Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:05:34 GMT

"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41F70D72.5060407@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:41F5B120.90600@mail.verizon.net...
> >
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:41F597CA.5030007@mail.verizon.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:41F4AEB8.8090007@mail.verizon.net...

> >>>follows:
> >>>A is the observer and B is the observed frame:
> >>>Lba=Laa(Faa/Fab) or Lba=Laa(Fab/Faa)
> >>>Laa=the light path length of the observer's rod in A's frame as
measured
> >>>
> >>>
> >by
> >
> >
> >>>A.
> >>>Lba=the light path length of an identical rod in B's frame as predicted
> >>>
> >>>
> >by
> >
> >
> >>>A.
> >>>Faa=the mean frequency of a standard light source in A's frame as
> >>>
> >>>
> >measured
> >
> >
> >>>by A.
> >>>Fab=the mean frequency of an identical standard light source in B's
frame
> >>>
> >>>
> >as
> >
> >
> >>>measured by A.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Why would B choose to define "light path length" by imagining what
> >>things would look like in A's frame?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >NO....B doesn't do that. B thinks that his light path length for a meter
> >stick is 1 meter and he predicts that A's light path length for a meter
> >stick is:
> >Lba=Lbb(Fbb/Fba) or Lba=Lbb(Fba/Fbb)
> >
>
> OK, but can B define "light path length" in his frame by looking only at
> the position and time the light was emitted, and the position and time
> the light hit the other end of the moving stick, with position and time
> measured by rulers and clock at rest in *his own* frame?

This definition by B is not the true light path length. Why? because it
ignore the effect of absolute motion of B's meter stick on light path
length.

>Suppose the
> moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's
> frame, and along this ruler at regular intervals are placed clocks which
> are also at rest in B's frame, and which are synchronized in B's frame.
> At the moment the light flash is emitted from the back end of the stick,
> the back end of the stick is next to the 93,000 mile mark on B's ruler,
> and at that moment the clock sitting on the 93,000 mile mark reads t=1
> second. Then at the moment the light flash hits the front of the moving
> stick, the front of the stick is next to the 186,000 mile mark on B's
> ruler, and at that moment the clock sitting on the 186,000 mile mark
> reads t=2 seconds. If B measures the stick to be moving at 93,000
> miles/second, can you figure out the light-path length using these
> numbers alone?

NO....B can't determine the light path length of a moving stick (A) using
these numbers. B must determine the light path length of A's moving stick
using IRT as follows:
Lba=Lbb(Fba/Fbb) or Lba=Lbb(Fbb/Fba)
Notice that the light path length of A's stick can be longer or shorter than
the light path length of B's stick.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>That's a pretty odd way to define
> >>measurements in different frames. Do you agree that if B uses his own
> >>clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light
> >>to cross a ruler moving relative to the ether depending on which end the
> >>light is emitted from, assuming (as in your theory, but not in SR) that
> >>all observers agree about simultaneity?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >NO.....My ether theory predicts that the speed of light in B's frame is
also
> >isotropic.
> >
>
> But what physical procedure does B use to measure the speed of anything
> in his own frame, including that of light? Can he just look at the
> position and time a light beam was emitted vs. the position and time it
> was received, according to rulers and clocks at rest in his own frame?

Certainly he can do that and that would be an OWLS measurement. The problem
is that the value of OWLS is not equal to 299,792,458 m/second when it is as
measured with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks in the same
frame.
>
>
> >>So you can assign t-coordinates to events at any location in space just
> >>by looking at the reading of a clock at the same spatial location as the
> >>event. This is how coordinate systems are defined in SR.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Isn't that that's what the LT is designed to do??
> >
>
> Sure, but the LT is not just some totally abstract piece of mathematics,
> it's meant to transform between the coordinates of one observer and
> another, assuming that each observer defines coordinates by the
> measurements on *physical* rulers and clocks which are at rest relative
> to himself, and which are synchronized using the above procedure.

The LT was formulated with the assumption that the observer is at rest in
the ether frame....this assumption is justified because of the PoR. This
assumption leads him to the conclusion that all clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and the light path length of a moving stick is longer....btw
this is the same as concluding that the moving stick is contracted.
IRT says that all observers are moving in the staionary ether. Therefore an
observer will sees some clocks are running fast and some are running slow
compare to the rate of his clock. Also he will see the light path length of
some rods will be longer than his rod and some will be shorter than his rod.

>
>
> >I must admit that I missed this point of SR entirely. What this assume is
> >that all relative clocks are moving at the same intrinsic rates and thus
> >what A's synchronized clock read at B's location is the clock reading of
B's
> >clock.
> >
>
> I think you're misunderstanding, SR certainly does *not* predict that
> all clocks tick at the same intrinsic rate, it only predicts that clocks
> which are *at rest with respect to one another* all tick at the same
> intrinsic rate.

If the intrinsic rate of relative clocks are not the same then it would
invalidate the SR claim of mutual time dilation that observer A sees B's
cl*** is running slow and observer B sees A's cl*** is running slow..

>Each observer measures time using a large collection of
> clocks at different locations, but every single one of the clocks in a
> given observer's measuring-system must be at rest in his own frame, so
> there is no relative motion between any of his clocks.

Why do you need a large collection of clocks at different locations? Surely
one clock at rest wrt to him will do.

>The clocks of
> *different* observers who are moving with respect to one another
> certainly don't tick at the same rate, and clocks in one observer's
> system are not "synchronized" with clocks in a different observer's
system.

Right but why do you need to synchronize clocks in different frames?
>
> Suppose you have two rulers A and B moving parallel to one another, and
> each ruler has a series of clocks mounted on it, which have been
> synchronized in their own frame using the procedure above. In this case,
> SR predicts that each ruler will see the *other* ruler's clocks as all
> being out-of-sync,

This is given in both SR and IRT.

>and likewise will see all the other ruler's clocks
> ticking slow, and the marking on the other ruler will appear too close
> together.

This is not a valid assumption. This is only valid if the observer is at
rest in the ether.

>Assuming you set things up so that the clocks at each ruler's
> "0 meters" marker read "0 seconds" at the moment they pass each other
> (so x=0,t=0 in one coordinate system maps to x'=0,t'=0 in the other),
> then what the Lorentz transforms are designed to do is to tell you what
> readings on the first ruler/clock system will coincide with what
> readings on the other. For example, if I take a picture of the "3
> meters" mark on one ruler at a particular moment, and in my picture the
> clock at that mark read "5 seconds", then if SR is correct, the Lorentz
> transforms should predict what mark I will see on the other ruler next
> to the 3-meter mark on the first one, and what reading I will see on the
> other ruler's clock which is attached to that mark.
>
> I drew some diagrams a while ago to illustrate this sort of thing. In
> this example, we have two rulers with clocks mounted on them moving
> alongside each other, and in order to make the math work out neatly, the
> relative velocity of the two rulers is (square root of 3)/2 * light
> speed, or about 259.628 meters per microsecond. This means that each
> ruler will observe the other one’s clocks tick exactly half as fast as
> their own, and will see the other ruler's distance-markings to be
> squashed by a factor of two.

As I said above this conclusion is based on the assumption that the observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all observers are in different
states of absolute motion and absolute motion will effect the rate of a
clock and the light path length of a rod. This means that an observed clock
can be running fast or slow compared to the observer's clock and the light
path length of an observed rod can be longer or shorter than the observer's
light path length.
>
> Also, I have drawn the markings on the rulers at intervals of 173.085
> meters apart—the reason for this is again just to make things work out
> neatly, it will mean that observers on each ruler will see the other
> ruler moving at 1.5 markings/microsecond relative to themselves, and
> that an observer on one ruler will see clocks on the other ruler that
> are this distance apart (as measured by his own ruler) to be out-of-sync
> by exactly 1 microsecond, some more nice round numbers.

All these example is based on the LT calculations and the LT is incomplete.
IRT is the complete theory of moiton.
>
> Given all this, here is how the situation would look at 0 microseconds,
> 1 microsecond, and 2 microseconds, in the frame of ruler A:
>
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerAFrame.gif
>
> And here’s how the situation would look at 0 microseconds, 1
> microsecond, and 2 microseconds, in the frame of ruler B:
>
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerBFrame.gif
>
> Some things to notice in these diagrams:
>
> 1. in each ruler's frame, it is at rest while the other ruler is moving
> sideways at 259.6 meters/microsecond (ruler A sees ruler B moving to the
> right, while ruler B sees ruler A moving to the left)
>
> 2. In each ruler's frame, its own clocks are all synchronized, but the
> other ruler's clocks are all out-of-sync
>
> 3. In each ruler's frame, each individual clock on the other ruler ticks
> at half the normal rate. For example, in the diagram of ruler A’s frame,
> look at the clock with the green hand on the -519.3 meter mark on ruler
> B--this clock first reads 1.5 microseconds, then 2 microseconds, then
> 2.5 microseconds. Likewise, in the diagram of ruler B’s frame, look at
> the clock with the green hand on the 519.3 meter mark on ruler A—this
> clock also goes from 1.5 microseconds to 2 microseconds to 2.5
microseconds.
>
> 4. Despite these differences, they always agree on which events on their
> own ruler coincide in time and location with which events on the other.
> If you have a particular clock at a particular location on one ruler
> showing a particular time, then if you look at the clock right next to
> it on the other ruler at that moment, you will get the same answer to
> what that other clock reads and what marking it’s on regardless of which
> frame you’re using. Here’s one example:
>
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/MatchingClocks.gif
>
> You can also see that I based these diagrams on the Lorentz transforms.
> The equations for transforming between two different Lorentzian
> reference frames S and S', where S' is moving at velocity v relative to
> S along its x-axis (and S is moving at velocity -v relative to S' along
> its x' axis) would be:
>
> x'=gamma(x - vt)
> t'=gamma(t - vx/c^2)
>
> x=gamma(x' + vt')
> t=gamma(t' + vx'/c^2)
>
> where gamma = 1/squareroot(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> In the diagram above I showed that the position x=346.2 meters, t=1
> microsecond as measured by ruler/clock system A matches up with position
> x'=173.1 meters, t'=0 microseconds as measured by ruler/clock system B.
> If you use v=259.6 meters/microsecond, and gamma=2, then you can see
> that the Lorentz transforms correctly transform between measurements
> made in the two systems. So again, you can see that the Lorentz
> transforms are not just some piece of arbitrary mathematics, they are
> supposed to predict how physical measurements made in one reference
> frame will match up with physical measurements made in another.
>
> I think it would be a lot easier for me to understand the various
> statements you have been making about how measurements work in your
> theory if you'd be willing to give me a similar set of equations for
> transforming between measurements made in one frame to measurements made
> in another, analogous to the Lorentz transforms.

IRT is anologous to the LT. In it contains LT as a subset.

>For example, you have
> said that clocks slow down just like in relativity when they move
> relative to the ether, but rulers do not shrink, and unlike in
> relativity all reference frames will agree about simultaneity.

IRT says:
1. Motion in the ether slows the clock rate compared to the ether clock. The
higher is the state of absolute motion the slower is the clock rate.
2. All observers are moving in the ether and thus the rate of his clock is
dependent on his state of absolute motion. That's why some clocks moving wrt
him are running slow and some are running fast.
3. The physical length of a ruler is not affected by its absolute motion but
the light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the ruler.
4. Simultaneity is absolute. Since the light path length of a rod is
different in different frames therefore simultaneity will occur in different
time in different frames.

>So, let's
> say ruler A is at rest relative to the ether, and ruler B is moving
> parallel to ruler A at velocity v, and x=0,t=0 according to ruler A
> matches up with x'=0,t'=0 according to ruler B.
>After some time t as
> measured in A's frame, ruler B will have moved right a distance vt, and
> clocks on ruler B will only have ticked forward by a time t/gamma.

But in terms of absolute time the time interval of t in A's frame is equal
to the time interval of t/gamma in B's frame.

>Since
> you said the clocks on both rulers would agree about simultaneity, this
> should mean that time t in A's frame will always map to time t/gamma in
> B's frame, regardless of the position of the clock:

The clock time interval of t/gamma in B's frame has the same absolute time
content as the clock time value of t in A's frame.
>
> t' = t/gamma

Right both of these clock time interval have the same absolute time content.
>
> Meanwhile, if there is no contraction in length of B's ruler as seen in
> A's frame, then the only difference in their position-measurements
> should be that the origin of B has moved right by a distance vt at time t:
>
> x' = x - vt

NO....the light path length for the moving ruler is:
x'=x*gamma
>
> This suggests that in your theory, the equivalent of the Lorentz
> transforms would be:

No read the IRT transform equations.

>
> where the (x,t) coordinates are measured by an observer whose ruler and
> clocks are at rest with respect to the ether.
>
> If I'm misunderstanding your theory, could you tell me what the correct
> equations would be for transforming between two ruler/clock systems like
> the ones described above?

????the IRT transform equations are given at the start of this thread.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>What do you mean by the phrase "see the strikes to be simultaneous at
> >>X"? Each observer either will see the light from both strikes reach him
> >>at the same moment or he won't.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's not true. Different observers will have different light path
lengths
> >for an identical physical distance. In the case of the train gedanken,
the
> >train observer have a higher state of absolute motion than the track
> >observer and thus the light path length in the train is longer than the
> >light path length in the track and thus the train observer will see the
> >strikes to be simultaneous at a later time.
> >
>
> I wasn't talking about light path lengths, I was just talking about
> whether the light beams from two different events reach a given observer
> at a single moment, or if he recieves the light from one event before he
> recieves the light from the other. These are the only two options, so he
> either receives both beams simultaneously, or he doesn't.

If the events occur simultaneously while he is at equal distance from both
events then he will see the events to be simultaneous. That's because the
speed of light is isotropic and that the speed of light is independent of
the motion of the source or the receiver.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>If the train observer and the track
> >>observer are both at the same position when the light from both strikes
> >>reaches them, they will both *see* the light from both strikes
> >>simultaneously. However, the train observer will say the strikes weren't
> >>really simultaneous, because he was heading towards one strike and away
> >>from the other,
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This assertion is bogus and it violates the isotropy of the speed of
light
> >in the train.
> >
>
> Ah, you're right, I messed up the explanation...what I should have said
> is that the observer on the train sees the two flashes to have happened
> at different distances from himself as measured by a ruler at rest in
> his own frame,

This is not true. The two flashes occur simultaneously. That's the reason
why the track oberver sees them to be simultaneous. Your problem is that you
assumed that relative motion will affect the distance of the flashes for the
train observer. This is a bogus assumption.

>so that they could occur at different times and the light
> from both would reach him at the same moment (for example, one flash
> might have occurred 3 seconds ago and 3-light seconds away in his frame,
> while the other occurred 6 seconds ago and 6-light seconds away in his
> frame). According to the track observer's ruler, though, the two flashes
> were equidistant from him at the moment each one occurred.

According to the track observer:
The flashes occur simultaneously at L/c where L is the light path length in
the track observer's frame.
The track observer calculates that the flashes occur simultaneously in the
train at gamma*L/c

According to the train observer(who has a higher state of absolute motion
than the track observer.:
The flashes occur simultaneously L'/c where L' is the light path length in
the train observer's frame.
The train observer calculates that the flashes occur simultaneously in the
track frameat L'/gamma*c
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>so for the light from both to reach him at the same
> >>moment, he will have to say that the strike he was heading away from
> >>happened before the strike he was heading towards (if he assumes light
> >>travels at the same speed in all directions in his own rest frame, as in
> >>SR).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This reasoning assumes that you know how light moves from the source to
the
> >target. IOW, you assumed that you know the velocity and position of the
> >leading edge of the light ray (the first photon). This is a direct
violation
> >of the uncertainty principle.
> >
>
> When you're dealing with large distances, the uncertainty principle
> becomes negligible.

This is not true. The uncertainty principle applies to all distances. In
fact the larger the distance the higher is the uncertainty. The reason for
the uncertainty is because of the absolute motion of the detector wrt the
light ray.

>All I need to know is the position and time the
> light flash was emitted and the position and time the light flash was
> first received--if the space and time intervals between these events is
> large, the error introduced by the uncertainty principles can be pushed
> back by as many decimal points as I wish.

No. I suggest that you study the proposed experiment in the following link.
It will show that absolute motion exists.

Ken Seto

Quantcast