Re: Proposal for an experiment to differentiate SRT from LET

harry wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 3, 9:00 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

It simply is not possible to devise an experiment to distinguish SR
from LET. This is so because both theories use the same mathematics
-- the Lorentz group. When comparing theory to experiment, one
applies the math of the theory to the physical situation of the
experiment. So two theories that share the same math will make
identical predictions for ANY experiment, and thus cannot be
distinguished.

Then, what is the use of calling SR and LET different theories? SR
and LET are merely interpretations to interpret the mathematics of the
Lorentz transform. Both interpretations manifest relative
simultaneity and thus the twin’s paradox. SR and LET are of the same
theory but different interpretations to the faulty Lorentz transform.
Both SR and LET are just absurd. <shrug>

I wonder why you call the LT "faulty" or "absurd" - you appear to assume
that great mathematicians and millions of scientists have made a thinking
error. This despite the fact that textbooks prove the corresponding symmetry
of observation; moreover, I as well as others showed you how it works with
the Lorentz interpretation. Have you at least considered the possibility
that it could be you who is mistaken?

The geocentric theory of the solar system was mathematically impeccable
also. What the Lorentz transforms do is to transform a wrongly based
theory so as to get the right answer. Essentially you can transform a
curved line to a straight line by viewing it in a distorting mirror.
What most relativists assume is that because relativity gives the
correct answer (while providing no physical explanation as to how it
comes about) a different theory won't give the same answer. If a simpler
theory gives the same result and gives the simple explanation lacking in
SR then surely it needs investigating. I will give you some examples:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________
train [____________X____________] -->v
|
|
|
|
T T'


Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X.
Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on
the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T.

Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time
zero. What will an observer at the target T see?

Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component v
which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is
fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the
train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a distance
vt from T.

SR says that light emitted at point X in the T's FoR
will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X.

We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just
as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we look at it
from the PoV of an observer on the train both theories predict the same
thing. He will see the light travel away from the train at c at right
angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a moving target.
If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it, you aim in
front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be when whatever
travels (bullet or flash of light) gets there. If you want to hit T' you
aim at T.

So how does relativity explain this from the PoV of an observer in the
FoR of T? SR has to distort things to get the right answer. SR says that
what is a right angle in the FoR of the train is transformed in the FoR
of the target to an angle such that it hits T' because in the FoR
of the target the laser was pointing at T' and not at right angles to
the train. This change of angle is not the result of any identified
physical process, there is no physical explanation. It simply *has* to
be so in order to get the right answer - in order to get the same answer
ballistic theory gives together with its simple explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------

OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there
be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the
switch. Light will hit both T and T'

Ballistic Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v


Flash occurs

T T'

_________________________
train [__________X'_____________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'

If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then
according to Ballistic theory the light arriving at T' will have a
frequency Fo because the effective source X' is orthogonal to T' i.e.
the source has no component of velocity either towards or away from the
observer at T' to cause Doppler shift. If the frequency could be
measured [it would actually be very difficult] I can with confidence
predict that it would indeed be Fo exactly as predicted by Ballistic
theory.

Ballistic theory says that the light arriving at T is a lower frequency
than Fo due to Doppler shift because X' is not orthogonal to T but is
moving away from T. Again I have confidence that this would be found to
be the case. My confidence is based upon the fact that SR predicts the
same result this time by distorting time.

SR Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v


Flash occurs

T T'

_________________________
train [________X'_______________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'


What SR says is as illustrated. In the FoR of T light is emitted from
point X and when it arrives at T the source is still at the same point.
i.e. X' is the same place as X relative to T. Light reaching T is
therefore orthogonal. The source is neither moving away from T or
towards T so true Doppler is zero. However SR says that because the
light source is moving at v the 'clock' generating the light will be
'dilated' and the frequency will be lower than Fo. As I will show later
it predicts the same lower frequency as ballistic theory.

SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will
be Fo but it says it is because X' is moving towards T' which increases
the frequency due to Doppler shift and at T' this increase is equal and
opposite to the effect of time dilation - resulting in a frequency of Fo
at T'.

Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same frequency as SR at point T.

_______________________
train [__________X____________] -->v





Y T

Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light leaving
X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = vt. The
photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY and a
component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the
direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so

the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag
So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L
But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength)
So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)

So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle
as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'.

Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which causes
time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is necessary to
get the right answer - i.e. the answer given by the simple physical
explanation of ballistic theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS "Time Dilation"

As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is
predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is
always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a circular
orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it without
exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity triangle.
It is simple Doppler shift due to the fact that the speed at which light
arrives is less than it was when it left.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"In much later reminiscences, he [Einstein] reports that during the
following year (1895-1896) he conceived of a thought experiment:
what would happen if an observer tried to chase a light wave? Could s/he
catch up with it? If so, s/he ought to see a non-moving light wave form,
which somehow seemed strange to him. In retrospect, he called this "the
first childish thought-experiment that was related to the special
theory of relativity."

Ballistic theory says that if you *could* travel at c away from the
source you would indeed keep pace with the light and *see* a stationary
image of what you are travelling away from - except that the frequency
would be Doppler shifted to zero so you wouldn't *actually* see anything
(i.e. it is a limiting case).

Is it such a silly idea as Einstein assumed? Well his SR theory gives
the same limiting case. If you travel at c away from the source, SR
says time stops for the source so again you would get a stationary image
and again of course the frequency would be Doppler shifted to zero so
you wouldn't actually see anything.

======================================================================
The universe is about 15 billion years old. Astronomers claim to be able
to see back to say 1 billion years after the big bang. At first sight it
would seem that in order to see that far back the source must be 14
billion light years away from us and yet had only 1 billion years since
the big bang to get there = a separation velocity = 14c. Wrong of course
that is without 'time dilation'. Because it is travelling away from us
at nearly the speed of light relativity says that it doesn't age as
quickly as we do so we see it as much younger than one might expect.
I did a worked example:
--------------------------------------------------------

The story according to relativity
=================================
If the universe started at time 0
If the Age of the Universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when the light left.
It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c.
so vT = c(Tau-T) = cTau - cT
T(c+v) = c.Tau
T = c.Tau/(c+v)

However due to time dilation the age we observe will be
Age = T.sqr(1-vv/cc) = [c.Tau/(c+v)].sqr(1-vv/cc)

Suppose we take Tau = 15x10^9

Age we see of Far Galaxy = (15.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) billion years

if say v = 0.900c then Age we observe = 3.441236 billion years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now we cannot directly measure the speed of a receding galaxy we
calculate its speed using Doppler.

The relativistic Doppler equation for a receding source is

fo = fs. sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c)

If in the above analysis v was calculated from the relativistic Doppler
equation then 0.9c resulted from a Doppler shift fo/fs = 0.2294157.

The Ballistic Doppler shift equation is much simpler than the
Relativistic one:

fo = fs((c-v)/c)

That same Doppler shift would be interpreted by the Ballistic theory as
v = 0.770584266c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story According to the Ballistic theory
===========================================

The Ballistic explanation is that if the far galaxy is travelling away
from us at near c then its light takes longer to travel to us because it
is only travelling at a modest c-v relative to us.

If the universe started at time 0
If the age of the universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left Far Galaxy at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when it left.

It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c-v.

so vT = (c-v)(Tau-T)
T(v/(c-v)) = Tau - T
T( v/(c-v) + 1 ) = Tau
T( c/(c-v)) = Tau
T = Tau.(c-v)/c

Age seen of Far Galaxy = 15 (c-v)/c billion years

Now for the same Doppler shift we calculated v = 0.770584266c

So according to Ballistic theory we calculate the Age of the Far Galaxy
as 3.441236 billion years.

To save you having to page back the age previously calculated for SR was
also 3.441236 billion years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So whether you do the calculation using Relativity or using the
ballistic theory, you again end up with exactly the same result. Compare
the complexity of the equations:

Relativity Ballistic
Age (Tau.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) Tau(c-v)/c

Doppler sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c) (c-v)/c)

I did the sums out of curiosity but the result was not unexpected. I
*expect* both theories to give the same result. The ballistic theory
gives a simple, credible, physical explanation and simple maths. SR
requires "time dilation" to get the right answer but can give no
physical explanation as to why the sources time should be changed by our
motion relative to it. Explanations of the effect always default to a
description of the mathematics.

Essentially SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in
aether is impeccable. That the MMX is experimentally sound and that it
showed that an observer has always zero velocity w.r.t the aether.
If empirically an observer always appears stationary w.r.t the aether as
'confirmed' by the MMX then any ray of light moves in the observer's
aether/FoR with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by
a stationary or by a moving body.

The point is Maxwell's theory isn't impeccable. The photo electric
effect shows that Maxwell's waves do not physically exist. In
formulating SR Einstein totally ignored that and the particulate nature
of light is not mentioned in Einstein's papers on SR. The price physics
had to pay for retaining the aether theory was the ditching of 3 axioms
of physics and the assumption that space time and mass are all
distorted.
Q - By what?
A - Don't know but they must be to get the right answer.

When a few decades later physics decided it really didn't like the
aether and ditched it, it cut off the intellectual branch it was sitting
on. No one asked whether the second postulate still makes sense as the
basis for building physics if there is no aether and text books have had
to be written by spin merchants ever since.

--
John Kennaugh
"Physics is not a logical deduction system, and there is no need for postulates
to be 'true'" - Tom Roberts
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... In other sciences, and historically in physics, there have always ... review panel to review evidence supporting relativity. ... last paragraph of the referee report sent back August 15 states "It is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on ... physical explanation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... If some theory replaces relativity (which will ... >>different times and at two different speeds to go to two different ... I would calculate it using Doppler shift as that is the most ... With Ballistic theory you would see exactly the same thing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on ... physical explanation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on ... physical explanation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast