Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/09/04
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: A Metaphysical Basis for Space"
- Previous message: Martin Miller: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Next in thread: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 13:15:15 GMT
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0408082134.56cd1ed3@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<IcBRc.1801$gN7.18498760@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Henri Wilson" <h@..> wrote in message
| > news:uhjah05ie1194e92nigqr4m52hb1rqgjb2@4ax.com...
| > | On 6 Aug 2004 16:08:39 -0700, greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim
Greenfield)
| > wrote:
|
| > | I almost feel sorry for those astro-physicists.
| > |
| > | They spend lifetimes trying to explain variable star brightness
curves,
| > using
| > | Einstein's principles, when in fact the phenomenon is clearly due to
the
| > source
| > | dependency of light speed.
| >
| > They forgot this principle of Einstein's.
| > Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
| > Androcles
|
| It may have been something of a tragedy, Einstein's blunder in
| misunderstanding the light paths regarding a moving train. (apart
| from the zillions of brain hours and dollars wasted because of it).
| Had someone been around to point out his mistake about c=c+v , he may
| have applied his formidable brain along a different path, and towards
| a true theory (as opposed to this SR rubbish)
Well, you've surely heard the phrase "In the land of the blind, the
one-eyed man is king". Those of us with two eyes and a brain have a slight
advantage,
but I have no pretentions to the throne.
It is man's intuition to trust his eyes and believe what he sees that
overrides
his capacity to reason. Once you accept the vector addition of velocities
applies to light, some strange observances are to be expected and accepted.
Eric Gisse (self confessed lunatic) pointed to this page as part of his
evidence in favour of Einstein's relativity:
| http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm
Now, empirical data is not to be denied, and without doubt there is a
variation in the arrival of the pulses. With due credit to Henri Wilson, who
independently (and ahead of me, to my own shame, although it was staring me
in the face the whole time) deduced this qualitatively to be a result of
emission theory, and I'm 99.999% certain Henri did so without prior
knowledge of the data from the pulsar. He therefore predicted the variation
in the pulse arrival time. As it turns out, it was Vladimir Sekerin who
first made this prediction. The reason for the variation is very simple and
shown at:
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
Applying Occam's Razor (restated by both Newton and Einstein in their own
words), this is surely the simpler answer and hence the correct one.
| Pity the DHR's are alert to the pitfalls though. I tried to trap them
| into answering (+1)+(-1)= ? but not one would fall for it. :-(
| This of course refers to negative (less than zero) distance. With the
| distance from A (-1) on x axis, to B at (+1) being calculated as
| zero, it shows negative velocity in the LT's to be ridiculous. Not to
| mention "adding velocities in Relativity"; the equations use c^2
| liberally, but ask a DHR to add 300,000k/sec 300,000 times!!!!!!
|
| Jim G
| c'=c+v
It is quite common for men to seize upon the first solution offered as the
correct one and ignore any alternative solution; this is particularly true
for DHRs and priests. You will find an unlimited number of absurdities in
relativity, but DHRs simply accept the absurdity as fact, leaving one
gasping with disbelief at how anyone could be so naive. The most obvious is
the Twin Paradox, of course, with the Pole in the Barn a close second. My
own approach to the issue is to re-examine the reasoning that leads to the
absurdity and discover the flaw that has to be there. The shrunken moving
pole is a conclusion of
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
This must approximate the Galilean Transform for small velocities relative
to c,
which is
x' = x-vt.
Einstein states:
"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))"
So we begin with "IF", introduce x' = x-vt and that becomes
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
tau = (t-vx/c^2) /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
which is now holy scripture.
There is never a consideration of
x' = x+vt, which is simply a reversal of direction.
Following Einstein's argument, that would yield
xi = (x+vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
tau = (t + vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and the faster one goes, the later one arrives. The returning twin is far
older than the Earth-bound sibling, not younger. And, strangely enough, the
extraordinary aging occurs on the outbound journey, not the inbound.
Even so, this is not a blunder per se, it is the consequence of a blunder
which we have yet to discover. After all, math is just math and there WILL
be a case for x' = x-vt on one leg of the journey, so we dig deeper.
A diagram is called for to assist in a visual representation of x' = x-vt.
---------------------------0'-----------x'--------------------- k-frame, tau
= 0
---------------------------0------------x--------------------- K-frame, t =
0
We now permit time to pass, and use x' = x-vt.
--------------0'-----------x'--------------------- k-frame, tau = 1
---------------------------0------------x--------------------- K-frame, t =
1
We see that x' has moved a (negative) distance -vt from x, and is therefore
given by x' = x-vt.
Now, Einstein says
"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau0 along the
X-axis to x',"
So, simultaneously, the ray leaves 0' and moves right to x', arriving at tau
= 1.
Let us put that on our diagram as well.
--------------------------->Tip of ray at 0'
---------------------------0'-----------x'--------------------- k-frame, tau
= 0
---------------------------0------------x--------------------- K-frame, t =
0
--------------------------->Tip of ray at x'
--------------0'-----------x'--------------------- k-frame, tau = 1
---------------------------0------------x--------------------- K-frame, t =
1
We immediately notice that the Tip of the ray has gone NOWHERE in the
K-frame. So -v = c.
We return to Einstein's equation, and find the terms x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v)
contained therein.
But v = -c.... so x'/(c + (-c)) = x'/0 and x' is undefined.
There is more.
0', by inspection of the diagram, is clearly 0-vt, and this is the origin of
system k from which the light is emitted.
Hence Einstein's equation contains a typographical error also, it should be
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)).
The derivative of this is NOT
½[1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) dtau/dt
as Einstein claims, and even if it were, dtau/dx' is as undefined as x'.
We have an "IF" x' = x-vt, we have a divide-by-zero, and we have a
typographical error.
I only remains to be said that Einstein was a totally clueless blundering
idiot savant and it is impossible to derive the Lorentz transforms. They
simply do not reflect Nature in any way and are meaningless.
And as he says himself, "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point
of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
So you are quite correct, c' = c+v.
Now, having backed your claim, let me see you apply it. From the data and
information given, calculate the exact distance to the binary pulsar
referred to in
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm
and be the first to calculate a great astronomical distance to any
heretofore known precision, because you can bet your shirt on that 17Hz
oscillator being regular, and it will be a greater contribution to science
than beating up some dumb DHR on this ng devoted entirely to mud-slinging.
You are smart enough to do it, right?
Androcles.
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: A Metaphysical Basis for Space"
- Previous message: Martin Miller: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Next in thread: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
