all. He generalized the theory to include accelerating frames of reference and gave an explanation for the effects of gravitation in terms of changing the geometry of space.

In no sense has the 1918 paper been "lost" to history. It is your fabrication. Every physicist knows that Special Relativity has limitations on its application because Einstein stated up front what they were.

__________________
"If lightspeed has something to do with speed.
how come things can move fast in the dark?"
-James Driscoll (Spaceman), kook, imbecile, idiot.

Perfect Russ, thanks. From reading his other papers, that's the impression I would get.

__________________
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