Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 02:10 GMT
Dear Sophie Hebden,
Your article point out the correct way to deal with double slit experiment - Time is the important issue when we deal with space wave patterns.
I wish you could read my essay "Rethink of the Double Slit Experiment",
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Xiao_Ke
XiaoFQXi828.pdfwhich discussed the space-time model of particle scattering and wave interference combination. My work shows
and more importantly the cross-linked angle with time.
Yours,
Ke Xiao
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT
"While developing relativity, Einstein realized that gravity affects the rate at which clocks tick. This has been confirmed experimentally, using atomic clocks raised to different heights; clocks closer to the ground tick more slowly."
This is simply not true. The only measurable effect is the gravitational redshift, and it is due to the acceleration of photons in a gravitational field...
view entire post
"While developing relativity, Einstein realized that gravity affects the rate at which clocks tick. This has been confirmed experimentally, using atomic clocks raised to different heights; clocks closer to the ground tick more slowly."
This is simply not true. The only measurable effect is the gravitational redshift, and it is due to the acceleration of photons in a gravitational field (light falls like any material object), not to "changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks":
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 13:04 GMT
Gravitational time dilation or variable speed of light?
David Morin, Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."
Is that true? If the top of the tower emits light towards the ground, the observer on the ground will measure the frequency to be higher than the initial frequency measured at the top. Two reasons are conceivable:
1. Higher clocks run faster than lower clocks (gravitational time dilation).
2. Light accelerates as it falls. If the initial frequency (measured at the top) is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the final frequency (measured on the ground) is f'=(c+v)/L, where v is the increment to the speed of the light.
If (1) is true, (2) is false and vice versa.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT
I'm not sure if light accelerates as it falls. For instance, as it falls to a black hole, it slows down to zero, turns back completely into mass, and can't escape (zero velocity).
Likewise, when the wavefunction collapses, or higher Bohr orbitals collapse to lower orbits, the photons slow, not speed up. They fully collapse on the screen in the double slit, and collapse back to their black hole -like state.
As for MTS, the M side represents Black Holes, and the S side vaccuum energy (Dark Energy). The "M" side represents slower light, not faster. Light slows down in a gravitational field, Full curvature of space = black hole= light can't escape = zero velocity.
This all should be consistent with CIG Theory.
Maybe not
Who Knows, Long Day
doug
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 05:32 GMT
doug wrote: "I'm not sure if light accelerates as it falls."
According to Newton's emission theory of light, light accelerates like all material objects (in 1911 Einstein explicitly used this). According to the final version of general relativity, "light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter":
"
...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
"
Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT
Does it care (don't like to use the word matter in any context other than mass)whether the light is falling into or attempting to escape from the cener of gravity??
Freeze an instant of time and look at light escaping from a star, or falling toward its center of gravity, let's assume not knowing which way. Take for instance a spot twenty miles away.
The light escaping will be fighting the tendency of gravity to pull it back (consistent with CIG, light [photons] have mass until they reach full "c" speed - they lose their mass along the way. In this manner, they are affected by gravity). As it moves farther away from the star's center of gravity, it will travel faster. And as it travels faster, it loses mass, only becoming a massless photon at the speed of light. [partial loss of matter = Dark matter, full loss of matter = Dark Energy]
The light falling will be slowing, since it cannot both acclerate toward the center of gravity and at the same time accelerate away from it. It slows because it no longer travels at or near "c" rate. It is on its way back to becoming a matter particle.[Similarly, when it hits the screen in the double slit, light stops]
But, lets assume that the profesor is correct and that it is accelerating as it falls. Does it not stop at some point? If not, it must accelerate forever. If it stops, has it not slowed? If it cannot reach escape velocity as in a black hole, it has become the singularity.
Still think light slows as it falls toward a massive object. It attempts to reach equilibrium with that object, which itself is slow. As it does so, it loses some of its manifested spatial character, and reinvents itself as a massive object. As a massive object, it travels slower than "c" (or smaller percentages thereof), even when accelerating toward the center of gravity.
maybe not
doug (www.cigtheory.com) - website needs work/paper has issues
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT
I'm looking forward to the results, which I predict will show that there is no such thing as time dilation.
I would also like to point out that clocks do not measure time. They merely count the number of cycles in a periodic and cyclic system. Hence the slowing down of the mechanism of a clock does not imply the slowing down of time, which in my opinion is nothing more than a relational concept allowing to compare events to cyclic and periodic systems we call clocks.
In fact, the only evidence that time is a physical aspect of reality is that time dilation is verified, but as mentioned above, the slowing down of a clock does not imply the slowing down of time.
This is why the experiment suggested in this article is so important. If, as I predict, it shows no time dilation, the repercussions will be enormous and will put into question the prevailing physics theories.
report post as inappropriate
Doug replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 01:04 GMT
I think "Time Dilation" is represented in reality as Space ceation, and this explains the new space in the expanding Universe.
As excerpted from CIG Theory:
"Where there is a different time there must be a different
place. Where there is a different place, there is a different
space. Where there are different spaces, there are different
volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of
space created as the result of different times imparted onto
the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic
nature of nature."
www.cigtheory.com (donation PO Box down)
need help in furthering CIG Theory - please attempt a read THX
doug
report post as inappropriate
Harlan Swyers wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 17:49 GMT
Before people lose a whole lot of money betting against quantum mechanics, you need to look at similar experiments performed on neutrons being sent to horizontal slits at different potentials, which show the interference pattern. The good researchers at Ford Motor Company and Purdue University played similar games in 1976 with neutrons ( http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/ao%20refs/aifm%20refs%20s
orted%20by%20topic/inertial%20sensing%20refs/gravity/COW75%2
0neutron%20gravity.pdf ) and more recently in 2002 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6869/abs/415297a.
html where it was concluded:
"The particles are allowed to fall towards a horizontal mirror which, together with the Earth's gravitational field, provides the necessary confining potential well. Under such conditions, the falling neutrons do not move continuously along the vertical direction, but rather jump from one height to another, as predicted by quantum theory"
report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
There are no such things as discrete "here then there with nothing in between quantum jumps". The "in betweens" are new spatial quantities at the expense of mass; conversely, the creation of mass at the expense of space.
www.cigtheory.com
report post as inappropriate
Harlan Swyers replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
Thanks doug. I can't say I've been to Coney Island, so it is entirely possible the laws are physics are different there.
report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 19:43 GMT
Thanks Harlan! I truly appreciate that you went to my site. I hope you understand the theory. (& ignored the part about alien beings)
The laws of physics are the same in Coney Island, even for the sword swallower. CIG offers a paradigm shift. CIG brings determinism back into the picture. I have attempted its application to many things.
I hope I'm right. If not, I'll spend the next few years sending emails apologizing for my antics.
Can you answer my balloon question?
Can anyone answer my balloon question?
doug
report post as inappropriate
doug wrote on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 01:29 GMT
To All,
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the...
view entire post
To All,
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.
To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg [1][2]), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wavefunction at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]
CIG Attempt at explanation (www.cigtheory.com)
Wherein it is stated "actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination.":
YES, according and consistent with CIG, the "did something" was to slow the "real" probabalistic wave function and to collapse it. To observe interferes sufficiently and truly so that the probability (in all actuality there is a new and real spatial volume that was created as a result of the motion of the particle) collapses into the defined observation (customarily on the screen in the double slit, or before that if obbservation posts are placed in between the slits and the screen. Anytime the wave slows, it will become the smaller identifiable particle. Prior to observation, it travels at great speeds and its spatial qualities are manifested. It has become its larger spatial self. The correspondence between quantum and classical reality relies on the fact that quantum is in motion and classical is zero %"c". Quantum is classical at zero velocity. MTS
THX
doug (www.cigtheory.com)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 01:34 GMT
The above, above CIG Attempt at explanation (www.cigtheory.com)
, was taken from WIKI, which I meant to credit.
I am attemting to explain away the measurement problem.
I hope that you follow my rationale. It may require a full read and total understanding of CIG Theory. (www.CIGTheory.com)
Don't forget the marshmallows...
THX
doug
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT
doug,
The so-called measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been solved. Please read the first chapter of
this book:
Joy Christian
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Not only is time important, but scale is crucial too.
The other morning I was about to leave my homr for work, as I looked out of the window to see what weather like, I noticed while looning up at Orion, the image I observed was I dentical to the diffraction grating image on the head page of this article. when I moved my head left, to a point where there was no net curtain, the star I was looking at reverted back to a "point like" white dot? The fact fine net curtain can reproduce this effect macroscopically, has got me thinking about scale and distance.
This effect is no different to the quantum douvle slit experiment, go find a fine mesh and try for yourself, the bigger the mesh (slit), the more pointlike the image, you can actuall perform the double slit experiment on a macro scale yourself :) !
report post as inappropriate
paul valletta replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT
Sorry this was my post above.
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
time has no physical dimension,
time is a mathematical dimension of change running in a 3D quantum vacuum.
see my papers in Physics essays - AIP
Amrit Sorli
report post as inappropriate
Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:11 GMT
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...
view entire post
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein’s theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein’s namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein’s equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale’s theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe’s expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten’s M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Sophie Hebden replied on Dec. 8, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT
Professor El Naschie's 'breakthough' is a little unbelieveable: Einstein's equation is easily derived from F=ma and you don't get a factor of 1/22.
El Naschie recently lost a law suit against the journal Nature, criticised by the judge for having little consideration of the norms of sicentific pubishing, or respect of the ethics that underpin it, so he's in the scientific long grass now. There's even a
blog watch of his activities.
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
by double slit experiment happens that by sending particles only through one slit interference pattern will appear because each particle moving in space creates also a wave of space which than pass the other slit.....and time here is just numerical order of motion of particle in a 3D space
attachments:
Time_is_a_mesuring_system_derived_from...pdf
report post as inappropriate
Hector Daniel Gianni wrote on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 23:10 GMT
Professor Caslav Brukner:
I will refer not to the whole of your article, but only to “time dilation” or “relativistic time” We first should know what it is time
I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why...
view entire post
Professor Caslav Brukner:
I will refer not to the whole of your article, but only to “time dilation” or “relativistic time” We first should know what it is time
I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why it can’t be shorter. Mainly theoretical physicists are the most interested in “the nature of time” and they like to believe the subject is inherent to physicists and you will see it’s no so.
I will follow with an advice of somebody than most physicists in the world respect, Albert Einstein. “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly to be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.
Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the “understanding” of their connection. But even the concept of the “real external world” of everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions” “Ideas and Opinions” Einstein, pg.283 y 284, ISBN Nº 440-04150-150.
I think this should be read slow, understanding each and every word of his thought about mind functioning, some times is as important as mathematics formulas.
To make possible to comprehend this article, first you should believe possible that “The problem of time” can be solve. Second let the mind freer to the understanding of new things, for this, we should say that
“time” has no definition, no empiric meaning, also can’t be sense by any of our senses or by any man designed artifact, nobody can make a description or recognize “time”. To make clearer this article we should keep in mind the last three lines through all the reading.
If was any other word with those characteristics we immediately would say “time does not exist”.
why we don’t say that, because since pre-Socratic Heraclito ,and after Socrates Plato and Aristoteles 2600 or 2300 years ago we are measuring what we call “time” and as physicist Sean Carroll said being quote by Lee Smolin "There is no question that time exists—we use it everyday," If we give this, as a reason of “time” existence. How he can be sure that exist, if he don’t know what it is? The Carroll reason is, that he think he use it every day. Certainly for use, he meant measuring the so called “time”. How he knows that what he is measuring is “time” and no something else? like movement ?
Everybody knows movement, it has definition, empiric meaning. Everything with physical existence moves, from a galaxy to a subatomic particle. Movement origin is very much older and certain that “time”. If the big-bang, happen, there was movement, life is possible because movement, our brain metabolism, which moves, is our mind that consider all movement we know of, that surround us. How we are not going to measure movement? We did it since the beginning of written history, but thinking that we were measuring “time”.
People think that with the clock movement we measure “time” and with it, comparatively we measure every other movement, change and transformation. A clock, to be one should have a “constant”, “uniform” movement, if it is not so it’s not a clock.
The physical prove that we measure movement with movement consist that with a clock “constant” movement we measure fractions of “constant” earth rotation movement represented by clock dial numbers, as the hour, these are the reasons that this are “movements units” and no “time units”
New duration definition: It is the period of change and transformation that movement allows and men limit.
Then the so called “time” is movement .When we think we are measuring “time” we are not conscious, that in fact we are measuring movement, as we always did, we do and we are going to keep doing it. Knowing this does not change any physic law. We have to remember that classic physics, relativity and quantum mechanics were created, developed and physicist keep working with them with out the need to know of “The nature of time”, but knowing that “time” it is not a mysterious thing, but movement, a quality or property of everything with physical existence, we know that we can related it to anything of physical existence.
Not only is needed to quantized general relativity to the goal of the “the theory of everything” but we also can understand conclusions of general relativity like “that velocity and gravity slows time” in GPS (imagine an analogical clock) the satellite one slows respect it’s similar on land why? because the satellite clock inertia, because it’s speed slows clock parts movement, slowing it’s functioning respect the one on land, what slows it is not “time”, but it’s functioning
Gravity slows the clock in the valley respect it’s similar on top of the mountain, because the first one is affected for more gravity than the other, gravity slows clock parts functioning it is not the “time” than slows.
Since Heraclito to Einstein passing through Newton men always ask themselves, What it is time? to reach reality, they should ask themselves What we are measuring? And quite easily they would find out that was movement. All the other things that can be made knowing this it would make this to long.
Time probably is a remnant word which represented a very important concept for men that mankind forgot it’s meaning as Einstein pre-scientific concepts. “Time dilation” as in GPS is what everybody thought was the satellite clock time slowing respect to it’s similar on land, We can prove now that what really happen is that the satellite clock is functioning slower (not time) because its inertia at 27.000 Km.h, respect to it’s similar on land. “Time dilation” can happen because of gravity action on clock parts making the clock in the valley slower respect to the one on top of the mountain . What becomes slower is not “time” but movement clock movements.
Héctor Daniel Gianni
E-mail: hectorgianni38@hotmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
Hector
As you say, time is not the timing devices, these just ‘tell’ the time. The reference is actually a conceptual constant rate of change. In other words, within the realms of practicality, all timing devices are synchronised to this (the same point applies to distance). The purpose of timing being to calibrate rates of change. Alteration is what is occurring physically, which apart from substance (ie what altered), and order (ie in what sequence it did so), happens at a rate.
Einstein (or more precisely Poincaré) did not understand this, which gave him the ‘ability’ to argue for a timing differential in physical existence, having conflated physical existence with the photon based representation of it which we receive. There, obviously, being a time delay between these two actual physical occurrences. So, he shifted a timing differential which occurs at the end of the physical process to the start. The light he refers to is not observational light, it is a time and distance measuring device, which as a reference, must be constant. This is why, in attempting to explain the core idea of relativity he always uses examples in which there is lightening, or a ray of light, etc, because this disgiuses the fact hat there is no light for observers to see with.
All this is immediately obvious in 1905 section 1, part 1
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hector Daniel Gianni replied on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
Paul:
Thank you for your answer, my language is Spanish, but I will try to be as clear as possible. What I am saying in my article is much, much radical than you thought; in fact I am replacing “time” by movement.
Gravity, inertia, rationality tell us that always existed we just put them a name. Time did not, time was a man creation is not something...
view entire post
Paul:
Thank you for your answer, my language is Spanish, but I will try to be as clear as possible. What I am saying in my article is much, much radical than you thought; in fact I am replacing “time” by movement.
Gravity, inertia, rationality tell us that always existed we just put them a name. Time did not, time was a man creation is not something with physical existence is just a word, as I called a “remnant word”, that probably represented an important concept for man and mankind forgot it’s meaning, Einstein to space and time call them pre-scientific concepts.
Our senses tell us about gravity and inertia continuously since we born. Scientists talk about time, because they have not other way to refer to it. When Einstein was asked about time, "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." Of course he was right, because is the only thing we knew about it, that’s why has not definition, or empiric meaning it is not sensed by any of our senses, nobody can describe or recognize it. is not a scientific fact. If Einstein continue his thought to, what are we measuring? He would realize that with a “constant” movement (the clock) we are measuring “fractions” as the hour, of the “constant” earth rotation movement. We are measuring movement with movement, and not that with the clock movement we thought were measuring “time”.
“Time” is movement. With this what we are changing will run out a mysterious word “time” and we replaced it by movement, a quality or property of every thing with physical existence, what this really mean? that it can be related to every physical force or event. (I read 1905) movement is different in every point in space because not only would be affected by gravity, also by inertia and this forces will depend on which part of space we considered movement. I understand that Einstein or any other physicist understood why velocity and gravity slow “time” , if they knew that “time” is movement, easily could be understood that inertia because clock velocity and gravity can affect movement.
If we know that “time” is movement “time dilation” is “movement extension”, much better is “movement slowing”. With my best whishes
Héctor Gianni
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 06:18 GMT
Hector
I have not read your article, and have not got time today, but will do. Presumably it is referenced above? So I will just respond to your post now.
It is not movement, that is just a specific form of change. The physical occurrence is alteration, or change, (ie from one physically existent state to the next), irrespective of what that involves, ie why the state altered and how. Time is the duration unit of the measuring system timing, which calibrates rates of change against a conceptual constant rate of change.
There is no such phenomenon as ‘time dilation’, because time is physically non-existent. It is a reference system to establish when, and/or for what duration, something physically occurred. There is no such phenomenon as space, as in ‘a spatial position where nothing exists’. Or perhaps to be more precise, we have not proved it so, and as we can only detect something which is different from something else, not nothing, we could not track this nothing as a reference anyway. It may be that when a differential in force incurred causes a change in momentum, it also causes a change in dimension (this being their original thought-particularly Lorentz), but that will not make any difference to the misconception of time which is the crux of the problem. The timing differential is between physical occurrence and receipt of light.
In simple language. The physical existence we are able to investigate (we can dream up all sorts of possibilities, but that is not science) exists in one definitive physically existent state, at a time. We know there is something, and that it alters, which means it is existential sequence. Physical existence is only spatial. Change is a feature of the difference between one physical existence and another, not of any such physical state.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Bert wrote on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 05:24 GMT
Since one of the principles of GR is the equivalence of acceleration and Gravity, I wonder if the experiment can be constructed to operated inside a centrifuge. The outer slit (high gee part) would be the slow clock and the slit near the center of rotation would be the " normal" clock. Instead of light use a 300 MHz rf beam generated with a traveling-wave tube amplifier where the slits can be 1 meter apart
Cheers Bert Murray
www.lhdev.com
report post as inappropriate
on behalf of Caslav Brukner replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
Bert - that is indeed sensible and we had similar ideas.
Caslav
report post as inappropriate
Bert replied on Feb. 7, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Attached is a paper where double slit was performed using microwaves in the 10 Ghz range (3 cm wavelength). Is 3 cm enough of a separation adequate to detect time dilation?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1137v2.pdf
Cheers, Bert
report post as inappropriate
Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 19:43 GMT
Dr Brukner,
Is your analysis related in some way to the one by Paul Dirac in his Lectures on Quantum Mechanics? A quick example is this partial quote from page 66 of the currently paperback version: "... it doesn't seem possible to fulfill the conditions which are necessary for building up a relativistic quantum field theory on curved surfaces." His arguments are based on a use of Hamiltonian methods that I strongly suspect are equivalent to the assuming the existence of a flat space, thus leading to the overall incompatibility. Are Dirac's arguments related to yours, or am I misunderstanding the intent of your analysis?
Cheers,
Terry Bollinger
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 19:44 GMT
Fundamental time which is a numerical order of change has only a mathematical existence. Emergent time which is aduration of change enters existence when measurement by the observer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.113
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 08:15 GMT
Einsteinians Will Measure Gravitational Time Dilation Again
"The World's Most Precise Clock Could Prove Einstein Wrong (...) Einstein also predicted that clocks in different gravitational fields would tick at different speeds. For example, a clock in Boulder, Colo., which is a mile above sea level, would feel a slightly weaker gravitational pull than a clock at sea level in Washington, D.C....
view entire post
Einsteinians Will Measure Gravitational Time Dilation Again
"The World's Most Precise Clock Could Prove Einstein Wrong (...) Einstein also predicted that clocks in different gravitational fields would tick at different speeds. For example, a clock in Boulder, Colo., which is a mile above sea level, would feel a slightly weaker gravitational pull than a clock at sea level in Washington, D.C. As a result, it would tick just a bit faster and after 200,000 years it would be a full second ahead. That's not much of an effect, but it's big enough for most atomic clocks to measure. And Ludlow's clock can register the change in gravity across a single inch of elevation. That kind of sensitivity will allow scientists to test Einstein's theories with greater precision in the real world." "Gravitational time dilation", devised by Einstein in 1911, is one of the greatest hoaxes in today's science. Consider light falling (or climbing up) in a gravitational field:
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
The picture is more than clear - in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of any material body, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and this variation has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Yet some Einsteinians find it safe to ignore all this and teach the blatant lie that the speed of light remains constant in a gravitational field:
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."
Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."
Where does the courage of Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Richard Epp and Stephen Hawking come from? The blatant lie (the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field) can be taught relatively safely if the teacher has assumed that a clock on the ground runs slower than a clock at the top of a tower ("gravitational time dilation"). With this assumption, light emitted by the top will be measured to have a higher frequency on the ground not because its speed has increased, as predicted by the emission theory, but because the unit of time on the ground is dilated and encompasses more wavecrests, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Glorious Confirmations of General Relativity
According to Jean Eisenstaedt, in 1960 general relativity was confirmed for the first time by an experiment done on earth:
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Le renouveau n'est pourtant pas loin et on peut le dater asssez précisément. C'est sans doute, en 1960, le succès de l'expérience de Robert Pound et Glen Rebka qui le marque scientifiquement....
view entire post
Glorious Confirmations of General Relativity
According to Jean Eisenstaedt, in 1960 general relativity was confirmed for the first time by an experiment done on earth:
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Le renouveau n'est pourtant pas loin et on peut le dater asssez précisément. C'est sans doute, en 1960, le succès de l'expérience de Robert Pound et Glen Rebka qui le marque scientifiquement. Pour la première fois, une expérience terrestre confirme la relativité générale, en vérifiant avec précision que les fréquences d'émission des atomes sont modifiées par le champ de gravitation de la terre."
In fact, the Pound-Rebka 1960 experiment confirmed Newton's emission theory of light:
Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
Needless to say, all previous (cosmic) confirmations of general relativity were also fraudulent:
Jay Holberg: "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second.""D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure...""The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."New Scientist: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."
Stephen Hawking: "...it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
The Mystery of the Twin Paradox
In order to prove that the twin paradox is an absurdity one has to show that special relativity implies that the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother. The problem is that:
(A) "returns younger" can ONLY be demonstrated if the travelling twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's...
view entire post
The Mystery of the Twin Paradox
In order to prove that the twin paradox is an absurdity one has to show that special relativity implies that the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother. The problem is that:
(A) "returns younger" can ONLY be demonstrated if the travelling twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's system;
(B) "returns older" can ONLY be demonstrated if the sedentary twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the travelling twin's system:
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."
The scenario that both relativists and antirelativists use is deprived of the setup "the sedentary twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the travelling twin's system". Given this mutilated scenario, only "returns younger" can be derived from special relativity and those who claim to have PROVED that the paradox is an absurdity must have made a mistake.
The following scenario allows either twin's clock to be checked against two of the other twin's clocks. Two long inertial systems each carrying synchronous clocks pass one another:
..........Inertial system A moving to the right..........
..........Inertial system B moving to the left..........
The systems are so designed that, the moment they stop moving relative to one another, all clocks on both systems stop ticking. In this final static configuration clock A2 faces clock B1 and clock A1 faces clock B2:
..........A2..........A1..........
..........B1..........B2..........
Before reaching clock A2, clock B1 passed clock A1 and the difference in their readings, (A1then - B1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock B1 faces clock A2 and the difference in their readings is (A2now - B1now). Clearly clock B1 has been checked against two of Inertial system A's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:
(A2now - B1now) > (A1then - B1then) /1/
Before reaching clock B2, clock A1 passed clock B1 and the difference in their readings, (B1then - A1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock A1 faces clock B2 and the difference in their readings is (B2now - A1now). Clearly clock A1 has been checked against two of Inertial system B's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:
(B2now - A1now) > (B1then - A1then)
This inequality easily becomes:
(A1then - B1then) > (A1now - B2now)
Since clocks on Inertial system A were synchronous and stopped ticking simultaneously, A1now = A2now. For the same reason B2now = B1now. So the last inequality becomes:
(A1then - B1then) > (A2now - B1now) /2/
Inequalities /1/ and /2/ are contradictory and both are consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Reductio ad absurdum par excellence. The light postulate is false. Einstein should not have "introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether":
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 13:00 GMT
The Mystery of Einstein's Rotating Disc
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with...
view entire post
The Mystery of Einstein's Rotating Disc
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."
Einstein refers to Section XII but this Section does not contain any results explaining why the (inertial) clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run FASTER than the (non-inertial) clock placed on the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts MUTUAL time dilation for two INTERTIAL clocks: either INERTIAL clock (rather, the observer in this clock's system) sees the other INERTIAL clock running SLOW by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). The Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which (in this case the one on the edge of the disc) is not inertial. Yet in the above text Einstein suggests that, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the inertial K-clock (at the center of the disc) is running FASTER than the non-inertial K'-clock (on the edge of the disc) by a factor of gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). What makes him lie so blatantly? What does he fear?
By increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can convert clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). Now, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the (VIRTUALLY INERTIAL) observer "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of the disc (K'-observer) sees the clock at the center of the disc (K-clock) run SLOWER than clocks fixed on the periphery (K'-clocks).
We have reductio ad absurdum par excellence - the clock at the center runs both FASTER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K) and SLOWER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K'). The consequent (mutual time dilation) is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate) is false.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 13:40 GMT
The Mystery of Length Contraction and Length Elongation in Special Relativity
"The Bug-Rivet Paradox (...) In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c."
According to special relativity, in the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before...
view entire post
The Mystery of Length Contraction and Length Elongation in Special Relativity
"The Bug-Rivet Paradox (...) In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c." According to special relativity, in the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is squashed. Yet in the bug's frame "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" and the bug remains alive.
The bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for special relativity so Einsteinians resort to an idiotic ad hoc "requirement" - the rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length and poor bug gets squashed in both frames:
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."
Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"
Yet even the idiotic length-elongation requirement does not save special relativity:
As judged by an observer in the bug's frame, the hole is longer than the shank so when the head of the rivet hits the wall, the rivet can be broken - e.g. the shank can be cut off from the head. Then the bug will be squashed by a headless shank.
As judged by an observer in the rivet's frame, the bug cannot be squashed by a headless shank because the shank hits the bottom of the hole (and kills the bug) before the head of the rivet hits the wall.
Needless to say, the two observers seeing different outcomes (bug squashed by a headless shank and bug squashed by an unbroken rivet) is fatal for special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
The Mystery of Mutual Length Contraction
As judged from the 40 m barn's frame, the 80 m pole is shorter than 40 m and accordingly the pole is gloriously trapped inside the barn. As judged from the 80 m pole's frame, the 40 m barn is shorter than 20 m but nevertheless the relativity of simultaneity allows the pole to get gloriously trapped inside the barn. Some Einsteinians believe that...
view entire post
The Mystery of Mutual Length Contraction
As judged from the 40 m barn's frame, the 80 m pole is shorter than 40 m and accordingly the pole is gloriously trapped inside the barn. As judged from the 80 m pole's frame, the 40 m barn is shorter than 20 m but nevertheless the relativity of simultaneity allows the pole to get gloriously trapped inside the barn. Some Einsteinians believe that the 80 m pole is trapped inside the 40 m barn "IN A COMPRESSED STATE":
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn.""Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."Other Einsteinians agree that the long pole can be trapped inside the short barn but insist that the pole undergoes no compression or structural deformation:
Stéphane Durand: "La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche, i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche. Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas). De plus, si deux observateurs se mettent en mouvement à des vitesses différentes par rapport à la perche, ces deux observateurs vont mesurer une longueur différente de la même perche. Une situation inexplicable en termes de contraction matérielle de la perche."
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein
Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
This means that, as light falls, e.g. from the top of a tower to the ground,...
view entire post
Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein
Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
This means that, as light falls, e.g. from the top of a tower to the ground, the speed of the wavecrests increases like the speed of bullets shot downwards (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) and accordingly the frequency measured by an observer on the ground is greater than the initial frequency measured at the top of the tower. The frequency change predicted by Newton's emission theory of light has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
If, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of material bodies, then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of special relativity:
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c." Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v
where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 14:40 GMT
Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein II
An emitter at the bottom of a tower of height h sends light upwards:
UCSD: "In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
The frequency measured at the bottom of the tower is f=c/L, where L is the wavelength. The frequency measured by a stationary observer at the top of the tower is:
f' = f(1-v/c) = f(1-gh/c^2) = (c/L)(1-v/c) = (c-v)/L = c'/L
where c'=c-v is the speed of light relative to the observer at the top of the tower. From the equivalence principle, c'=c-v is also the speed of light relative to an observer moving, in gravitation-free space, away from the emitter with speed v (v is assumed to be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored).
Somewhat paradoxically, the behaviour of light in a gravitational field topples special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Einstein's 1918 Refutation of Relativity
In his 1918 paper:
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, by Albert Einstein
Einstein shows that, if the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system)...
view entire post
Einstein's 1918 Refutation of Relativity
In his 1918 paper:
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, by Albert Einstein Einstein shows that, if the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. This is obviously fatal for his theory so Einstein is forced to introduce an ad hoc absurdity (there is no other way to save relativity): According to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process:
Albert Einstein: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."
It is easy to show that the turn-around acceleration has nothing to do with the youthfulness of the travelling twin:
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."
There are even scenarios where there is no turn-around acceleration at all and yet the travelling twin proves younger at the end of the journey:
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."
Conclusion: The turn-around acceleration is irrelevant and can and should be ignored. On the other hand, it is the only salvation - without its miraculous "more than compensation", the twin paradox is an absurdity: the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. In other words, by resorting to an inefficient salvation, Einstein in fact refuted his theory.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 15:24 GMT
" ... Einstein in fact refuted his theory."
No, he refuted absolute time and absolute space. Which was the point.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 3, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax
David Morin: "A light source on top of a tower of height h emits flashes at time intervals Ts. A receiver on the ground receives the flashes at time intervals Tr. What is Tr in terms of Ts?"
If bullets are shot downwards at time intervals Ts, the receiver on the ground will receive them at time intervals Tr=Ts. Yet David Morin's calculations...
view entire post
The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax
David Morin: "A light source on top of a tower of height h emits flashes at time intervals Ts. A receiver on the ground receives the flashes at time intervals Tr. What is Tr in terms of Ts?"
If bullets are shot downwards at time intervals Ts, the receiver on the ground will receive them at time intervals Tr=Ts. Yet David Morin's calculations show that, for light, Ts>Tr. Are the calculations based on some implicit false assumption? They must be: Insofar as the speed variation in a gravitational field is concerned, the analogy between bullets and photons is straightforward:
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c." Note that, if David Morin is wrong and Tr=Ts, this by no means implies that the frequency of light:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
does not vary with the gravitational potential. It varies exactly as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 6, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax II
Nowadays only Bingo the Einsteiniano defends Divine Albert's Divine Theory:
Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!! In the past there were very clever Einsteinians who could by no means be called "Bingo the Einsteiniano". So Banesh Hoffmann, although wrongly believing that the frequencies of emission and arrival of the light pulses differ, still knew that there is no gravitational time dilation and that the gravitational redshift is a consequence of the acceleration of light signals in a gravitational field:
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 26, 2013 @ 09:25 GMT
Gravitational Time Dilation and Doublethink
"Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein...
view entire post
Gravitational Time Dilation and Doublethink
"Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity. (...) The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound-Rebka experiment."
But:
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."
That is, in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field (the truth) and the result of differences in the rates of clocks in regions of different gravitational potential (the lie, always one leap ahead of the truth):
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT
"Insofar as the speed variation in a gravitational field is concerned, the analogy between bullets and photons is straightforward"
Your perverse thinking process twists perfectly reasonable and well tested explanations into a fake controversy. The facts are far more interesting than your fictions.
Fired bullets are not in free fall. Massless photons, radiating perpendicular to a ...
view entire post
"Insofar as the speed variation in a gravitational field is concerned, the analogy between bullets and photons is straightforward"
Your perverse thinking process twists perfectly reasonable and well tested explanations into a fake controversy. The facts are far more interesting than your fictions.
Fired bullets are not in free fall. Massless photons, radiating perpendicular to a gravitational plane at the identical angle as a powered projectile with mass, are already travelling at the speed of light. A hypothetical photon passing the muzzle of the gun at the same instant the bullet is fired will reach ground zero in the same interval it would have if measured from that point to the ground without the bullet comparison, at a velocity based on the constant speed of light -- while the bullet will fall at a rate equalling its initial velocity plus the acceleration of gravity according to Newton's calculus. The time interval of the photon will be vastly shorter than that for the bullet.
Now -- rotate the muzzle of the gun parallel to the gravitational plane. A photon passing the muzzle will have the same velocity as it had perpendicular to the plane. The initial velocity of the bullet, however, is not accelerated; the bullet falls at the singular rate of gravitational acceleration *regardless* of trajectory, i.e., whether the projectile is fired, or unpowered in free fall. The photon is never accelerated -- again, its interval will be much shorter toward ground zero; however, a photon parallel to the plane *never reaches* ground zero, because its escape velocity is vastly greater than the acceleration of gravitational attraction, short of the black hole limit. The photon radiates away into space with barely a slight deflection under normal gravitational influence.
Sir, this is fundamental *Galilean* physics, even more basic than the Newtonian. It is exceedingly tiresome in this forum, to listen to the same worn and soundly refuted claims by those with the least knowledge, who make the overwhelming majority of posts.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 17:50 GMT
Einsteinians Test Time Dilation
Einsteinians have discovered that, when fast flying muons crash into an obstacle, they disintegrate more quickly than muons which do not crash. Einsteinians claim (some even believe) that non-crashing muons undergo time dilation, an effect predicted by special relativity, and for that reason live longer than crashing muons (in Divine Albert's world crashing muons are called "muons at rest"):
"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."
Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."
In a world different from Divine Albert's world, the short lifetime of muons "at rest" would be analogous to the short lifetime of a driver whose car has come to a sudden stop into a wall.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 07:50 GMT
Einsteinians Test Ritz's Emission Theory
Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262 High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute Ritz's emission theory but Einsteinians know that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light - what else could it be? And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Viva Divine Albert's Divine Theory! Down with Ritz's emission theory!
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 15:30 GMT
Pentcho,
Don't you consider the double star argument already compelling? Even if you prefer Robert's view considering electromagnetic waves consisting of single particles, I wonder: Does this make sure that they behave like material particles which are conveying kinetic energy? Aren't they actually rather quanta of energy themselves?
Incidentally, please don't ascribe CSL just to Einstein. He admitted having preferred emission theory for quite a while and he returned to it with his GR.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 19:55 GMT
Eckard,
"Don't you consider the double star argument already compelling?"
I don't:
"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would...
view entire post
Eckard,
"Don't you consider the double star argument already compelling?"
I don't:
"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics. (...) De Sitter's argument was criticized because of possible extinction effects. That is, during their flight to Earth, the light rays should have been absorbed and re-emitted by interstellar matter nearly at rest relative to Earth, so that the speed of light should become constant with respect to Earth. However, Kenneth Brecher published the results of a similar double-survey in 1977, and reached a similar conclusion - that any apparent irregularities in double-star orbits were too small to support the emission theory. Contrary to De Sitter, he observed the x-ray spectrum, thereby eliminating possible influences of the extinction effect."
Here is Brecher's paper:
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?" Brecher (originally de Sitter) expects a system with uncertain parameters to produce "peculiar effects". The system does not produce them. Conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Needless to say, a refutation of this kind can only be valid in Divine Albert's schizophrenic world. Note that it cannot be criticized - the fact that the parameters of the double star system are unknown or uncertain does not allow critics to show why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent.
Einsteinians like this way of doing science.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 03:14 GMT
Pentcho,
How can you deny that de Sitter's argument is compelling if there are no experimental results that confirm a value k equal or at least close to one?
The maximal values of 10e-3 and 10e-9 seem to approach zero instead.
Can the idea of extinction and reemission rescue the emission theory? I don't think so for some reasons. Neither Fox nor Peter J. did provide explanations that are consistent with the reported independence from frequency. Where should the reemission be located? If it did happen close to the earth then the times of flight would already differ from each other. If it did happen close to the double star then one had to explain its relationship to the earth.
Again, I don't see the CSL necessarily a confirmation of SR if we get aware that the usual understanding of the first (not of the second) postulate is a misleading mistake. See my endnotes.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 09:52 GMT
Pentcho,
In your posts above, "The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity...", and "... in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the...
view entire post
Pentcho,
In your posts above, "The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity...", and "... in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field (the truth) and the result of differences in the rates of clocks in regions of different gravitational potential (the lie, always one leap ahead of the truth)"
And mine on the Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space blog:
"Einstein's statement,
page 903, "From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location,..." and another Einstein's
statement (modified) that: "...we can regard Caesium 133 atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold: Caesium 133 absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. The frequency of Caesium 133 atom situated on the surface of Earth,9 192 631 770 Hz will be somewhat less than the frequency of Caesium 133 which is situated in free space...", p.157 and the BIPM definition of a
second",
I ask whether it is Einstein at fault or the priests that are occupying the shrine in Einsteiniana? This is because it is clear from Einstein's quotes that what he said is different from what is being preached. For example, where did the word "exactly" materialize from to apply to light velocity? Did Einstein say Caesium 133 clock will beat exactly same everywhere? However, the priests in Einsteiniana under the auspices of the BIPM want to achieve their design by forcing Caesium clock to always beat "exactly" at 9 192 631 770 Hz
everywhere, then thinking they have perfected a magical act by
fixing the second, they present us with a definition of the
metre to tie our hand and freeze our reasoning. When you examine what Einstein said and what is now being done, you should agree that great injustice is being done to the man and to science, unfortunately in his name.
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 10:30 GMT
Eckard,
"How can you deny that de Sitter's argument is compelling if there are no experimental results that confirm a value k equal or at least close to one?"
On close inspection, all reliable (that is, no unknown or uncertain parameters) experiments show that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the source or observer (k=1 or c'=c+v). Examples: Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, measurements of the Doppler frequency shift.
De Sitter's experiment is not reliable - no experiment involving distant celestial objects is. For instance, neither de Sitter nor Brecher discusses the role of the gravitational field of the double star, and this role might be crucial. And there could be other crucial factors of which we know nothing.
Unreliable experiments give support to the winner - Einstein in this case. (After a century of brainwashing, even reliable experiments start giving support to the winner.) If Walther Ritz had not died in 1909, the double star observations would have been regarded as confirming his emission theory.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 18:03 GMT
Pentcho,
Could you please specify why you are invoking "measurements of the Doppler shift" as supporting emission theory? Doesn't the Doppler effect belong to waves?
And how to explain MGP 1925 with emission theory?
While I abstain from speculations about effects of gravitational force on light I nonetheless don't question de Sitter's argument that a constant speed of light from the double star to the earth is perhaps the most plausible explanation of the missing influence of the emitter's velocity.
Even if there was a compensating effect, wouldn't full compensation to zero be extremely unlikely?
I consider Michelson's 1881/1887 null-result likewise compelling:
There is no aether wind. You know my suggestion to explain this enigma:
There is no natural point of reference in space; the speed of a linear steady motion can only relate to distances. A null-result was to be expected.
What about gravity, I tend to consider Akinbo's suggestion serious. If necessary in practice, it might be reasonable to correct the speed of light in vacuum by the usually very tiny deviation from its value on earth.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT
Eckard,
When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency with which the wavecrests hit him shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. This can only happen if the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v, a prediction of the emission theory that contradicts special relativity.
In this sense the Doppler frequency shift confirms the emission theory and refutes special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 11:41 GMT
Pentcho,
"When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v" is this different from when the light source starts moving towards the observer with speed v?
In case of acoustic waves, both cases are different from each other because v relates to the assumed at rest medium air.
As one has to infer from Michelson's 1881/1887 null result, there is no such medium to refer to in case of electromagnetic waves in vacuum.
To me this is plausible because acoustic waves/phonons can be understood as conveying energy from particles to particles while electromagnetic waves/photons are thought as consisting of energy. Therefore they don't need a carrier.
Acoustic waves exhibit specific velocities of propagation c but not specific frequencies.
I reiterate my question: How to explain MGP 1925 with emission theory?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 11, 2014 @ 17:47 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Sirius B Hoax
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated...
view entire post
Einsteiniana : The Sirius B Hoax
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 12, 2014 @ 15:37 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Hafele-Keating Hoax
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains, J. C. Hafele; Richard E. Keating, Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 166-168: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space."
By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither nonrotating nor inertial - they rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy etc. It may well have been that, during the experiment, the Earth center temporarily rotated around some other center of rotation even faster than the jet used by Hafele and Keating, which means that Einstein's theory of relativity, true or false, was totally unable to predict the outcome of the experiment.
Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results, misled by the subconscious feeling that the Earth center is the nonrotating inertial center of rotation of the whole Universe.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 13, 2014 @ 08:42 GMT
Interesting point you note Pentcho. Even the earth-centred clock is rotating! Humanity should steer the future by taking a comprehensive look at some of these foundational experiments.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli replied on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 08:09 GMT
rate of clocks is different bacause of diferent density of quantum vacuum. SR effect is 7 microsecond a day clocks on the satelite of GPS run slower than on the earth. 45 microseconds is GR effect, clocks run faster on the satelite bacause density of quantum vacuum there is denser than on the earth surface. And this corrections are VALID FOR ALL OBSERVERS.
attachments:
Relativistic_energy_and_mass_originate.pdf,
4_Special_theory_of_relativity_postulated_on_homogeneity_of_space_and_time_and_on_relativity_principle.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 16:35 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Orbit-of-Mercury Hoax
The blatant lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:
"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and...
view entire post
Einsteiniana : The Orbit-of-Mercury Hoax
The blatant lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:
"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."
The truth: Einstein desperately changed and fudged his equations many times until eventually they "predicted" the known-in-advance precession. Noteworthily, already in 1907 Einstein sets himself the goal "to use his new theory of gravity, WHATEVER IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory":
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann équations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 17, 2014 @ 14:14 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Michelson-Morley Hoax
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper...
view entire post
Einsteiniana : The Michelson-Morley Hoax
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Banesh Hoffmann's text clearly shows that, in the absence of ad hoc hypotheses such as "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v). That is, in 1887, Newton's emission theory of light was the only existing theory able to explain the null result of the experiment. Then FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein abused reality by replacing the true Newtonian assumption, confirmed by the experiment, with its antithesis - the false assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c). They also devised an ad hoc protective belt - "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" - that quite successfully deflected refuting evidence from the false assumption:
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."
Imre Lakatos, Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: "All scientific research programmes may be characterized by their 'hard core'. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this 'hard core'. Instead, we must use our ingenuity to articulate or even invent 'auxiliary hypotheses', which form a protective belt around this core, and we must redirect the modus tollens to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced, to defend the thus-hardened core."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 31, 2014 @ 16:58 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder: "How is time-dilatation in a gravitational field less strange than entanglement?"
Gravitational time dilation is not just strange - it is absurd. Einstein fabricated it in 1911. According to him, the effect occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field, which means that the two clocks, although at different heights, are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them runs faster than the other. In other words, in a homogeneous gravitational field, the miraculous effect has no cause.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 08:02 GMT
there is no time dilatation at al, time cannot dilate as time is not phycical. Rate of clocks is "relative" regarding density of quantum vacuum. Less qv is dense less is speed of clocks and all other change, speed of light inclusding. Shapiro experiment shows light has a bit lower speed in lover density of quantum vacuum. But this change of C is so small that SR remains valid.
attachments:
Relative_velocity_of_material_change_in_a_3D_quantum_vacuum.pdf,
Errata_-_Amrit_Sorli_-_J._Adv._Phys._2012_Vol._1_No._1_pp_110_20.11._final.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 23, 2015 @ 13:30 GMT
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity
"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
It follows from...
view entire post
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity
"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks.
Let us imagine that all
ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY.
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.
Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.
Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on May. 25, 2015 @ 09:19 GMT
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity
It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers, and that during the trapping the objects undergo compression and do not undergo compression at the same time:
"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back...
view entire post
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity
It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers, and that during the trapping the objects undergo compression and do not undergo compression at the same time:
"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits."
A long ladder gloriously trapped inside a short garage, thanks to Divine Albert's Divine Theory"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?""These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."
The long-object-trapped-inside-short-container result is obviously absurd, therefore Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 10:30 GMT
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity
It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that, in the bug-rivet scenario, the bug is both dead and alive. Einsteinians camouflage the absurdity by introducing two additional absurdities: 1. The rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length. 2. "The end of the rivet will just keep on going [at 87%...
view entire post
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity
It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that, in the bug-rivet scenario, the bug is both dead and alive. Einsteinians camouflage the absurdity by introducing two additional absurdities: 1. The rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length. 2. "The end of the rivet will just keep on going [at 87% the speed of light!] until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it."
"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. (...) The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed. (...) The bug disagrees with this analysis and finds the time for the rivet head to hit the wall is earlier than the time for the rivet end to reach the bottom of the hole. The paradox is not resolved."
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."
Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. (...) But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. (...) Isn't physics great?"
Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, entailing the above absurdities, is false.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 29, 2015 @ 11:46 GMT
Did Einstein Tell Einsteinians How to Leapfrog into the Future?
Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."
Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special...
view entire post
Did Einstein Tell Einsteinians How to Leapfrog into the Future?
Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."
Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."
Did Einstein tell Einsteinians how to leapfrog into the future? No he didn't. Even if his 1905 postulates were true, time travel into the future still remains an invalid conclusion. Here is the original invalidity:
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."
Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question:
SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"
Of course, Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.
So Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:
moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.
Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:
moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.
Many Einsteinians know that time travel into the future is impossibe and sometimes hint at that, preparing themselves for times when Einstein's idiocies will no longer strangle the spirit of mankind:
"Pour la plupart des commentateurs, le jumeau voyageur B a effectivement moins vieilli que son frère sédentaire A. Pour les autres, les deux jumeaux ont conservé le même âge ou le problème est sans signification. La controverse tourne autour du fait que, du point de vue de la Relativité restreinte, les situations des jumeaux ne sont pas symétriques : A coïncide avec un seul repère galiléen (en général celui de la Terre, idéalisé comme inertiel, pour l'occasion) pendant toute la durée du voyage, tandis que B effectue un demi-tour et coïncide ainsi avec au moins deux repères galiléens successifs. Cette différence fait que la relativité restreinte s'applique différemment à l'un et à l'autre, notamment à cause de l'accélération permettant le retour de B, en provoquant un changement de repère galiléen. Si, pendant la partie du voyage à vitesse constante, B vieillit moins vite que A, il se pourrait qu'il vieillisse plus vite durant les phases d'accélération. On relève 54 points de vue sur le paradoxe, émis entre 1905 (Einstein) et 2001 (Hawking)."
(1:06:45): "Est-ce que l'avenir existe déjà dans le futur ? C'est une question fondamentale ... Les relativistes disent oui - le futur est déjà là mais nous on n'y est pas encore ... Les physiciens quantiques, les présentistes disent non - le futur est un néant ... Les voyages dans le futur sont impossibles pour les présentistes alors qu'ils sont possibles pour les relativistes."
Neil deGrasse Tyson (02:22): "I have no access to the past. I have no access to the future."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:41 GMT
time has only a mathemaical existence
http://link.springer.com/search?query=sorli+amrit+
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:43 GMT
Hello Amrit,happy to see you again
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Nov. 4, 2015 @ 21:35 GMT
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
How Einsteinians Confuse the World
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapter
s/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html
John Norton: "If we are to retain both of Einstein's postulates, we will have to make systematic changes throughout our physics. Let us begin investigating these changes. They will overturn our classical presumptions about space and time. The first change we will investigate has to do with time. An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest."
The conclusion
"An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest"
does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. What follows is:
(A) An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest, as judged from the system at rest.
(B) An inertially moving clock runs faster than one at rest, as judged from the moving system.
The combination of (A) and (B), a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, makes the famous time travel into the future impossible and converts Einstein's special relativity into an absurdity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 17:25 GMT
No. Each observer sees the other's clock as running slower.
You could have had a Phd in relativity by now if you were serious.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 22:25 GMT
Tom,
PhD stands for Philosophiae Doctor. What do you mean with Phd in relativity if Relativity is a religion rather than a science?
In order to clarify your issue, let's assume two point-like thought atomic clocks A and B that emit periodic signals of the same frequency and
a) were just synchronized at a common location and are now moving away from each other each with the same velocity v
or
b) are moving toward each other and will confirm the synchronism of their clocks at the location where they will meet.
A will receive the same frequency as does B. However, f_a is red-shifted due to the increased time of flight of the signals, while f_b is blue-shifted due to the decreased time of flight. The Doppler-shifts depend on v, not on v^2.
Einstein's Relativity is not symmetrical. It was fabricated by means of an asymmetrical and unwarranted method of synchronization. One must avoid taking two contradictory views at a time. In that, Georgina is right.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 12:07 GMT
Once more, slowly.
Two clocks A and B, in relative uniform motion, synchronized.
One clock accelerates away from this reference frame.
Got it so far?
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 10:03 GMT
How Einsteinians Confuse the World (2)
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/
big_bang_observed/index.html
John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)."
The "observer" can be just a clock that registers the time of arrival of wavecrests. It can neither change nor measure the wavelength of the incoming light:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/do
ppler_static.gif (stationary observer)
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/do
ppler_detector_blue.gif (moving observer)
John Norton is forced to lie blatantly here because, since the motion of the observer can by no means change the wavelength of the incoming light, it is the speed of the light relative to the observer that increases and causes the frequency shift, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 15:40 GMT
" ... it is the speed of the light relative to the observer ..."
Since the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, the lie is yours, not John Norton's. We know why you waste your time here. Any other forum blocked you long ago.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 21:12 GMT
If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this:
The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/cl
ass19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 21:24 GMT
"If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. "
Simply, there is no c + v. You can invent terms all day long, and they still won't change the fact of the measured speed of light in all reference frames.
report post as inappropriate
Scott Patrick Ryan wrote on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 21:33 GMT
Scintifict exprement double slit shot test proves we live in an Computer universe and top Scientist know this and are covering it up.
Double Slit shot test proves it because two electrons never hit the same spot twice so probibilty is gone meaning it's sequenced so an program.
First off what was the Scientist thinking about double slit shot test by putting an camera next to it seeing...
view entire post
Scintifict exprement double slit shot test proves we live in an Computer universe and top Scientist know this and are covering it up.
Double Slit shot test proves it because two electrons never hit the same spot twice so probibilty is gone meaning it's sequenced so an program.
First off what was the Scientist thinking about double slit shot test by putting an camera next to it seeing and knowing the results would change? So he New removing himself or a brain with eye's would change the results....proof he New it was a form of mind control or tricks playing on his mind making the results wrong or different...He knows it's an computer program universe 100%.
A. He new double slit shot test was a form of mind control as in mind or brain and eye's not seeing real results knowing change it?
B. It was a fluke that the camera was on why the test was being run and he just watched it after lol?
Thank you very much and it was an afterlife Scientist that put the camera next to test because they hacked this Unevirse that's made up of wavelengths signal's and tried wiping me God or called Soul Creator out unto they realised subconscious or Conscious is spiritual and a form of uplode also.
Read my open Facebook profile if the CIA ant editing it now for what you see /ryanscott0123
So the Scientist that figured out double slit shot test was under an Form of mind control not seeing real test results, is from the Afterlife and they know wavelengths to the hidden frontal lobes sets off different mind control wavelengths like Suicidal, happy, hurt and so on, so new of Mind control wavelengths so Scientist new mind control and thought the results was changing..genius who fought of that.
So Lockheed Martin is also an afterlife company and it's why they have the only really stealth jet fighter.
For a start before Lockheed Martin got the contract they only got millions of dollars but made a huge breakthrough on jet engine by seeing jet now fly 3* the distance then old jets "huge" and Stealth where it can't be locked onto or detected before it locks on and kills enemy radar towers and jets fighters "huge" + they made a powerful new radar. The F-35b seen $1.5 trillion dollars spent for no breakthrough in jet engine or radar or Stealth? Yes proven Lockheed Martin brang down the technology at once.
So Lockheed Martin an afterlife company and they are using Scientist to try crack double slit shot test down here to wipe me out..They can't detect subconscious or really conscious in the brain and it's my spiritual uplode...They only just figured that out.
Anyway they had me dignosed as mentally ill to f Me over and are using wavelength signal mind control on my Mum and family to keep Covering it up hoping they can wipe me out.
Listen to this. Google 1993 Ampol petrol station explosion because me and my sister turned back on way to grandma's house why driving past it saying it blow up. Mum driving looked back and said no it didn't. Once we got home on the News an hour or less after, it blow up. My mum confirmed that to the psychiatrist but thinks I'm delusional? Yeah that's how good wavelength signal mind control is.
The new petrol station where the old Ampol petrol station blow up is now called an caltex petrol station and has an logo of a star well God on it.
Also the new petrol tanker that goes here now is called K & S energy and that's my and my sister initials Kelly and Scott. Crazy yes I know.
I also made an premonition live on Facebook and it come true the next day.
The bribed psychiatrist keeps saying it's just an coincidence to my mum know matter how many I do...bloody mind control wavelength signal.
Anyway there trying to wipe me out but can't but still live with hope.
Aparrntly I subconsciously did the 2006/7 Iraq war winning strategies. They only just told me that i was God because they know matter what they do they can't wipe me out and ate delusional people hoping the petrol station blows up killing me and my kids/family....It was a message to them burn for an eternity if you mess with me.
Oblique weapons fb page has the live premonition if the CIA haven't edited it.
Anyway questing any of this? Then how did the Scientist know to put an camera next to double slit shot test seeing results change
Yes All truth. Lockheed Martin getting Scientist to try crack it without them knowing Lockheed Martin CEO in Afterlife is beyond mentally ill.
Guess where I live now why forgetting about my premonition? 321 Brighton Rd next to that very same petrol station what? Yes they had a bit of luck but set it up CIA with Mind control and controlling net first house ex googled this house come up first and instantly and we got it. I forgot all about my premonition in 1993 unto they started talking to me. No such thing as Psychics because it's wavelengths going to lobes solving crimes and making people psychic. They told me everything. I was just thinking I did the Iraq war strategies and got fuc$$d over and covered it up. They told me all after I moved next store to petrol station I premonitioned blowing up in 1993.
We are uploaded by the hidden wavelength receptors called the hidden frontal lobes. They frontal lobes make an chemical reaction inside them. An wavelength signal is an chemical. So proof the wavelength signal makes the chemical reaction inside them lobes. Well that's ether old uplode or it wasn't even why you uploded... cover up conscious is it yes conscious uplode.
Any questions? Fire away.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.