Eckard,

Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"Michelson and...

view entire post

Eckard,

Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."

Then the authors makes the wrong conclusion ("The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame") but I hope you will not be misled. One can use the same calculation but assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).

The correct conclusion is: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

view post as summary

Eckard

You asked of; "a single (thus 'local') frame"? I responded on the long string on my blog as follows;



"I agree it does need more explanation. I'm now so familiar with the new simple logic I forget how relatively confusing the previous understanding was.

Perhaps a simple interpretation of Tejunders 'continuous spontaneous localization' will help. That is...

view entire post

Eckard

You asked of; "a single (thus 'local') frame"? I responded on the long string on my blog as follows;



"I agree it does need more explanation. I'm now so familiar with the new simple logic I forget how relatively confusing the previous understanding was.

Perhaps a simple interpretation of Tejunders 'continuous spontaneous localization' will help. That is confusingly 'CSL', so I'll use 'instantaneous', for 'CIL'.

Envisage a space, say a 10 metre cube, with say five 0.5 metre 'particles' in it, all made up of gluons, protons, electron shells etc. and all moving with respect to (wrt) each other. We'll slow down some light waves passing through the space, to a constant 5kph wrt the cube, which we'll call 'c', so we can see what's going on.

As a part of each plane wavefront interacts with each particle the speed of propagation is instantly changed, or 'localised', to c', which is c wrt the particle NOT the cube. Most of the wave carries on at c, and another 0.5m bit may interact with a different particle, and then be localised to c", which is yet another c, wrt THAT particle. After a very short delay (PMD) each particle re-emits the charge (wave) at c wrt itself, that is; c' or c". So each of those speeds is different when viewed from the cube (background) frame, but is always c from the frame of each particle. That is 'local c' in the 'local frame' of each particle.

Now if all the particles are at rest wrt the cube, but the PMD delay gives refractive index n = in excess of 1, then all the re-emissions will have the same speed and axis c'. The process is equivalent to 'extinction' of the old wavefront and speed c. The effect of two axis during extinction is a form of birefringence, precisely as first found by Raman Chandraseckara pre his 1930 Nobel. (He also confirmed the new emission speed c' is wrt the particle not any bound electron orbital speed). In this case the word 'local' then refers to the cube, which may of course be in motion wrt it's own background.

Maxwell's 'domains' are only valid for each of those local frames. As soon as a 'transformation' (LT or GT) between frame is required they are invalid.

The big difference here is that we can now assign a frame' the mutually exclusive 'space' envisioned conceptually by Einstein (1952) to finally complete his quest for a 'Local Reality' derived from a quantum mechanism. That mechanism is simply Raman scattering, co-incidentally found the year of his Leiden speech 1921.

Does that help clarify the meaning assigned to 'local frame? The word 'single' may be almost irrelevant, but importantly reminds us that there are others, indeed "infinitely many spaces in motion relatively"; (AE 1952)"

Do let me know if the mists of confusion are yet lifting.

Peter

view post as summary

Dear Eckard,

Thanks for letting me know that you intend to read my essay and comment on it.

I would like to let you know that my essay directly addressed to topic of the competition – namely the primordial foundational problems (unlike many other essays - yet ironically it is way down in the list).

To quote: “We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts...

view entire post

Dear Eckard,

Thanks for letting me know that you intend to read my essay and comment on it.

I would like to let you know that my essay directly addressed to topic of the competition – namely the primordial foundational problems (unlike many other essays - yet ironically it is way down in the list).

To quote: “We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated”.

Thus the first six pages of my essay is to show how physics arrived at the point where Newtonian mechanics became incapable of explaining relativistic phenomena, which manifest in cases of fast moving objects.

It shows that Einstein understood that Newtonian foundation was fictitious. Einstein knew that the “Right Way” was to formulate a theory on the same lines as TD, but instead of finding a theory based on first principles (as in TD), he added more fictions. And I show why he had to stick to this fictitious path. It is because, Einstein discarded the dynamic substratum of Galileo’s relativity and took only the superficial kinematic caricature of it. The dynamic substratum of Galileo’s relativity is that there is a CAUSE why the relative motion of two objects in a given location remains the same, independent of the velocity of the local frame. The cause is that both the objects share a motion in common with the local frame. “The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship’s motion is common to all the things contained in it” ( Dialogos, p. 187).

Poincare severely attacked this substratum (see St Louis Address), and insisted that there is no common motion so that the idea of a preferred frame is completely eliminated. It is on this castrated principle of relativity that Einstein adopted. This is why he could not discern the dynamic link between the perpetuum mobile and the Lorentz transformation. (Perhaps you may recall the discussion I had with George Ellis on this subject, where you made some comment in regard to my ‘persistence’).

In the last four pages of my essay I prove my point by briefly showing the solution. By developing the algorithm that underlies motion of a particle. Still these may not convey to you how relativistic phenomena appear in fast motions.

I would therefore copy an extract of my post to Israel Perez a few days back.

(Beginning of Extract):

In the final analysis, the whole crisis in physics has the following four factors combining together as the root cause – the primordial foundational errors of physics. 1) Not considering that all phenomena arise out of state changes of energy in an open system, with exchange of energy between the system and the field. 2) Not considering that Nature’s processes are non-linear and NOT DEVELOPING PHYSICS RIGHT FROM THE START on the basis of a corresponding NON-LINEAR MATHEMATICAL SCHEME. 3) Not considering that motion of a particle occurs by the interaction of TWO quantities of energy; particle energy Mc2 and the energy of motion pc. The POINT MASS CONCEPT which is common to SRT and QM as well prevents the discernment of non-linear mathematical configuration underlying the interaction of the above two quantities of energy. 4) Not considering that: A particle moving relative to a given location (in motion) not only has a motion in common with the location but with the whole hierarchy of motions of the location. (E.g. A particle set in motion on a moving ship has motions in common with the ship, earth’s surface, earth’s orbiting centre)



As I see it, physics had developed from the time of Newton till early 1900’s on a linear basis for slow moving bodies (without taking the above four factors into account). The development of physics up to that point was possible and successful because, for slow motions, the effects of non-linearity are negligibly small (imperceptible) over short intervals of time (they would manifest only if cumulative data are considered over a long period as in the case of perihelion motion of Mercury). In sharp contrast, effects of non-linearity develop exponentially at very high velocities, (and the very same phenomena that are imperceptible at slow motions become very much perceptible at fast motion). Thus when physics came at the stage of conducting experiments with fast moving particles, the combined effect of the above four factors hit the fan, and physics was thrown into a crisis.

The most difficult factor (out of the above four) to make people understand is about the effect of common motion of a particle with the hierarchy of backgrounds. This was a basic premise of Galileo and Newton “A body that is moved from a place also partakes in the motion of the place” (Principia p. 9). Because the non-linear effects are imperceptible at low velocities, the premise of “common motion of a particle with its places”, became superfluous to be taken into consideration in practice. So there had been a de facto application of the Occam’s razor to this principle. Therefore, physics of slow moving particles developed for two centuries by IMPLICITLY considering that all ‘reference frames’ are equivalent.

When physics arrived at the stage of experimenting with fast motion, the non-linear effects took exponential proportions, the phenomena associated with non-linearity were no more imperceptible.

The phenomenon associated with Galileo’s premise of the motion of a particle (relative to earth) also having a motion in common with earth’s orbiting centre, had even much deeper implications. It took the centre stage. The fact that earth’s orbiting centre is also the centre of earth’s gravitational field loomed large, and manifested in the results of these experiments of fast moving particles. But since Galileo’s premise of common motion with the earth has slipped the minds of the physicists, it never occurred to them to look for an answer on its basis.

And at the same time over two centuries of physics, minds of physicists had got trained to ignore the effect of earth’s gravitational field, and to consider that space as empty and inert. With this mindset, they could never think of even a more complicated structure than the space being the earth’s orbiting gravitational field. That is, that the space (of the lab frame) consists of a gravitational field whose centre is orbiting about the centre of the sun’s gravitational field. (That space needs to be considered as consisting of two interpenetrating gravitational fields in the least).

The particle (of energy Mc2) while at rest on earth already is orbiting with the earth in the sun’s gravitational field. This is common knowledge, so common that it was never considered to have any further implications.

The implication is that, the energy of motion pc now added to the particle (Mc2) to set it in motion too has to gravitate about both these fields. In order to counter-act the gravitation of the sun, the energy pc has to develop a separate subsidiary component of energy (by fission) which will enable it to move at the orbital velocity determined by the gravitational potential of the sun’s field. By this means it also develops a centrifugal force, which counteracts sun’s attraction (and thereby tidal effects get eliminated). Therefore the velocity that the subsidiary component of energy pc has to develop, to move in sun’s gravitational field, (while also moving the particle in earth’s gravitational field), is equal to earth’s orbital velocity u = 30 k/s.

This is why in the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS a term involving earth’s orbital motion became manifest. And this is why in the 1904 paper in which Lorentz was working towards developing the EMPIRICAL EQUATION, (which we now call as the ‘Lorentz transformation’) by iteration of data of experiments of fast moving particles, he wrote in the opening paragraph itself: “The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ….. IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH’S ANNUAL MOTION ….” (p. 11)



In my theory there are no reference frames (like the theory Israel Perez claims that he tried to develop similar to TD). So Israel’s following statement does not apply to my position:

Israel wrote: “I now understand why you introduce the sun frame. Lorentz considered it because at that time physicist assumed that the sun could be at rest relative to the aether (PSR). But today this argument no longer applies because the sun it is not at rest relative to the PSR”.

I am by no means a follower of Lorentz theory. You seem to mistake my constant references to Lorentz’s EMPIRICALLY DEVELOPED EQUATIONS FROM EXPERIMENTAL FACTS, with Lorentz’ subsequent INTERPRETATIONS to explain the terms in those equations. Lorentz’ yeoman work in developing empirical equations is quite a different thing to various kinematic interpretations he proposed in his attempts to interpret them. I have no truck with those interpretations.

I would urge you to read my essay at least now. I have demonstrated therein how to represent physical processes by simple non-linear algorithms. I have accounted with extreme accuracy for the slow down of a GPS clock due to orbital motion, muon decay. I have eliminated the schism between physics of slow and fast motion. In just half a page I have derived Lorentz transformation by means of dynamic principles.



End of extract:

Best regards,

Viraj

view post as summary

Eckard

Sorry forgot to check back for a response.

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is ‘refreshed’ at the...

view entire post

Eckard

Sorry forgot to check back for a response.

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is ‘refreshed’ at the mirror (ie it is not a reflection/collision) is irrelevant. Light in this respect is not some mysterious commodity which is above normal physical rules. But one would never detect that with the set up of Michelson.

No I don’t know whether an alteration in dimension occurs as a result of accelerated/decelerated motion, somebody ought to find out. What I was saying was that they believed it did. The argument was: the expected differential was not proven, but we still think it exists, so therefore the equipment shrank to counteract that. The value derived was gamma, which is just transversal (hypotenteuse)/vertical. Which is something of a clue that they have not got the value correct, even if it does occur, and that they are conflating light reality with existent reality.

Although dimension alteration keeps getting a mention, it does not have an effect in their theory. It becomes the equivalent of the supposed shift in time (eg everyone is in ‘their own time’). And that was the donkey that they pinned the tail on. In the first instant, it caused them to worry about referencing wrt things that were moving (in the sense of more than others), because if the reference is altering dimension then that is a problematic reference. But the perversion of local time (Poincare “most ingenious idea”) ‘solved’ all that. It is all about time difference, allegedly. Of course, it one conflates light reality with existent reality, then it is, because there is always a delay whilst light travels.

Paul

PS: thanks for advice on attachments, I just could not understand what URL(?) to give it, so I just dumped it as a post and wrote an e-mail to the administrators.

view post as summary

Eckard

I presume the exchange you referred to ran in 3 different threads in early November.

1 Infinity

There is no such thing as infinity in the physical existence we are examining. Because we are trapped in a closed system, ie a form of existence which is finite. Assertions outwith that form can only be belief, ie ‘anything goes’ and is of equal validity, or...

view entire post

Eckard

I presume the exchange you referred to ran in 3 different threads in early November.

1 Infinity

There is no such thing as infinity in the physical existence we are examining. Because we are trapped in a closed system, ie a form of existence which is finite. Assertions outwith that form can only be belief, ie ‘anything goes’ and is of equal validity, or non-validity, whichever-as they are the same. The point being once extrinsic to the form of existence we can know, there is no validity reference. George Ellis’s argument, which is a common one, that: “Anything to do with "infinite" is an unprovable hypothesis”, confuses the logical possibilities as to what existence might be, with the form of existence we can know. [Remember our exchange on God with Ben, and you agreed with me. This is the same logical point]. Logically, existence might have a feature we refer to as infinity. But scientifically we cannot transcend one particular form of existence, so, as with any other such ideas, we cannot know, it is just a belief and therefore not part of science. The form of physical existence we are able to examine, objectively, is, by definition, finite. Though in terms of mathematical/narrative representation thereof, tends towards infinity, is correct, ie indicating that there is a definite quantity but it is too large to quantify. This might at first appear to be ‘nit-picking’, but this is a classic example of the failure to understand the nature of what is being investigated first, before constructing representations of it.

2 Dimension alteration (Length contraction)

Whether this actually occurs is something that needs to be proven, but that is a separate issue.

Whilst it was thought to be the explanation of the null result of M&M, whether it was, or a false interpretation, or the experiment was invalid, etc, is all irrelevant. The critical point is that they believed it to be so, which initiated a certain train of thought, but ultimately was not a driver in the resulting theory of relativity. That is, for example, it caused them to be concerned about relatively moving objects and hence their use as a reference. Because such objects were so moving as the force (really a differential) causing that, also caused dimension alteration. So they introduced a non-existent variable in their thinking, which then needed to be rationalised. This morphed into time variation (ie time alteration-again there is a tendency as with length to only refer to one effect-dilation). The quantification of these effects is the same, and is wrong anyway, since all it (gamma) really amounts is a comparison of the transversal with the vertical. The concept that there was dimension alteration also gave ‘background comfort’ to the notion of timing devices varying as their momentum varied, ie their tick rate might be so affected as they contracted/dilated. The supposed variance in time is derived via another route, the closest we get to this notion is a reference to a “normal” clock. You should also note that Einstein concluded: “that the expected difference is much too small to be noticeable in the measurement of earth's surface” (section 22 Foundation 1916)

3 The real point here being that relativity is the function of two interrelated fundamental errors:

-the assumption that there is duration in physical existence, which manifests as the incorrect application of x = vt . That is, time is reified.

the conflation of physical existence and light existence (ie what we receive, but do not confuse this with the subsequent processing thereof, which is irrelevant). That is, the elimination of time delays which actually occur whilst light travels, the reification of c as the constant/limiter-a determinant of physical existence-which it is not, AND its use in the incorrect application of x = vt.

In simple language: the existent time delay whilst light travels is conflated with a non existent time variation in physical existence. Which is, as Peter Jackson will confirm, what I have been saying for the past 18 months. It has nothing to do with presuming c to be constant, which is a valid simplification, and it has nothing to be with all these torturous arguments about the processing of physical input received.

4 I would need to know what you are referring to as SR. It was not 1905. Another factual point I keep making, like the one about light is just a moving entity therefore its speed depends on the reference used to calibrate it. Einstein was perfectly clear as to what constituted SR, it was a theoretical circumstance without gravitational forces, so it involved only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, fixed shape bodies, and light that travelled at a constant speed in straight lines. Remember, in 1905 we had dimension alteration, ie not fixed shaped bodies. This contradiction in 1905 was because matter was not ‘in vacuo’, whereas light was. He was aware of a problem, hence the two postulates were “only apparently irreconcilable”, and this was ‘reconciled in section 7 1916.

5 It sounds as if the Feynman lectures you refer to are not available on-line(?)

Paul

view post as summary

Eckard

“One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs”

This is a statement of the obvious, so I am not sure where it is taking you. Leaving aside actual practicalities of doing so, which is a different issue to the logically possible, measuring the speed of change is...

view entire post

Eckard

“One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs”

This is a statement of the obvious, so I am not sure where it is taking you. Leaving aside actual practicalities of doing so, which is a different issue to the logically possible, measuring the speed of change is possible. Just as is size, colour, loudness, etc, etc. The key point here being that what occurred in physical existence is captured in a physically existent, but representational reality. That is known as light, noise, vibration, etc, etc. So, on the basis of understanding how those physical phenomena work, we can, and with the neutralisation of any influence introduced in the subsequent processing of what was physically received, identify what actually occurred.

Re Israel, et al. And indeed yourself. Fair enough. But as I keep on saying, any new fact in this area can have no impact on relativity. Because there is no connection. People can keep on trying to understand how light/the medium works till they go to their grave, but it is irrelevant to identifying the error in relativity. For the simple reason that that is not where the error is. Einstein conflated light reality and existent reality. Examination of all his examples, and overt statements prove this. Here is one (section 12, 1916): “As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity”.

The other error is in measuring distance in terms of elapsed time, ie the time it would take something to travel that distance, either way. But there is no duration in distance, that is just an alternative method for expressing it. And guess what he uses to calibrate distance?? Yep, light. So c becomes the timing reference for physical existence (which is its role in light reality). It is constant because it is being used as the design determinant. It just so happens that, in physical existence observational light is practically constant. It always starts with the same velocity, and not much impedes that motion, and only marginally. Here is the mistake, copied from Poincaré Section 1, 1905:

“If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a“B time.” 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. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” t(a) from A towards B, let it at the “B time” t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t’(a).

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: t(b) – t(a) = t’(a) – t(b).”

Einstein has , effectively, reversed how physical existence actually occurs. Section 8 1916: “Under these conditions we understand by the "time" of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation.”

Einstein has equated the real time differential which occurs, because light travels, with a false differential attributed to an existential time difference. This is why relativity ‘works’. It always struck me from the outset that whilst there is ‘something wrong here’, obviously the theory must come up with the ‘right answers’, otherwise it would have been rejected by now.

So, in amongst everything else you arereading, I can only ask you to read my post, or indeed I will send you a copy. And please ignore the first 3 paragraphs, because I do not want you to start thinking it’s all philosophy. Start with what distance is (para 4).

Paul

view post as summary