Re: Is special relativity falsifiable?

From: Marcel Luttgens (mluttgens_at_wanadoo.fr)
Date: 07/28/04 

Date: 28 Jul 2004 04:26:47 -0700

"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<qzvNc.9342$k_.93764762@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> "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.

But a thought experiment could. Just imagine that green flying elephants
exist on another planet ;-)

Marcel

>
>
> |
> | 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

Quantcast