The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems

From: Eteledoq (eteledoq_at_aol.com)
Date: 06/24/04 

Date: 24 Jun 2004 13:06:53 GMT

The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems
     
     A while ago a program was presented on NOVA in which a physicist described
an experiment. In this experiment he used two identical atomic clocks and
transported one of them around the world in a jet aircraft. He observed that
the transported clock recorded less elapsed time than the identical clock that
remained in place. He concluded from this that time slowed down as a result of
the aircraft's velocity. He asserted that "as far as he was concerned, time is
what clocks measure". It is the purpose of this posting to examine the validity
of his belief.

     Suppose we consider an experiment in which we measure the price of
gasoline in two different locations (reference frame #1 and reference frame #2)
using the units of measurement existing at those locations and denoted as
dollars and gallons in both. In reference frame #1 we observe that gasoline
costs $1/gallon and in reference frame #2 we also observe that gasoline costs
$1/gallon. We can assert from this that the price of gasoline is "a constant"
(1$/gallon) between those locations that, for this example, are only 10 miles
apart. Can we rigorously assert that the price of gasoline does not change ("is
constant"} between those locations? The answer is that we cannot without
further information. Suppose one of the locations was in Windsor, Ontario,
Canada and the other location is across the river in Detroit, Michigan, USA? At
the Canadian location, the price of gasoline would be measured in terms of
Canadian dollars and Imperial Gallons while at the US location; the price of
gasoline would be measured in US gallons and US dollars. Since the Imperial
Gallon is 25% larger than the US gallon, the price of gasoline, while being "a
constant" (invariant) between those locations, would not be "constant" between
them except for the case where the Canadian dollar was worth 1.25 US dollars.
In this experiment, in order to draw a legitimate conclusion it is necessary to
take in consideration the relative sizes of the units of measurement for fluid
and money at the two locations (reference frames) even though they have the
same names.

     The same requirement is incumbent on an experimenter who is making
measurements between reference frames (elevation or velocity). Before we can
draw any conclusion as to what is actually occurring between two reference
frames which differ in elevation or velocity, we must first determine how the
appropriate units of measurement are affected by the difference in reference
frame and correct the readings made locally appropriately. (This is no
different than the technique used by land surveyors when they correct their
measurements of distance for the effects of ambient temperature on their steel
tapes. I would assert that the science of physics should be at least as
rigorous as the more mundane field of land surveying.) The information needed
to make the corrections for reference frames that differ in velocity were
provided in 1903 by Fitzgerald, Larmor, and Lorentz and are collectively known
as the Lorentz Transformations. The resultant theory was denoted as the Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory. Using these transformations, one finds that the
effects of velocity are quite reasonable in terms of classical Newtonian
Physics, THERE IS NO MYSTERY. In 1905 Dr. Einstein derived Special Relativity
using mathematics applied to accepted physical laws. If one examines both
theories one finds that they are actually the same theory since one may be
derived from the other, with the Aether Relativity Theory being a special case
solution of STR in which one of the infinite number of solutions that STR
allows between the limits of +/- C represents the Aether but we are prevented
from measuring that velocity with respect to it by the Lorentz Transformations
and the velocity limit on communications imposed by the velocity of light.

     When one examines the atomic clock experiment one must decide between one
of two interpretations. One must consider the possibility of whether that
velocity of the trip caused the moving clock to speed up during one part of its
trip around the world and to slow up on the part so that the total elapsed time
was consistent with the observation. The other interpretation was that the
velocity made the rate of passage of time itself change due to its movement
through space-time. In order to distinguish between the possibilities, it is
necessary only necessary to consider the effects of a change in reference frame
occurring when the observations are made and these observations are made at the
same location and at the same velocity reference and, as a result, we must
conclude that it was not time which slowed during the trip, it was the speed of
the clock. (This conclusion may be made easier to accept when one recognizes
that the experiment could have been set up, in principle, in a form akin the
auto speed tests on the Bonneville Salt Flats in which the clock travels at a
constant rate of speed and in a straight line in one direction and then is
stopped and reversed indirection and returns to its starting point along the
same straight line. All of the measurements would be made by identical clocks
with the time required to turn the vehicle around subtracted from the time
difference. Spacetime is not involved in this analysis.) Since all of the
measurements of the actual experiment were made at the same location and
velocity reference frame, the actual elapsed time must have been the same for
both clocks one must conclude that it was the moving clock that slowed its
speed and not a reduction of the actual passage of time.

     The physicists assertion that "time is what clocks measure" is naive.
"Time is what clocks measure after the assumed speed of the clock has been
corrected for the change in size of the units of measurement for time resulting
from velocity". (In other words, changing the velocity of the clock caused its
scale factor to change. there are sound and easily understood physical reason
as why this occurs.) Larmor was intelligent enough to provide the necessary
correction factor (the Lorentz Transformation for Time and Dr. Einstein was
considerate enough to derive it rigorously from basic principles.

     The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

     Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

     E-mail:- einsteinhoax@aol.com

     The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.