Re: Is special relativity falsifiable?

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:39:50 GMT

"Marcel Luttgens" <mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:86996cba.0407270441.1cddd0e0@posting.google.com...
| Reponse to Tom Roberts (see below):
| ______________________
|
| As no inertial frame can be found in the Universe, no real (physical)
| experiment can falsify special relativity.

As no bright green flying elephants are to be found in the Universe, no real
(biological) experiment can falsify the theory that they lay eggs.

|
| There are however two other possibilities:
| 1) To demonstrate that the derivation of SR formulas is logically
| false, see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm

Too long.
 By 'v' we mean dx/dt. It's simple enough, a small change in distance
divided by a small change in time.
When we multiply dx/dt by dt, we get ... yep, dx. Letting d = 1, v = x/t.
so vt = x.
Now Einstein writes: "If we place x' = x-vt..."
So, x' = x-x and that must equal 0.
Of course this is simply the coordinate of the origin of the moving frame,
which is always at 0-vt in the stationary frame.
So far so good.
But then Einstein goes on...

"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau0 along the
X-axis to x',"

But as we've just seen, the origin of system k and x' are one and the same.
The ray has zero distance to travel. (Or we could suppose that the origin of
system k is at -vt, from 0' = 0-vt, but that doesn't appear in the equation
that follows.)

"and at the time tau1 be reflected thence to the origin of the co-ordinates,
arriving there at the time tau2; we then must have ½(t0+ t2) = t1,"

Well, yes. We have ½(0+0) = 0. So what?
x' is not some point remote from the origin of k where the reflection takes
place, it is AT the origin of k.

Einstein proceeds:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

(see, no origin at 0-vt here, so x' and 0 are one and the same)

and takes partial derivatives. To do this Einstein says

"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small, "

but it is already zero!

1/2 [1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) dtau/dt,

Which with a little manipulation is

1/2 [1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt - 1/(c-v) dtau/dt = dtau/dx'

dtau/dt (1/2 [1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)] - 1/(c-v)) = dtau/dx'

                = dtau/d0

                = dtau/0

and we have a divide by zero.

Here's the full text.

"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first define tau
as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have to express in equations
that tau is nothing else than the summary of the data of clocks at rest in
system k, which have been synchronized according to the rule given in § 1.

>From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau0 along the
X-axis to x', and at the time tau1 be reflected thence to the origin of the
co-ordinates, arriving there at the time tau2; we then must have
½(tau0+tau2) =tau1, or, by inserting the arguments of the function tau and
applying the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in the
stationary system:-
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)).

Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,

1/2 [1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) dtau/dt,"

Anyone that knows anything at all about mathematics would know that division
by zero is undefined.

| 2) By way of a thought experiment, proving that mutual time dilation
| is a hoax. Hereafter is such experiment:
|
| Aircrafts thought experiment:
| ____________________________
|
| A departure (and arrival) airport is situated exactly at
| the North Pole.
| At take-off, two aircrafts A and B synchronize their clocks
| with the airport clock. All three clocks are set to 0.
| Immediately after synchronization, they fly in opposite directions,
| approximately at ground level, at some ground velocity v, each
| following the same meridian.
| At landing, after one circumnavigation, the reading of the clocks
| A and B are compared, and found to be identical.
|
| Let's notice that, according to the North Pole observer, the
| circumnavigation took approximately t(P) = 2*pi*R/v sec,
| where R is the Earth's radius.
| Hence, at landing, the clock of aircraft A reads
| tA = t(P) * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) sec,
| and the clock of aircraft B reads
| tB = t(P) * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) sec.
| Thus, tA = tB, i.e. the readings of clocks A and B are identical.
|
| This conclusion is compatible with the results of the Hafele
| & Keating experiment, performed during october 1971:
| "Four caesium clocks flown around the world on commercial jet flights,
| once eastward and once westward, recorded directionnaly dependent
| time differences which are in good agreement with predictions of
| conventional relativity theory. Relative to the atomic time scale
| of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clock lost 59+-10 nanoseconds
| during the eastward trip and gained 273+-7 nanoseconds during the
| westward trip." (Cf. article in Science, Vol. 17, 14 July 1972,
| pp. 166-179).
|
| Readings tA(d) and tB(d) of clocks A and B be at a distance d
| from the Pole:
|
| Assuming a homogeneous and spherical Earth, the readings
| would be
| tA(d) = tA * d/2*pi*R sec, and
| tB(d) = tB * d/2*pi*R sec.
|
| Symplifying, one gets
| tA(d) = 2*pi*R/v * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) * d/2*pi*R
| = d/v * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) sec
| Similarly,
| tB(d) = d/v * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) sec, meaning that clocks A and B
| tick at the same rate.
|
| Let's notice that tA(d) = tB(d) = d/v * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) sec is
| independent from the Earth's radius R.
| Hence, if R is infinitely increased, one is left with a pure
| SR situation, where two objects A and B leave at a time 0, in opposite
| directions and at some velocity v, a third object P .
| As shown above, at a distance d from P, both clocks on A and B read
| d/v * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) sec, meaning that they tick at the same rate.
| Let's also notice that the velocity v is not necessarily constant.
| For instance, it can be a function of the distance d. The clocks
| A and B will tick at the same rate at any distance from each other
| if, at every instant, A and B have the same opposite velocity.
|
| Let's now forget the object P and its clock, and consider only
| two objects A and B leaving each other in opposite directions,
| at the same velocity v, after having sychronized their clocks to 0.
| According to SR, observer A arrived at a distance d from B
| will claim that tB = tA * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), but, in his frame of
| reference, observer B is perfectly right (sic) to claim that
| tB = tA * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)!
| This can rightly be called a hoax, because both clocks keep ticking
| at the same rate, meaning that neither A nor B can observe a
| time "dilation" on the other's clock.
|
| Conclusively, this "aircrafts thought experiment" falsifies SR.
|
| ****
|
| Aplication to an expanding universe:
| ___________________________________
|
| In such universe, objects separated by a distance d move from
| each other at a velocity v, which is a function of d.
| We have seen above that clocks on A and B will always tick
| at the same rate, hence that light emitted for instance by A
| will be observed by B to be redshifted according to the kinematic
| Doppler formula.
|
| - According to an article published in 1999 by © CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
| PRESS (THE ORIGIN OF THE REDSHIFT, see
| http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_3.html ):
|
| "For small redshifts, the interpretation of the redshift as
| a Doppler shift (z = v / c) is quite clear. What is not so clear
| is what to do when the redshift becomes large. A common but
| incorrect approach is to use the special-relativistic Doppler
| formula and write
| 1 + z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
| This would be appropriate in the case of a model with Omega = 0,
| but is wrong in general."
|
| In fact, it is *never appropriate* to use the special-relativistic
| Doppler formula, because expansion cannot have a decelable SR
| effect, as clocks keep ticking at the same rate. Only a kinematic
| Doppler redshift can be observed.
| The error made by contemporary cosmologists is due to their
| blind faith in SR, leading them to believe in the so-called
| mutual time dilation. As this is a mere hoax, the special-relativistic
| Doppler formula
| 1 + z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)), or rather
| 1 + z = sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) / (1-v/c)
| reduces to
| 1 + z = 1 / (1-v/c), or
| z = v / (c-v)
|
| Assuming that v = Hd, and R (the radius of the observable universe)
| = c/H0, one gets
| d = (c/H0) * z/(1+z), whre d is the distance between the observer and
| the emitter at the instant when the light was emitted.
|
| One can disagree with the assumed values for v and R, but the
| formula d = (c/h0) * z/(1+z) nevertheless leads to realistic results.
| For instance, for z = 10 and assuming that
| H0 = 71 km sec^-1 Mpc^-1, which corresponds to 13.772 Gly,
| d = 13.772 * 10/11 = 12.52 Gly.
|
| - Let's compare this value with that obtained by Wright in
| his article "Most Distant Object Record Smashed"
| ( http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm ):
|
| "1 Mar 2004 - Pello et al. have found a galaxy much further away
| from us than any previously known. The evidence comes from a single
| line observed in the infrared which implies a redshift of z = 10.
| The source is seen magnified by a cluster of galaxies, Abell 1935,
| acting as a gravitational lens, and the source location is where
| sources with 9 < z < 11 should be very highly magnified. The colors
| of the source are also very consistent with z = 10. The technical
| paper and the press release both give pictures and spectra of
| this object. My Cosmology Calculator gives for z = 10 and the
| WMAP cosmic parameters (Ho=71, OmegaM=0.27 in a flat Universe)
| an age of the Universe of 0.48 Gyr at the time the light we see
| was emitted, a light travel time of 13.18 Gyr, and a current
| distance of 31.5 billion light years. This distance is much
| greater than the speed of light times the light travel time
| because the Universe has expanded by factors between 1 and
| 1+z=11 since the light did its traveling.".
|
| In view of the incertitude about which parameters to use
| (vacuum-dominated flat model, OmegaM=0.27, etc...), one
| cannot be sure that 13.18 Gly is the "true" value. It could as well
| be 12.52 Gly.
|
| - The mutual time dilation fantasy is also implicitly admitted
| in article
| "The same High Redshift Supernovae from the IfA Deep Survey:
| Doubling the SN Sample at z > 0 . 7", by Brian J. Barris et al.
| (arXiv: astro- ph/ 0310843 v1 29 Oct 2003)
|
| Excerpt (p.12):
|
| "Typically, the discovery epoch of a high-z supernova
| is a few days before maximum brightness, and although
| the time dilation factor of (1 + z) works to lessen
| the delay in the rest frame, etc...".
|
| Conclusion:
| __________
|
| Einsteinian relativists overlooks that in an expanding
| universe, objects are simultaneously moving wrt each other.
|
| They hypothezise that 1) B moves at v wrt A considered
| at rest, and 2) A moves at v wrt B considered at rest. Or neither
| A nor B are at rest relatively to each other (they could check
| this by looking at the CMBR).
|
| Both objects are moving wrt each other, hence clocks on A and B
| tick at the same rate (as shown above), and the special-relativistic
| Doppler formula, or *any other formulae directly or indirectly*
| based on mutual time dilation, are false.
|
| By the way, the formula d = (c/H0) * z/(1+z) is straightforwardly
| obtained when hypothesising a stable (not expanding) universe
| with a cosmic "deceleration" cH.
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| From :Tom Roberts (tjroberts@lucent.com)
| Object :Re: Is special relativity falsifiable?
| sci.physics.relativity
|
| Message n° 149
|
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > There is uncertainty about what would falsify special relativity.
|
| Not at all -- just perform some experiment within SR's domain of
| applicability that reliably and reproducibly disagrees with any of its
| predictions. And subject your report to peer review so experts have a
| chance to critique your technique.
|
| So far nobody has managed to do that. You're welcome to try.
| But random posts in this newsgroup are useless....
|
|
| > The
| > standard logical procedure reductio ad absurdum simply does not work.
| > "A's clock is slower than B's and B's is slower than A's" is a
| > precious conclusion, not an absurdity.
|
| That statement is FAR too ambiguous to be testable. Sharpen it up so it
| is testable, and any problems vanish. In particular, A and B make
| different measurements of the other's rate, and no contradiction is
| present.
|
|
| > So perhaps relativists should
| > clearly define the type of absurdity which, if obtained within the
| > theory, would force them to reject special relativity.
|
| No. People like you should sit down and LEARN WHAT SR ACTUALLY SAYS.
| Then you would realize that your "sound bite" attempts are hopelessly
| naive and/or downright wrong.
|
|
| > if the theory predicts both the
| > presence and absence of an event (e.g. something happens according to
| > one observer but does not according to the other), the theory would be
| > rejected. Is that true?
|
| That would indeed be cause to reject a theory. It does not apply to
| either SR or GR, however.
|
|
| > If the falsifiability criterium was stated
| > explicitly, discussions of special relativity would become much more
| > rational.
|
| The "falsifiability criterium" is easily stated: make any measurement
| within the domain of applicability of SR; if that measurement disagrees
| significantly from the prediction of the theory, and if it can be
| reliably and reproducably obtained, then the theory is falsified.
|
| To date, nobody has been able to do that for SR.

Because it has no domain of applicability.
Nor can you falsify bright green flying elephants lay eggs. It has no domain
of applicability.
Androcles.

|
|
| Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com