Re: The seven deadly sins of SR.
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: If radiation is random, how can 1/2 life be exact?"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:00:03 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:oebd02-202.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
| wrote
| on Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:07:58 GMT
| <iltYc.1304$%81.16027779@news-text.cableinet.net>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
| > message news:lmn902-n4v.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:06:40 GMT
| > | <QUhYc.832$GG1.9347238@news-text.cableinet.net>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote in
| > | > message news:tdh702-i7t.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | > | <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:09:43 GMT
| > | > | <Xe1Yc.410$Kq1.5343446@news-text.cableinet.net>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > For quotations following, reference:
| > | > | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | > | > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
| > velocity c
| > | > | > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body",
| > | > | > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support
it.
| > | > |
| > | > | More like a badly phrased "sin". Perhaps it can be clarified
thusly:
| > | > |
| > | > | "Light is propagated in empty space with a velocity
| > | > | c to any observer, regardless of the state of motion
| > | > | of the observer and the light source."
| > | > |
| > | > | Or something like that.
| > | >
| > | > You'll have to take that up with Einstein. I'm only reporting what
he
| > | > actually said. What you infer from what he said is a deduction, not
a
| > | > postulate. That kind of logic is circular.
| > |
| > | Since what he said was probably in German, I might quibble therewith.
:-)
| > | But no matter.
| > |
| > | > 1) The world exists.
| > | > 2) Androcles created it.
| > | > 3) Therefore Androcles exists.
| > | > 4) Androcles created the world.
| > | > 5) Goto 1).
| > | > Does that make sense? Of course not, but if you exchange the word
| > | > "Androcles" for "God" you do not change the logic, which is still
| > | > fallacious.
| > | > 1) Light exists. If you deny it, we have nothing to discuss.
| > | > 2) Light has a speed. If you deny it, we have nothing to discuss.
| > | > 3) Light is emitted by a source. If you deny it, we have nothing to
| > discuss.
| > | > 4) Light is observed. If you deny it, we have nothing to discuss.
| > | > 5) Therefore there is an observer.
| > | > 6) The speed of light is independent of the source.
| > | > 7) Therefore the speed of light is constant with respect to the
| > observer.
| > | >
| > | > 1) is an axiom.
| > | > 2) is an axiom.
| > | > 3) is an axiom.
| > | > 4) is an axiom.
| > | > 5) is a lemma. If you deny it, show light is observed without an
| > observer.
| > | > 6) is an hypothesis. If you deny it, then so do I and we are done.
| > | > If you assert it, prove it.
| > | > 7) is a conclusion based on some imagined and illogical connection
| > between
| > | > source and observer.
| > | >
| > | > There is a significant step missing between 6) and 7).
| > |
| > | There's more than one. For example, you've yet to prove
| > | that *I* exist. :-)
| >
| > I cannot prove you exist. Nor am I obligated to prove you exist, since I
did
| > not make that claim. The burden of proof is upon the claimant.
| > I can only prove that I exist, as demonstrated by Rene Descartes
("cogito,
| > ergo sum" - which he probably said in his native French anyway).
| > I have satisfactorily proven (to me) that I exist. Alas, Rene Descartes
no
| > longer thinks, therefore he is not.
| > We are both condemned to accept the existence of the other or cease
| > communication if we do not accept. Thus we have an axiom, to be accepted
| > without proof based on the communication between us.
|
| I'll have to pass on that argument. :-)
You mean 'concede' :-)
| Mostly because it's a side alley at this point.
You raised it, not I. I don't mind briefly exploring side alleys, sometimes
something interesting turns up. Isn't that the purpose of discussion? I get
bored with those who lose their argument and resort to insult and snipping
as demonstration that they have lost. It is analogous to knocking all the
chess pieces over because they see a checkmate coming. The only thing to do
is cuss right back, set the board up again and find a new opponent.
Anyone would think the purpose of this newsgroup was to insult rather that
discuss physics in a reasonable manner.
I've set up two boards of late, one of which is "The seven deadly sins of
SR".
It has attracted the insulters and snippers, but they are neither willing
nor competent opponents and refuse to make the next move.
|
| >
| >
| > | The best one can do in a solipsistic
| > | universe perhaps is instill a reflective mirror and do a
| > | standard TWLS, or attempt some sort of recording device.
| >
| > So shoot a laser from the ISS at the moon. I've had that argument
before,
| > and Roberts doesn't want to see it done. Nor does the microbe, they both
| > fear it really will destroy their pet theory. It frightens them. Still,
you
| > being a relativist would welcome the chance to prove once and for all
how
| > correct Einstein's guess was and shut me up, right? BTW, Armstrong and
| > Aldrin have already carried out the hardest part, the mirror has been in
| > place since 1969:-)
|
| I cannot *prove* Einstein's theory. I can merely substantiate it with
| more data. A theory cannot be proven, merely disproven.
It is disproven by ONE counter-example.
|
| You, in fact, have shown some evidence that it may in fact be
| dead wrong. However, one cannot push a car with a feather;
| one has to have more feathers. I would suggest at the very
| least a down pillo. :-)
I don't really care how many feathers you have or how hard you push
with them, you still have to take the clamp off the wheel and pay the
parking
fine before you can move the car. Dead ahead is a tank trap, beyond that
a pit.
|
| Galileo's theory was accepted for many years before it was disproven
| by such ideas as careful observation of Mercury's orbit, for example.
You really are susceptible to propaganda, are you not? When you,
personally, have computed the advance of perihelion of Mercury's
orbit, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. Until then, all you have is
hearsay.
I don't listen to hearsay as evidence, and neither will a court of law.
| A lot of people criticized Einstein's theory as total nonsense
| shortly after its publication. (It was vindicated in many
| waves after that, but the mere attempt shows a certain scentific
| inertia.)
Yes indeed. The stone is rolling downhill, gathering moss as
it does so. But there is a bottom to the hill with a tree that will
fragment the moss and leave the stone intact, and that stone
is Galileo, not the moss Einstein wrapped it in.
|
| >
| > |
| > | > 6a) If the observer is moving with respect to the source,
| > | > time and distance change by magic to make the speed of
| > | > light constant with respect to the observer.
| > | >
| > | > You wish to make 7) an axiom. It isn't, because it isn't
sufficiently
| > | > primitive that I am compelled to accept it without proof, as I am
with
| > 1)
| > | > through 5).
| > | > I do not accept 6) either, so you have no hope of reaching 7).
| > |
| > | 7 cannot be an axiom;
| >
| > Good. Then since it is not an axiom, it is a false claim that
| > the velocity of light is constant in all inertial frames, as
| > so many claim is a postulate of reltivity.
|
| It is not necessarily false, of course.
Illegal move. Conclusions are not postulates.
The claim that it is a postulate IS necessarily false.
Now take your pawn back, it cannot take my pawn by moving forward,
pawns take by moving diagonally.
|
| >
| > | it must be derivable from the theory.
| > | However, 7 is an *observation*.
| >
| > No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
| > speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
| > Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
|
| How about GPS satellite detuning? The first GPS satellite had
| a flip-switch; on it compensated for theoretical SR+GR effects.
| Off it didn't. They had to flip it.
|
| What's wrong with that experiment?
The orbit of the Earth about the Sun defines the unit of time we call
'year'. If a mutiple of our seconds are not exact to the year,
we add leap seconds.
The orbit of the satellite about the Earth defines a hitherto unnamed
unit of time that I will call a satyear. One satyear is the same unit of
time on Earth, Mars or the satellite. If the clock on the satellite records
a different satyear from the clock on the ground, then either
one of the clocks is faulty or the satellite, after some number of
orbits, will be looking down on Africa while we are looking up at it
from Hawaii. Since that is absurd, a satyear is the same on Earth as
it is on the satellite. When I see a satellite make more or less than
one orbit per satyear, I'll accept that time is relative.
I suggest a technician investigates what went wrong with the clock
as to why it doesn't record an exact satyear rather than attempting
to bolster up some crazy theory that time is relative and the satellite
is over Africa when seen from Hawaii.
You do realize, I hope, that the forward velocity (xi / tau)
of the satellite has to be different for the satellite than it is from Earth
(x/t) if tau <> t?
Let's imagine tau = 2t for some v.
To have the same v, that would require xi = 2x. Since both would use
the same value for pi, I really don't think the satellite is twice as far
from
Earth as the Earth is from the satellite. Surely someone would notice
the delay in the signal? Perhaps you do.
|
| Compton light scattering from high-energy particles looks
| eminently doable -- and has probably been done quite
| a number of times; I'd have to look. (Sometimes the
| obvious is right in front of one's nose!)
|
| What's wrong with *that* experiment?
Yes, I noticed somebody suggest that to you. When you've taken
a look, then bring it up.
I'll repeat,
No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
I'm not going to speculate on the result of an imagined
experiment you cannot supply.
|
| Laser beams are routinely fired from the Earth to the
| Moon through a telescope. There are some issues in
| the firing, mostly because the beam spreads out; the
| telescope is lucky to get a few photons back. However,
| the Earth-Moon distance is very accurately measurable
| that way.
Since the Earth - Moon distance is constant
(or nearly so, only changing over a period of a month)
what does this have to do with
No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
I didn't ask you to name one that is irrelevant, did I?
To make it relevant, shoot the moon with a laser from the ISS.
That way we WILL have a moving source, and it will test
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
However, it has not been done yet.
Name an experiment that has measured the speed of light
from a moving source, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
| I'm not sure what power of laser would be needed to bring
| aboard the ISS but I for one wouldn't worry too much about
| an ISS->Moon firing destroying theories; I'd find it rather
| interesting, in fact. However, there's not that much of
| a need, if one thinks about it; Compton high-speed particle
| scattering looks a lot cheaper as accelerators are in
| a number of spots.
Tell me how you will detect a moving photon as it passes
the start line and the same photon as it crossed the finish line,
all done in a vacuum. The moment you probe it, you affected it.
What distance will you use? That's important because it affects
the precision of the clock. I need microsecond precision for the
Earth - moon experiment, seems to me you need picosecond
precision for 400 meters of evacuated tube. Have you got a tube
that long and a clock that measures picoseconds for your
'inexpensive' experiment?
I'll repeat,
No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
| > All I have is a very strong coincidence from distant stars,
| > cepheids, recurrent novae, flare stars and eclipsing binaries,
| > and I don't believe in coincidences.
|
| There are many more observations that can be done with
| binary stars -- in fact, there's one at PSR J1518+4904
| that appears to have mildly relativistic characteristics.
|
| www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v466n2/5241/5241.pdf
Relativity doesn't have a darned thing to do with it. Apparent (stress
apparent)
time dilation is a prediction of emission theory.
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
|
| >
| > | The many observations of
| > | lightspeed differ by less than the expected error (namely,
| > | 10^-4 c, caused by the Earth's revolution); therefore,
| > | we don't have a rigid aether.
| >
| > There is no aether. How did that come up?
|
| Michelson Morley. If we were to have a rigid luminiferous aether
| that light travelled c thereto (and c+v for any body moving
| v with respect to the aether), the time would vary sufficiently
| to cause interference shifts, especially if the experimenters
| rotate the experiment.
|
| Of course, if one postulates c'=c+v, then one has to find another
| venue where c"=c'-v. If one can somehow measure the lightspeeds
| all over the Universe (a difficult task) one should be able to,
| using these methods, find the "absolute stillpoint".
MMX is evidence there is no aether. How did that come up?
| >
| >
| > If one postulates Lorentz,
| >
| > I've told you what the axioms (or postulates) are. Now you want to call
the
| > derivation a postulate, yet you've just said above "7 cannot be an
axiom;"
| > so we are not going to postulate Lorentz.
|
| I did say *IF*.
Oh, a side alley. Ok, no further response required, then.
|
| > This is about relativity according to Einstein, not relativity according
to
| > "Ghost in the Machine".
|
| Actually, it's about relativity according to Galileo, AFAICT.
Nothing wrong with that, is there?
|
| >
| > | the lightspeed constancy falls out as a mathematical
| > | consequence, as does the odd velocity-addition formula.
| >
| > God made the world. The world exists. Therefore God exists. Great
logic,
| > but not acceptable. Circularity never is, because circularity is not a
| > proof. If you prove what you assume in the first place, you a neither
| > mathematician nor scientist. This is about science and mathematics, not
| > religion.
|
| True enough. But what I need from you is your set of axioms.
| Is c'=c+v one of them?
Actually, that term was not created by me.
My single axiom is the PoR of Galileo, w = u+v.
I have no special axiom for light.
Hmm... on second thoughts, there is one.
The velocity of light is medium dependent; in the absence of medium,
it is source dependent.
This is evidenced by observation.
MMX, for example, is entirely consistent with the velocity of light
being medium dependent (and source dependent for that matter), since
source, medium and detector are all relatively at rest, comoving at 0.0001c.
through the frame of the local star system.
|
| >
| > | Of course, Lorentz is not on your axiom-list, so I'm not
| > | sure where to go from here at this time.
| >
| > Where do you want to go? If you want to prove Einstein-Lorentz were
right,
|
| I want to be able to prove them *wrong*.
No need. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. Let them prove
their claim. Have you seen my post slamming Don Koks' Twin Paradox
Doppler?
The simplest
| method by which one does that is to do the following.
|
| [1] Propose an alternate theory.
Ok. The velocity of light in empty space is source dependent.
| [2] Derive a result using that theory.
V1493 Aql.
beta-Perseus.
delta Ceheus.
| Your observations of a stellar
| pair are interesting but you need more data -- specifically, the
| numeric quantities and the dates of observation. I would
| also need some idea of the configuration of the binary,
| to have any hope of an SR/GR computation.
Very difficult to obtain data from something that is light years
away and which you can only observe in two dimensions.
Cast the shadow of a dinner plate on a wall. Looking only at
the shadow, is the plate circular or elliptical? A circular plate, tilted,
will appear elliptical. An elliptical plate can appear circular.
What you have is a cone, apex the source of light, and a section
through the cone, the base of the cone being the wall.
(I'm not sure
| I can do such a computation anyway; I know SR but very
| little GR.)
| [3] Continue the observations and gather enough data.
| [4] Write a thesis.
| [5] (Optional) Collect Nobel Prize 30 years later. :-)
|
| You need more data; one pair of stars isn't going to do it.
Only one counter-example is required to knock out relativity.
V1493 Aql CANNOT be explained by SR, GR or any other
theory, save emission theory. If you want an even easier example,
there is Algol. It doesn't fit the eclipsing theory, the geometry doesn't
work.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AlgolEclipse.JPG
|
| > you cannot. If you want to study Nature as a scientist should, take a
step
| > back from what you think is known but only guessed at and start studying
the
| > data, not the theory. Heck, you'd be studying Ptolemy and ignoring
| > Copernicus, still believing the Earth is the centre of the universe if
you
| > lived 400 years ago. We can see the sun cross the sky every day, and the
| > moon every night. And you want us to believe the moon orbits the Earth
as
| > we all know, but the Earth orbits the sun? How ridiculous! The evidence
| > clearly point to Ptolemy being right! It's obvious!" But of course it
isn't
| > ridiculous at all. Ptolemy was hopelessly wrong.
|
| So is Einstein, apparently.
Yep.
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton
in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
I accuse Einstein of the same crime.
| But c'=c+v is easily verifiable in the
| lab, as well.
I would hesitate to say 'easily'.
I've pondered the issue long and hard, and I don't see it as easy at all.
All one needs is a good polished mirror, lots of
| patience, and an interferometer, apparently.
And a damned hard vacuum. Any trace of rarified gas, no matter how
slight, is lethal to the experiment.
| You've already
| mentioned a light accelerator; a double-mirror system might
| very well do interesting things.
Well, you could certainly observe doppler shift, that's for sure.
But that's been done...
To measure c+v, it would be necessary to accelerate a pulse,
bounce it some large number of times between mirrors at the ends of a
long tube, and time the return. The whole experiment has to be carried
out in a vacuum, that includes the accelerator and the detector.
A fringe shift isn't going to cut it, we aready know we'll get that.
|
| I'd point you to Eric Gisse (who's apparently done something along
| those lines) but apparently you two annoy each other. :-P
Gisse is quite incapable of 1) deriving the Lorentz equations, I asked him
repeatedly and he simply ignored the issue, 2) providing any experimental
evidence in support of the velocity of light being source independent. He
does the same thing as the FAQ, even cited MMX, trotting out a list of
experiments he doesn't understand himself, hoping to blast all the paper
at me in a pathetic attempt at browbeating. When that failed, he resorted
to insult. He is totally incapable of reason. Instead of a discourse as you
and
I are having, he responded in this thread with
"[snip] I wonder if you will ever understand how wrong you are."
Snipping simply means he was unable to give a coherent response to
the seven issues I raised. There are no chess pieces on the board to play
a game with.
Why should I bother with anyone that is so ignorant, lazy and
self-righteous?
moortel and Titan Point didn't attempt any response either, merely wishing
to insult, and that leaves only you.
No relativist is going to touch it, they dare not.
You, on the other hand, are brave enough to raise a few points but face
abuse if you so much as dare to agree. And they are watching you, believe
me.
Abuse doesn't bother me, I'm used to it and can slam back any time I choose.
I couldn't get any sense out of Gisse, so now he resides in my killfile,
along with
a large number of morons.
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| > | > | > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of
light
| > | > | > in empty space.",
| > | > | > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
| > | > | > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation
of
| > the
| > | > | > remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| > | > |
| > | > | I'll agree c is essential to the theory, yes.
| > | > So is the '2' in 2AB. If you deny it, prove otherwise.
| > | > That '2' is the foundation of the ½, Einstein is saying
| > | > ½ [(tB-tA) + (t'A-tB)] /2 = (tB-tA),
| > | > which of course it is A and B never change distance from each other.
| > | > However, if they do, We have a problem. Subjectively, we don't know
| > | > when the light reaches B, so Einstein wants us to believe it must be
| > half
| > | > the
| > | > time of the round trip. Objectively, we do, I do not accept
| > | > (1/3 + 2/3) / 2 = 1/3,
| > | > and my 10 year-old granddaughter would get no ice cream from me for
| > getting
| > | > her fractions wrong.
| > | >
| > | > | > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to
saying
| > | > | > (1/2 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| > | > |
| > | > | Actually, 1/2 (+) 2/3 = 7/8, where I've written '(+)' to indicate
| > | > | the observed velocity of B with respect to A, if A is going
| > | > | to the left on an imaginary line at a certain speed,
| > | > | and B is going to the right. In SR, this is not ordinary
| > | > | addition, of course;
| > | > |
| > | > | 1/2c + 2/3c = 7/6c
| > | > | 1/2c (+) 2/3c = 7/8c
| > | >
| > | > Ok, I made a minor typographical error. :-)
| > | > You are making the error of circularity, though. We are discussing
the
| > | > derivation of (+), and we haven't got that far yet. However, I'll go
| > along
| > | > with it if you like, doing the same thing.
| > | > To save space, I'll use the symbol '~' to represent your operator
(+)
| > | > whenever I encounter a velocity.
| > | >
| > | > 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))
| > | >
| > | > and since c~v = c,
| > | > ½[tau(0',0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+2x'/c)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/c)
| > | >
| > | > Hence Einstein has the wrong equation.
| > |
| > | I for one wouldn't know at this point; I'd have to study the matter,
| > | in a more or less proper form, such as what one might see on
| > | a Webpage with proper typography. ASCII is very confining, as you've
| > | undoubtedly noticed. :-)
| >
| > No excuse. Written above and copied here:
| > For quotations following, reference:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
|
| A good reference. So what, precisely, is your problem therewith?
See thread title.
| He's basically derived the Lorentz already, by Section 3.
Nope. See thread title.
(I am
| not horribly thrilled with his usage of Greek letters, but who
| am I? :-) )
Dunno who you are. Someone that accepts relativity to go along with
the crowd, or a man who can think for himself? You tell me. I don't
mind what letters he uses, but you might be even more put off with hebrew
mixed in as well in GR.
| Of course he's assuming a constant TWLS c (near the end of Section 1).
| Obviously this is not right according to you.
Assumption is never right according to any engineer, mathematician or
scientist.
|
| >
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0'
=
| > 0-vt,
| > | > | > and the equation should be
| > | > | > ½[tau(0',0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| > | > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > | > | > at the very least.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
| > | > considering
| > | > | > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's
| > method)
| > | > | > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > | > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 6) The statements
| > | > | > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > | > | > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity
c-v..."
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be
altered
| > by
| > | > | > composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this
case
| > we
| > | > obtain
| > | > | > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| > | > | > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second
being
| > | > | > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a
vector
| > | > space.
| > | > |
| > | > | So who says the Universe has to behave as a linear vector-space?
:-P
| > | >
| > | > Nobody, I agree.
| > | >
| > | > | The Universe is; we observe it and try to explain it.
| > | >
| > | > Can't do that if we get our hard sums wrong, can we? That's just
fooling
| > | > ourselves. We don't get to tell the Universe to do what we want it
to
| > and
| > | > call that "understanding".
| > |
| > | Correct. The Universe is. We predict, and then test, and hope
| > | that we're right. That's all we can do.
| >
| > No, it is NOT all we can do. We have to PROVE we are right,
|
| You've already proven yourself right, have you not?
Irrelevant.
This thread points out that Einstein did NOT prove anything, that
all he has is assumption and faulty mathematics.
| However,
| have you been able to find other examples of spectroscopic binaries
| and fitted them with your curves? I've found another one for you,
| apparently; perhaps you can try your method on PSR J1518+4094.
|
| It should show c'=c+v as well -- if your theory is correct.
It does. I've already responded above. But that is a side alley.
The issue here is Einstein's misuse of mathematics.
|
| > based on the
| > accepted axioms,
|
| No. Not on *accepted* axioms, which among other things include
| constancy of the speed of light, u=(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2), and
| mass increase.
Axioms are not and can never be derived. They are primitives to be
accepted without proof. I have to accept you exist. That is an axiom.
I do not and will not accept what you say, though. u=(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)
is derived, it is NOT an axiom. Nor was it derived correctly.
One must go deeper into the Universe.
|
| What are your axioms?
Answered above, and not relevant to finding the errors Einstein made.
When you comprehend the difference between finding error and providing all
the answers to life, the universe and everything, you'll be well on your way
to being a logical, thinking human being.
I don't know all the answers and I don't pretend to.
What I do know is that relativity is a long, dark blind side alley
full of traps and obstacles that has led us off the path to knowledge that
Galileo set foot upon, with physicists and astronomers stumbling around
trying
to find the way out. The only way is back the way they came.
| They cannot be the same as Einstein's,
| since Einstein's results are wrong (AFAICT according to you, anyway).
|
They certainly are.
| Pick another set.
The choice is yours. Believe what others tell you to think, or think for
yourself.
Nature won't care either way.
|
| [rest snipped]
{rest restored, you didn't play by the rules and respond. }
not on hypotheses. We can't say "It looks right, so it must
be!". That isn't science at all. How would it be if you went to a medical
doctor complaining of pain and the doctor misdiagnosed the problem, says you
are suffering with the belly ache and need to be bled?
"Oh well, the patient died. I tried to bleed him with leeches, but it was
God will. Too bad". So the body snatchers dig you up, give you to a
researcher and he finds you have a burst appendix.
Either way you had a pain.
|
| > |
| > | >
| > | > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by
| > feeding
| > | > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
| > total
| > | > failure.
| > | > Check:
| > | > (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
| > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > | >
| > | > P.S. Tom Roberts, Ph.D. says
| > | > "There are a lot of people around here who post nonsense
masquerading as
| > | > physics."
| > | > I completely agree with him on that point. He is one of the guilty.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Well, if you can derive both E = m_0 c^2 * gamma and
| > | t' = t from the same theory, I for one will at least
| > | consider the matter. The problem is that in Newton's
| > | theory, E = 1/2 m v^2, and in Einstein's theory,
| > | t' = (t - vx/c^2) * gamma.
| > |
| > | (I'm not sure how your t and tau and my t and t' interrelate.)
| >
| > Equations you have in
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| >
| > Diagram is like this.
| >
| > -----------------0'----------x'--xi-- X-axis, moving frame, tau = 0.
| > -----------------0-----------x------- X-axis, stationary frame, t = 0.
| > ---0000--0'----x'----xi------ X-axis, moving frame, tau =
(1-vx/c^2)*gamma.
| > -----------------0----------------x------ X-axis, stationary frame, t =
1.
| > -----------------|<----- (-v*1)--|
| > x' = x-vt, given by Einstein.
| > xi = (x')*gamma. Hence xi is greater than x' because gamma is > 1.
| > The Lorentz contraction brings x' = xi which I cannot draw.
|
| I'd have to see a clearer picture; ASCII wasn't meant for things
| like that. :-)
No excuse.
|
| >
| > If you understand that, then I'll leave you to construct a similar
| > diagram showing the displacement of tau and t on the t-axis.
| > Use c = 1 for simplicity or you may be trying to put 300,000 spaces
across
| > the page :)
|
| I'll admit I'm not quite sure how to approach this, but the more or less
| standard form in some textbooks is to rotate the (x,t) axis. This
| isn't quite right, of course:
|
| x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| t' = (t-vx)/sqrt(1-v^2)
|
| (where I've set c = 1) although it's close, as a rotation is
| more along the lines of
|
| x' = x cos theta - y sin theta
| y' = x sin theta + y cos theta
|
| If one assumes t=iy is pure imaginary (e.g. Minkowski), then one gets:
|
| x' = (x - viy)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| iy' = (iy - vx)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| y' = (y + vix)/sqrt(1-v^2)
|
| and now one has to deal with *four* quantities (Re(x), Re(y), Im(x),
Im(y))
| rather than two, but at least it looks more like a rotation now.
| However, one can take v=iw to be imaginary as well, and then it *does*
| become a true rotation:
|
| x' = (x - wy)/sqrt(1+w^2)
| y' = (y + wx)/sqrt(1+w^2)
|
| where theta = arccos(1/gamma).
|
| Admittedly, this is a very weird observation -- but
| mathematically, it's more or less consistent, and since
| v has to do with time, it might as well be imaginary,
| since in x = vt, the equation of motion, x is real but
| t is pure imaginary, which means v = x/t has to be pure
| imaginary as well.
If you can rotate clockwise, then you can rotate counterclockwise.
Try turning time backwards. Better yet,
apple' = (apple - apple/orange*orange)/sqrt(1- (apple/orange)^2)
orange' = (orange - apple/orange*apple )/sqrt(1- (apple/orange)^2)
| > Androcles
| >
|
| --
| #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
| It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: If radiation is random, how can 1/2 life be exact?"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
