Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
- From: glird <glird@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:54:01 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 13, 2:13 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 23 2008, 11:44 pm, glird <gl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
< I apologize for not taking you up on your gambit. I never said thatWhat 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.)>>
Einstein's derivation was more accurate than Lorentz's. Lorentz never
said "Einstein's derivation is more accurate than his own." … So save
your zlotys, here is what the man who "was the only [physicist] to
understand the LT" actually wrote:
The following quotes are from "The Theory of Electrons" by H. A.
Lorentz. These are a collection of lectures he gave in 1906, with some
notes added in 1915.
Page 229:
"I cannot speak here of the many interesting applications which
Einstein has made of this principle. [i.e.relativity] His results
concerning electromagnetic and optical phenomena (leading to the same
contradictions with Kaufmann's results that were pointed out in $179)
agree in the main with those which we obtained in the preceding pages,
the chief difference being that Einstein simply postulates that which
we deduced from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic
field." >
What Lorentz deduced from the em field equations, Einstein merely
postulated.
<"By doing so, he may certainly take credit for making us see in the
negative result of experiments like those of Michelson, Rayleigh and
Brace not the fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the
manifestation of a general and fundamental principle." >
The opposing effects were that lengths get shorter and rates of
events slow down when a system's speed through the local space-filling
matter increases. A more general principle, which neither Einstein
nor his followers ever saw, is that if lengths and rates end up such
that the following equations (from pg 260 of A flower for Einstein)
hold good, then the "negative results" of those peoples' experiments
are "explained":
In order to convert the length of a given rod as plotted by the
stationary system into that plotted by the moving system, and vice
versa, corrective factors - whose values are inverse to the degree of
physical deformations - are needed. (A shorter unit fits more times
into a given distance than a longer unit, and a longer rod fits fewer
times into that distance than a shorter rod would.)
In the present case, wherein units of K and K' shrink by Q, q, q, the
corrective factors found by the viewing system are
(v) = i'/i = Q, ø(v) = j’,k’/j,k = q; and
(-v) = i/i’ = 1, ø(-v) = j,k/j’,k’ = 1/q;
in which v is the velocity of the viewed system, which changes sign
when we switch to the other frame of reference as the viewing system;
i', j', k' are unit-vectors of the deformed moving system, and i, j, k
are those of the stationary system.
Applying these corrective factors to the measured length of a given
rod by the two systems, k and K', we obtain, lx' = (v)l and l = (-
v)lx'. Similarly, in the perpendicular axes we obtain, ly',z' = ø(v)
l, and l, = ø(-v)ly,z.
It may be noted that although the values and signs of the corrective
symbols change, when we switch referent to either moving system; in
accord with our first principle the laws [equations] containing such
symbols have the same form in all such systems.
<… Page 321-322 [Notes added 1915]: "If I had to write the last
chapter now, I should certainly have given a more prominent place to
Einstein's theory of relativity by which the theory of electromagnetic
phenomenon in moving systems gains a simplicity that I have not been
able to attain. The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the
idea that t only can be considered as the true time and that my local
time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical
quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t plays the same role
as t'. >
Check out the dates! Nowhere in his 1905 paper did Einstein say or
imply that t and t' play the same role. In his 1907 paper, he did. A
bit later, as shown by the following bit from A Flower for E,
Minkowski wrote,
"Lorentz called the t' combination of x and t the local time of the
electron in uniform motion, and applied a physical construction of
this concept [*], for the better understanding of the hypothesis of
contraction."
* Lorentz did not use local time in any way at all to help explain
the hypothesis of contraction symbolized in his eqs. 4. Einstein did,
in 1905. Obviously Minkowski had not read Lorentz:04. [Deeper
analysis than will be given herein shows that he had not read
Einstein’s 1905 paper either, and misinterpreted what he did read in
Einstein’s far better follow-up work in 1907.]
"But the credit of first recognizing clearly that the time of the one
electron is just as good as that of the other, that is to say, that t
and t' are to be treated identically, belongs to A. Einstein. [*] Thus
time, as a concept unequivocally determined by phenomena, was first
deposed from its high seat. Neither Einstein nor Lorentz made any
attack on the concept of space [**], perhaps because in the above
mentioned special transformation, where the plane of x',t' coincides
with the plane of x,t, an interpretation is possible by saying that
the x axis of space maintains its position."
* "Thence we conclude that a balance clock at the equator must go
more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
Einstein: 05.
** What Einstein was blocked from seeing by his own P2's ψ(v) = ø(v)
= 1 covert denial of real changes in lengths and rates of moving
physical systems (and of the validity of his own transformations as
well), is that, as Lorentz clearly and precisely pointed out in 1904,
replete with equations and verbal explanations, the "space" of each
such differently moving deformed physical system must metrically
deform, via its attached co-ordinate system, in exactly the same
manner as itself. Minkowski should have read Lorentz's theory before
categorizing or attempting to interpret it.
Though the simple construction error found in Sommerfeld's relevant
algebra cancels Minkowski's claim that a purely metrical approach can
explain the Lorentz physical deformations, Minkowski revealed the core
issue that remains present even now [2009]: The "space" and "time" of
Mathematical Physics, and the space and time measured with them, are
entirely different things. The last sentence in the above Minkowski
quote neatly illustrates that issue, "an interpretation is possible by
saying that the x axis of space maintains its position". Though the
metrical "space" of a co-ordinate system has as many axes as we
choose, physical space has no axis at all.
<Page 331 {Again a note added in 1915]:
"If we make the hypothesis for the molecular forces, we are at once
led to the conclusion that we come to at the end. It may be mentioned
here that attractive and repulsive forces depending only on the
distances are of a somewhat different kind. Their mathematical
expression will depend on small terms depending on the state of
motion. Furthermore, the principle implies that all forces propagate
at the speed of light."
Okay, do we agree with Lorentz that t and t' are both valid
physical quantities? >
No!
A "quantity" is a man-made device; requiring a dimension, a unit
of measure for it, and – for time and place - a referent object.
Accordingly although t is the symbol for the value of the "time" (an
abstract dimension) of a given "co-ordinate system" (a mental
construction that doesn't otherwise exist) and t' is the "time" of a
differently moving cs, neither of them is a "physical" quantity. They
are measurements of abstract dimensions using abstract units of
measure none of which physically exist per se.
Otoh, as Lorentz said, t and t' ARE valid QUANTITIES; and so are
the different values of v and v' of cs k and K; none of which
physically exist.
glird
.
- References:
- Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
- From: Darwin123
- Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
- Prev by Date: Re: Beyond relativity and quantum mechanics
- Next by Date: Re: Beyond relativity and quantum mechanics
- Previous by thread: Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
- Next by thread: "The Einstein Hoax"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
