Re: "The Einstein Hoax"

On Dec 21, 7:10 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Dec 21, 5:37 pm, glird <gl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

<<The THEORY of relativity says these changes don't physically happen;
but are a purely mathematical consequence of (uncaused) "rotations" of
the X' and t' axes of the moving system compared to those of the
viewing system.>>

< This statement is a false representation of the theory of
relativity. Relativity does not say these things don't happen. >

Perhaps you never heard of John Wheeler's explanation that the
length and time deformations are due to a "rotation" of the X and t
axes of the viewed system. (His rotation is entirely different than an
ordinary affine rotation.}

< Einstein never said that length contraction wasn't real. It is quite
consistent with Einstein's relativity that a ruler, one length at a
certain velocity, actually changes its length when accelerated to a
new velocity. >

Let's consider that a moment. Let a rod be at rest in system 1,
which is moving at .6c as measured by system 2 and at -.2c as measured
by system 3 which is also inertially moving relative to system 2. Let
system 1 then be accelerated to a new inertial velocity of -.5c as
measured by system 3. Regardless of its new velocity relative to
system 2, if system 1 accelerated to -.5c relative to system 3, thus
slowed down relative to system 2, did the rod actually expand, or did
it really contract?

< However, the discussion of "length changes" doesn't make any sense
unless there is an observer fixed in one inertial frame.>

Ok, then let an observer be fixed in frame 2, and another in frame
3, and another attached to the rod. What really happened to the
physical length of the rod of system 1?

< Lorentz says that his biggest mistake was not accepting that the
Lorentz transform of time, which he derived, was a real time. >

Lorentz did not derive the Lorentz transform of time, which is t' =
beta(t–vx/c^2); nor the "local time" equation, which is t' = t-vx/c^2.
Poincare' was the first to present (not "derive') the LTE, in 1905;
and in 1904 Lorentz stipulated that he got his "local time" equation
from Voigt's 1887 paper on The Doppler shift.
As to being "real" – in what way is the time of clocks whose setting
per local clock differs (as in Einstein's definition of "synchronous"
clocks) more real than that of clocks whose time per local clock is
identical, as in really synchronous clocks?

< Lorentz accepted the fact that the transformed coordinates were real
as described by Einstein. So you see that Einstein thought of his
transformed coordinates as real. >

Lorentz was one of perhaps the only two physicists who totally
understood the physics and mathematics of the LTE. Indeed, in 1909 he
set forth the general transformations first derived in Einstein's 1905
paper, rather than Poincare's group – which no one, including
Poincare' and Einstein, ever did accurately derive.
Lorentz knew that the Poincare' group was one of an infinite number
of groups; each of which could do everything STR desires, including
letting inertially moving systems measure the variable relative
velocity of light as a numerical constant, and transforming the co-
ordinates a given system would plot for a given ray into those a
differently moving one would plot for it. Einstein didn't understand
either the physical or mathematical meanings of the LTE until after he
became a physicist – rather than a second class clerk in a Swiss
patent office; but by the time he fully did so he was ignored by his
peers.
Even so, in what way is a coordinate plotted by a system that
shrinks by .5 in its vertical axes any more or less real than a
coordinate of the same point as plotted by a system that expands by 4
in those directions; or by a non-deformed Galilean system?

< You are misrepresenting his theory. Furthermore, you seem to be in
disagreement with Lorentz. You are making a false statement, and
attributing it to Einstein. >

It is Physics that misrepresents his theory.

< The logical analogue of Lorentz transform in Newton's theory of
dynamics is the Galilean transform. Rotations are part of the Galilean
transforms, and are dealt with in Newtonian theory. However, there is
no statement in Principia that rotations don't exist.>

Look up "rotations" on Google and check out the HUGE difference
between affine rotations, which you are talking about here, and
Wheeler's rotations. They are entirely unrelated to each other.
[Btw, after doing that, delete Wheeler's uncaused and purely
imaginary "rotations" from your memory. THEY give a false
representation of the theory of relativity.]

< The three laws of Newton are valid as long as the observer is in an
inertial frame. Newton may have used the word absolute space, but it
is the same idea. >

Do you mean that Newton's "absolute space" is the same idea as
Einstein's "inertial frame"? If so, I think you're wrong. Either way,
where in his 1905 paper did Einstein define "inertial frame"?

< Discussion of how a rotation is "real" make no sense.>

Makes more sense than a discussion of how the "time" on a clock or a
co-ordinate x or x' or xi,eta zeda can be "real"....

< The real question is whether the expression of the force law is
invariant to the Galilean transform. >

How do YOU answer that question? And why do you think a force law,
such a F = ma, is - or should be - invariant wrt differently moving
systems?

<<< The contradictions that you claim - are caused by the wrong application of the Lorentz Transformation Equations.>
<< Please show me how my above statement is based on a wrong application of the LTE. >
<<< The 1905 article by Einstein, and every review article of relativity thereafter, always includes the Lorentz Transform Equations. All analysis of special relativity starts with the Lorentz Transform Equations. When Lorentz reviewed the relativity of Einstein, he included the Lorentz Transform Equations. However, you claim that the Lorentz Transform Equations somehow contradict relativity. Relativity can't both be based on the Lorentz Transform Equations and contradict them at the same time. >

Einstein's 1905 paper wasn't based on the LTE; it was revised after
Einstein saw them in Poincare's paper and tried to derive them in his
own.

<< Or rather, you haven't shown such a contradiction. Putting words in Einstein's mouth isn't demonstrating a contradiction. Your statements about "reality" were never a part of relativity. Therefore, you applied the LTE wrong. Or rather, you never applied LTE at all. >

< That has nothing to do with the fact that the LTE and the "Restricted" theory of relativity contradict each other. >
< Whoa! You didn't mention a "Restricted theory of relativity" before.
How does a "restricted" theory of relativity differ from the LTE.
Furthermore, show me a paper where "restricted relativity" is defined.
If you are referring to an Einstein's papers on relativity,
then I don't know what you mean by "restricted".>

The special theory of relativity ("STR") is restricted to inertially
moving systems, and is sometimes called the Restricted Theory. The
General Theory includes accelerating systems.

<<< Nowhere does he make any statement that "contradicts" LTE in the
inertial frames as he defines them. No theoretical physicist says
that a theory is only an equation. A theory consists of the equation,
the definitions used to make the equation, and the conditions under
which the theory is considered valid. Einstein did not invent the
Lorentz Transform Equations. >
<< Nor did he accurately derive them!! >>
< I have a statement by Lorentz that the Einstein derivation is more
accurate than his own derivation. So you can't be referring to the
Lorentz derivation as being more accurate (???). >

What are Lorentz's actual words? (I bet you 20000 zlotys that he
didn't say that Einstein's "derivation" is more accurate than his
own.)
As to that, in the May, 2008 issue of physics today there is a
letter to the editor, "Credit for relativity theory". It says that the
"theory in its essential fundamentals is due entirely to Albert
Einstein.
"As … Wolfgang Pauli emphasized in his 1958 review,
Einstein's paper of 1905 was
submitted at almost the same time
as Poincare's article, and had been
written without previous knowledge of
Lorentz's paper of 1904. It includes
not only all of the essential results
contained in the other two papers,
but shows an entirely novel, and
much more profound understanding of
the whole problem.
"That jud7gment is the solid basis for Einstein's authorship of the
special theory of relativity."
Actually, Einstein's paper did not contain any of the physical
things elaborately set forth in Lorentz's paper; but DID contain
notions and equations taken from Poincare's paper. It also showed an
entirely novel lack of understanding of how and why the LTE work.

<< Were you referring to the excellent derivation of LTE performed by
Lorentz? Yes, that is one way to derive the Lorentz Transform
Equations. Einstein came up with another way to derive the Lorentz
transform equations, based on different fundamental assumptions. >

In 1904 Lorentz published an excellent explanation of the underlying
physical realities (the "metaphysics") the LTE require, and in 1905 –
after seeing the LTE in Poincare's 1905 paper - Einstein came up with
a clock-setting method that allowed Lorentz's local time to be hand
placed into successive clocks of inertial systems; but Einstein didn't
explain or understand that metaphysics nor did he derive the LTE or
base them on any fundamentally different assumptions.

< Since the two sets of assumptions wind up predicting almost the
exact same thing, then you have to tell me what you mean by accurate.


By "accurate" I mean this:-
If a statement conforms to that which physically exists, it is
accurate. If a statement disagrees with what physically exists, it is
false.
Einstein's statement that after clocks of a moving system are set to
measure the speed of light as a constant, c = 1, they are
"synchronous" is false. (I call them "esynched".)

<< One can say that he wrote down [ONE OF] the conditions necessary
for the Lorentz Transform equations to be valid. >
<I agree! The trouble is that in so doing he changed the meaning of some of the key words, such as "synchronous" and "simultaneity"; >
< Yep, that was Einstein's major contribution. He analyzed the
concepts of synchronous and simultaneous, and found an ambiguity in
the previous meaning of the words. He adjusted the meaning of the
words a little so they were less ambiguous. >

He changed the clear meanings of those key words so much that they
no longer mean what they did.
Esynched clocks aren't synchronous, they are "sinchronous". Events
that happen at the same "time" as plotted by sinchronous clocks are
simultaneous only if the system happens to be stationary in the
"absolute space" of Newton – which is mathematically analogous to the
"'stationary' space" of Einstein. But if an esynched system is moving,
then Einstein's statement that things that happen at the same "time",
as plotted by its sinchronous clocks, are "simultaneous" is false.
(They are "zimultaneous" not simultaneous.)

< He did not change the meaning so greatly an experimenter couldn't
figure out how to take the measurements. The words still are useful
for describing the protocols for taking measurements. More useful, in
fact. What is your problem with Einstein's great breakthrough? >

The problem is that by changing the meanings of key words and
ignoring some of the underlying metaphysics set forth by Lorentz,
Einstein caused physicists to misunderstand not only his entire 1905
paper but the LTE also.

<<and omitted a critical symbol from his equations along the way. >>
< What symbol did he omit? >

If you really want to know, go to
http://groups.google.com/group/meta-pysics/web/the-missing-symbol
and apply for a membership. That will let you read the postings called
"The Missing Symbol".

<<< Lorentz didn't write down the definition of an inertial frame good
enough for an engineer to use.>
<< Again I agree! Neither did anyone else!! If you disagree with me, here, please define "inertial frame" and give an example of one such physically existing frame. >
< Einstein already defined inertial frame. I can not come up with a
better definition with less words and equations that he used. I
suggest you read his definition of inertial frame and try to
understand it. >

What page should I go to, in his 1905 paper, to find it? If he
didn't give an example of one such physically existing frame, can you?
If szo, please do!!!

<<< Lorentz gave credit to Einstein for inventing relativity, "whose many useful applications I have not time to list." >
<< Einstein did invent the key ingredient needed for the equations to hold good in differently moving systems. His method of hand-setting the "time" per successive clock of a given system inserts the local time offsets of -vx/c^2 seconds into them. >

< Yep, that is a great breakthrough. I think that Lorentz probably
came up with this offset term, though. He didn't realize that the term
had anything to do with actual synchronization, though. It seems
Lorentz was too hung up with the mathematics, and didn't think it
through physically.>

The May, 2008 letter continued thus: "According to Max Born,
'Lorentz ... probably never became a relativist at all, and only paid
lip service to Einstein at times, to avoid arguments.'"
Lorentz understood the physical meaning of "local time" (he invented
the term) and knew that clocks so set are offset compared to each
other in the direction of motion. He also knew that Poincare's
suggestion that if clock B is reset to let c = 1 as measured by clocks
A and B of an inertially moving system, would work, but that it would
be an artifice that might wipe out comprehension of other things far
more important than how we set our clocks.

<< In any case, that synchronicity term is one great term. Yes, sirree. >
< Unfortunately, most physicists believe that this too doesn't "really_whateverTHATmeans" happen but are only "asviewedbyadifferentlymovingobserver"..
Actually, without them the LTE won't work. >

< Yes, that is true. Without the "-vx/c^2" term, there are logical
paradoxes in the theory. You got it. Wasn't it brilliant of Einstein
to rewrite the laws of electrodynamics in a way that included the "-vx/
c^2" term?>

It was brilliant of him to show how to put that term into esynched
clocks. (Unfortunately, he called such clocks "synchronous", which
misled his followers into thinking that esynched clocks really ARE
synchronized, i.e. that they have the same "time" simultaneously, thus
at the same time as each other.) Other than for that, what "laws of
electrodynamics" did he rewrite?

<In any case, Einstein used the LTE. You haven't explained what this
"contradiction" is. Since you don't really explain it in a rational
way, it must be a non-issue. >

It is explained in minute detail in "A Flower for Einstein". If you
wish, I will email you a copy of the file.

Regards,
glird

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... Lorentz never ... Einstein has made of this principle. ... i', j', k' are unit-vectors of the deformed moving system, and i, j, k ... Mathematical Physics, and the space and time measured with them, are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRT, Mansouri/Sexl und absolute Zeit
    ... Motive nicht Lorentz und/oder Poincaré ... So einen Satz kann Sexl - mindestens als er noch gesund war - ... Verstehensvorsprung vor Einstein in SRT- und Gravitationsfragen. ... systemexterne Synchronisationen im Gegensatz zur Synchronisation nach ...
    (de.sci.physik)
  • Re: Why Einstein is the founder of special relativity
    ... > this alludes to the fact that Lorentz didn't use the "correct" transformation ... i post before only part of the quote by Lorentz. ... relativity principle as a rigorous and universal truth. ... DEFECTS OF MY work [after noted by Einstein -i already cited- that SR ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... >>ray is growing using k's rulers and clocks, it is growing at the rate ... are you just asking me to derive the Lorentz transformation from the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why isnt the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativ
    ... Einstein was rejected by the universities, ... > I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, ... He referred in that note to the constructed theory of Lorentz as ... history by physics text books. ...
    (sci.physics.research)