Relativity Linear Thread

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 4:36 pm

This Thread is dedicated to a linear dialogue of Relativity. Please up me to build a linear dialogue of support or redirection for this accepted branch of physics. Is the holy grail of Einstein's work in SR and GR valid? What if anything is missing or even incorrect?
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by StevenO » Mon May 05, 2008 4:53 am

Well....I think we have to agree for SR that the formula's work. The formula's are basically a description of Doppler effects.

However, about the philosophy we could have a discussion. The Einstein relativity concept is both impractical and most likely incorrect since 1) not allowing independent yardsticks leads to an enormous mess 2) if matter is made of waves, then also matter waves will obey the same contraction as light waves, which would then prove that Lorentzian relativity is the correct one. And.....to show a practical example: actually Lorentzian relativity is used to do the relativistic corrections for the GPS satellites ;)

A great website to show the effect of the contraction of matter waves:

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity2.htm

About GR I have no opinion. What I remember it basically states that the "energy density of space equals the curvature of space" :?: Looks like some form of tautology to me... :? But I'm sure the forum could enlighten me :)
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by webolife » Mon May 05, 2008 4:10 pm

On the other side, I'm not so sure about SR, because I'm in disagreement about Doppler effects in light, Hubble's redhift, particularly disagree with the Lorentz transformation, which for me is a mathmagical fudge factor designed solely to justify an inescapable contradiction, which brings me to the c-rate. Instantaneous light action across distance, my premise, throws a whole new light on the c-rate. Pun totally intended. :lol: At the same time, much as I see myself in opposition to Einsteinian relativity, "my" unified field theory places high respect on the geometry of systems. I don't like Reimannian space, mind you, another mathemagical non-reality in my view.
But I recognize space as an exigent dimension of any field.
So I have another opening question: Is Quantum Mechanics hunting season open on this thread?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by junglelord » Mon May 05, 2008 4:33 pm

My view of SR/GR is that we do not deal in enough dimensions. Some of this I need to post in the Dimensions thread still, but it bears examination here because the flaw in my mind of Relativity is the inablity to make a Unified Field Theory from it as it stands. Its hard not to talk about the cons of SR/GR without pointing that out and then trying to get away from the trap that 4 D imposes. Which fundamentally should lead to a TOE as well as a discussion on dimensions.
8-)
If we up the dimensions, which even Zome shows is real, not just magic numbers by string theory math as some suppose, then we see that the universe is indeed of a higher construct then 4 D.

I always found Kaluza Klein to be a more fundamental way to unite the fabric of reality in a 5d space. I know Einstein had discussions with them about their theory. Personally I need more then four D to make it work for me. Thats why I like APM I guess, I was into 5 D for about 5 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/home.html
http://www.matter-antimatter.com/kaluza ... theory.htm


I also liked the ECE Einstein-Cartan-Evans field theory model and found it to be very interesting when I first found it in Dec 07. No black holes, no dark matter, no dark energy, accounts for Arps redshift anomalies. Plus it incorporates the Torsion of spacetime, something Einstein left out. I think StevenO did not like ECE and Craver Mead had maybe a better solution to the whole issue. I think thats worth considering as correct.

When I first found the EU in Dec 1/07 I came with some baggage. I loved Einstein and had just found ECE so it was a important stepping stone at the time as I was starting to review Maxwells Original work in Quaternions and Telsa's work with the Magnifying Transmitter, but once I realized the Magnifying Transmitter was a Theta Pinch was about the time I had just finished Konstantine Meyls Scalar Theory textbook. By that time the Aether had taken over and I left ECE behind. But I think it is still a valid step up from SR/GR and so still deserves a valid look at ECE.
8-)
Such a theory describes all of physics in a purely geometrical fashion. In ECE, gravity is the curvature- and electromagnetism is the torsion of spacetime. Indeed we live in a Geometric Universe with virtual flux and curved spacetime of scalar waves.

Quote:
"All the wave equations of physics, and first order differential equations of physics, come from the tetrad postulate, and the field equations from the Bianchi identity."

- Prof. Myron. W. Evans, AIAS Director (member of the Aberystwyth group)

"Physics is geometry - objective and deterministic. After a century of scientific uncertainty and void, the new ECE theory of Myron Evans establishes that there is no Higgs mechanism or boson, no strings or superstrings, no need for renormalization, no need for gauge theory, no missing mass or dark matter in the universe, no exotic new particles, and no singularities in nature (that is Big Bang and Black Holes)."


- Prof. Gareth J. Evans, AIAS fellow, former doctoral student of Myron W. Evans and member of the Aberystwyth group

"Finally, over half a century after Einstein made his contributions of general and special relativity, Myron Evans, following in the tradition of Einstein, accomplished the impossible. Instead of trying to quantify gravity in terms of discrete packets of energy (quanta) to make it comply with the standard model, Evans took the opposite approach, He succeeded in describing the standard model in terms of geometry. In the Evans Grand Unified Field Theory (now called Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) Theory - MWE), particle exchange is not the fundamental unifying factor. Instead, for each force there is a specific curvature of spacetime or spacetime geometry. The resulting equations can be applied to any area of science and engineering. The impact on the computer, transportation, medical, power, and manufacturing industries will ultimately be as profound as the discovery of fire."

- A. D. DeBruhl, "The Ultimate Truth" (2006), page 120


"As a result of the theory by Evans, an axial magnetic field component B(3) will exist in the direction of propagation of an individual photon. Regarding such a photon as an axisymmetric wave packet of limited transverse section, it is inevitable that the packet should possess a three-dimensional magnetic field pattern, having an axial field component B(3) and an associated angular momentum (spin). This fundamental contribution by Evans leads to a better understanding of the enigma of the photon than can be offered by conventional theory. Accordingly the results by Evans have inspired a number of scientists and research groups to perform further investigations along this line of approach. The research by Evans is thus of great importance to the scientific community and to the further development of modern physics and chemistry."

http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageB ... dard_Model


The evidence of the ECE model and geometry being the holy grail of the universe I believe that the E8 model is fundamentally correct in its premis as described by Antony Garrett Lisi. His theory claims to unify all fields of the Standard Model with gravity using a 248-point lattice of E8 geometry.
http://www.zometool.com/about-everything.html[/quote]
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by StevenO » Tue May 06, 2008 12:42 pm

My view of SR/GR is that we do not deal in enough dimensions. Some of this I need to post in the Dimensions thread still, but it bears examination here because the flaw in my mind of Relativity is the inablity to make a Unified Field Theory from it as it stands. Its hard not to talk about the cons of SR/GR without pointing that out and then trying to get away from the trap that 4 D imposes. Which fundamentally should lead to a TOE as well as a discussion on dimensions.
You are probably right, but we have trouble understanding 4D spacetime already. Together with the fact that the universe uses broken dimensions(fractals) as easily as our simple whole dimensions, I think that will be a difficult path. Some people have made some baby steps already:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-hds.asp
http://www.euclideanrelativity.com/simplified/index.htm

I think assuming a TOE is possible highlights human ignorance and hubris, personally I think we already come a long way if we can fully understand what an electron is....
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by junglelord » Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Great Point on Dimensions and Fractal Dimensions. I was just commenting on the Fractal Branching aspect of Nature at the atomic level with the Quantum Wave as shown in the Superconducting thread of StefanR.
8-)

I think that may solve a lot of wasted thinking for me, Thanks StevenO for throwing that out there.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by bboyer » Sat May 10, 2008 11:49 pm

Lord Louis Essen D.Sc., F.R.S. wrote:Einstein’s theory of relativity was dealt with very briefly in my university course but we were told that we must not expect to understand it. I accepted this situation and I have since discovered that most physicists are content to remain in the same position assuming that it must be right because it is generally accepted. My doubts about it arose when I found that the experts did not understand either. An exchange of letters in Nature between Dingle and McCrea showed that they had opposite views about some of the predictions of the theory and the arguments advanced on both sides were in my view illogical and unconvincing. Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks.

It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einstein’s famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments. This practice is contrary to the scientific method which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject. The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel prize winner. Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einstein’s paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion.

Special Theory flawed

There were definite errors about which there can be no argument. One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein’s assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe.

The question of units is a rather complicated one; and in this instance some writers are confused by the fact that the velocity of light is now often used as a standard, distances being calculated from the time of travel of a pulse of light or radio waves; but the value used is the measured value and the conditions of measurement are carefully defined. Quite recently a further complication has arisen. At the end of our work at the NPL we made the suggestion that as the techniques improved it might be advantageous to redefine the units of measurement, keeping the atomic second, giving a defined value to the velocity of light and discarding the unit of length. This has now been done, but these developments do not affect the criticisms of the theory. Even with these units it would still be absurd to assume that the velocity would be the same for two observers in relative motion. Units must be used with common sense.

Thought experiments

The other glaring mistake occurred in the course of one of his thought experiments. Einstein had never made any actual experiments, as far as I can find, and he certainly had no idea of how to compare clocks. He imagined two identical clocks side by side and supposed one of them to move away at a uniform velocity and then return. According to one of the results deduced from the theory a moving clock appears to go slower than the stationary one when viewed from the stationary position. Calling the clocks A and B the predictions are:

B is slower than A as seen from A

and since velocity is only relative and either of the clocks can be regarded as the moving one:

A is slower than B as seen from B

This is certainly strange although not logically impossible. It implies that something happens to the signals during their transmission. He then outlines his experiment without giving any details of how the measurements are made and concludes that:

B is slower than A

and although he does not specifically say so:

A is slower than B

in accordance with the relativity principle.

This result is of course impossible, and is usually called the clock paradox. Many thousands of words have been written about it, but the explanation is simply that he did not go through the correct procedures in making his experiment. It is a very simple experiment, being carried out every day in clock comparisons, and the correct result agrees with his predictions as indeed it must do since a thought experiment cannot give a new result. The predictions themselves are also inexplicable but this is one of the consequences of the duplication of units.

I had rather naively thought that scientists would be glad to have an explanation of the confusion which had existed for so long and would at least pay some attention to my explanation, since I had more practical experience in these matters than all the relativitists put together. But I was wrong. No one attempted to refute my arguments although they justified Einstein by repeating his thought experiment and his mistakes in different forms. I was, however, dropped some pretty broad hints that if I continued to criticise the theory my reputation and career prospects were likely to suffer. It was only a sideline to my experimental work but I found it so interesting that I did not feel like dropping it, and felt that it was very important that the theory should be exposed. My Director was good about it and said he had no objection himself as long as I did not involve the NPL. I was beginning to realise that scientists could be just as irrational as anyone else and having accepted the theory as a faith without understanding it they closed their minds to argument. They also tried to suppress opposition and two of my papers after being accepted by the referees were mysteriously never published.

I was not entirely without support and was invited to write an article by the Oxford University Press. It was not so comprehensive as they hoped, since I was not able to devote as much time to it as I would have liked, and lacked the secretarial assistance of my department, but it was accepted and published as one of their Research Papers (No. 5). The Director of the Royal Institution also invited me to give one of their Friday Evening Discourses. This was quite enthusiastically received and I had many letters of congratulation, although, as I noticed with some amusement, most of them were written on private notepaper and not on the paper of their organisations as one would normally expect.

The history of relativity would make a fascinating study and I regret that I do not feel competent to do it myself. I have kept to those aspects dealing with units of measurement and the comparison of clocks which I know something about. It was inspired by the puzzling results of an experiment made by Michelson and Morley. They argued that if light travelled at a steady velocity through the medium, or aether, and the surface of the earth was moving through this medium there should be a detectable effect on the movement, but they failed to detect any. Fitzgerald and Lorentz gave an empirical explanation that moving rods were shortened and moving clocks were slowed down. Scientists badly wanted a more detailed satisfactory explanation and this is what Einstein thought he had done. All he did was to introduce irrational ideas into physics and incorporate the Lorentz explanation into electromagnetic theory as an assumption. The original puzzling results, therefore, remain and it is important to science that a true explanation should be found.

Joke or swindle !

The famous paper published in 1905 does not appear to have attracted any attention until Eddington returned from an expedition to study the eclipse in 1919, and with great publicity announced to a meeting of the Astronomical Society in London that the results had proved Einstein’s theory. What he thought he had confirmed was Einstein’s value for the bending of light round the sun. Scientists were prepared to go to a lot of trouble to obtain experimental evidence for the theory as they realised that this was necessary and yet Eddington is supposed to have said that the theory was so satisfactory that if the experimental results did not confirm it then they must be wrong. A criticism of the results made later pointed out that in order to obtain the result he wanted, some of the observations which did not fit were ignored. Also someone has pointed out, with some evidence, that Einstein himself had predicted two results differing by 2 to 1 for the deflection. Finally the deflection of the sun’s rays has nothing to do with the special theory and the clock paradox and yet in some mysterious way it was claimed to confirm it. Still searching for experimental support an experiment was made in the US some years ago. Four atomic clocks were carried by plane in opposite directions round the world. The discrepancies between the results for different clocks were many times greater than the effect being sought, and yet by ignoring the results they did not like and performing some undescribed statistical analysis the authors claimed to have confirmed Einstein’s theory and specifically the clock paradox. There was a spectacular television programme about it in which a well-known actor was installed in a simulated space shuttle and told that he would come back younger than if he had stayed on earth. Being an intelligent man he appeared to regard it as a lot of nonsense as I hope the viewers did.

Unified field theory

My intrusion into theoretical physics must be regarded as a failure in that I did not convince the relativitists of their mistakes. It may have had some benefit in encouraging scientists to look for a rational extension of electromagnetic theory to explain the many mysteries not yet explained. There have been several attempts, that of Rene L Vallée being in my view particularly encouraging. It is a unified field theory giving an electromagnetic explanation of gravitation, and including a most important suggestion that it might be possible to harness the gravitational energy of space safely and economically. He argued that the nuclear energy programme in France was wasteful and misdirected and was in consequence obliged to leave the authority for which he worked. It is sad if his ideas were not fully studied because the nuclear fusion programmes throughout the world seem to make little progress in spite of the billions spent on them.

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html
During the last 50 years the revolution from cuckoo clocks to caesium clocks has gone largely unnoticed yet many inventions from satellite navigation (GPS) to the Internet itself rely on clocks that measure time to an accuracy unheard of only a few decades ago.

At the centre of much of this change has been the work of a controversial British physicist, Louis Essen. Known as "Old Father Time", Essen built the first atomic clock, accurate to one second in 300 years- sufficient to detect minute irregularities in the spin of the Earth itself.

Time Lord - Louis Essen
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by StefanR » Sun May 11, 2008 8:54 am

The Santilli - Galilei Association
presents
IL GRANDE GRIDO: ETHICAL PROBE ON EINSTEIN FOLLOWER'S
IN USA
by
Ruggero Maria Santilli da Capracotta
http://www.santilli-galilei.com/ilgrandegridoedfig.pdf

This link was provided graciously by Dave Smith in the

Peer Review" Makes Mockery of Science
ISSUES:
ON EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITIES?
INVALlDATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITIES?
MANIPULATIONS OF BASIC PHYSICAL KNOWLEDGE
PERPETRATED BY LEADING PHYSICISTS AT LEADING
INSTITUTIONS?
WHAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF INDIVIDUAL PHYSICISTS,
COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS.
About the next link I'm not sure about the value of it:
Conventions in relativity theory and quantum
mechanics
Karl Svozil
Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, University of Technology Vienna
Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10/136, A-1040 Vienna, Austria
e-mail: svozil@tuwien.ac.at
Abstract
The conventionalistic aspects of physical world perception are reviewed
with an emphasis on the constancy of the speed of light in relativity theory
and the irreversibility of measurements in quantum mechanics. An appendix
contains a complete proof of Alexandrov’s theorem using mainly methods
of affine geometry
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/ ... 0054v1.pdf
Acknowledgments
I have discussed the ideas exposed here with many researchers in numerous discussions
in Viennese coffee-houses and elsewhere. I am particularly indebted to
Hans Havlicek. Almost needless to say, I take the full responsibility for all errors
or misconceptions (if any). I would like to make it quite clear that I have not
attempted to “disprove” relativity theory in any way. Just on the contrary, these
considerations attempt to extend the domain of validity of relativity theory even
further rather than discredit it. The extensions deal with universes which are dominated
by interactions which are mediated through velocities different (and maybe
also higher than) the velocity of light.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:05 am

StevenO, on Monday, May 05, 2008, wrote:Well....I think we have to agree for SR that the formula's work. The formula's are basically a description of Doppler effects.

However, about the philosophy we could have a discussion. The Einstein relativity concept is both impractical and most likely incorrect since 1) not allowing independent yardsticks leads to an enormous mess 2) if matter is made of waves, then also matter waves will obey the same contraction as light waves, which would then prove that Lorentzian relativity is the correct one. And.....to show a practical example: actually Lorentzian relativity is used to do the relativistic corrections for the GPS satellites ;)

A great website to show the effect of the contraction of matter waves:

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity2.htm

About GR I have no opinion. What I remember it basically states that the "energy density of space equals the curvature of space" :?: Looks like some form of tautology to me... :? But I'm sure the forum could enlighten me :)
While I agree with much of Gabriel LaFreniere's theory, and the graphics he has put together are truly ingenuous, I must take issue with the top (first) graphic on this page.

Notice that Gabriel diagrams three frames of reference. The top frame is a point of view that is half way between the two oppositely going frames of reference. He supposes that the expanding sphere of light takes place in this frame of reference. (See how the expanding sphere remains stationary with this frame? This is the same misconception that Aardwolf has.)

(I think it is anyway. I don't really speak for Aardwolf!)

So what is your opinion, Mr. Goldminer?

I'm so glad you asked!

In my humble opinion, the expanding sphere must remain centered upon the source that emitted it.

Why is that your opinion, Mr. Goldminer?

I hold this opinion because this is what we experience in every day life. The speed of light is 0.983571057925 ft1/ns , or about one foot per nanosecond, centered upon the source. If the expanding sphere is not centered upon the source, observers in the source frame would experience the Doppler shift while at rest with the source. This does not happen in real life!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:12 am

Goldminer wrote:
StevenO, on Monday, May 05, 2008, wrote:Well....I think we have to agree for SR that the formula's work. The formula's are basically a description of Doppler effects.

However, about the philosophy we could have a discussion. The Einstein relativity concept is both impractical and most likely incorrect since 1) not allowing independent yardsticks leads to an enormous mess 2) if matter is made of waves, then also matter waves will obey the same contraction as light waves, which would then prove that Lorentzian relativity is the correct one. And.....to show a practical example: actually Lorentzian relativity is used to do the relativistic corrections for the GPS satellites ;)

A great website to show the effect of the contraction of matter waves:

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity2.htm

About GR I have no opinion. What I remember it basically states that the "energy density of space equals the curvature of space" :?: Looks like some form of tautology to me... :? But I'm sure the forum could enlighten me :)
While I agree with much of Gabriel LaFreniere's theory, and the graphics he has put together are truly ingenuous, I must take issue with the top (first) graphic on this page.

Notice that Gabriel diagrams three frames of reference. The top frame is a point of view that is half way between the two oppositely going frames of reference. He supposes that the expanding sphere of light takes place in this frame of reference. (See how the expanding sphere remains stationary with this frame? This is the same misconception that Aardwolf has.)

(I think it is anyway. I don't really speak for Aardwolf!)

So what is your opinion, Mr. Goldminer?

I'm so glad you asked!

In my humble opinion, the expanding sphere must remain centered upon the source that emitted it.

Why is that your opinion, Mr. Goldminer?

I hold this opinion because this is what we experience in every day life. The speed of light is 0.983571057925 ft1/ns , or about one foot per nanosecond, centered upon the source. If the expanding sphere is not centered upon the source, observers in the source frame would experience the Doppler shift while at rest with the source. This does not happen in real life!
For example; an observer at the "B' " origin will see a red shift in the wave-front emitted from the origin of "B," and the green wave-front emitted at "B' " will be observed at the origin of "B" as blue-shifted.

Further, observers anywhere in either "A" coordinate system will see no Doppler shift.

I think Gabriel intended for the diagrams to be thought of as being superimposed upon each other, but doing so would confuse what is contained within each set of coordinate systems.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am

Goldminer wrote:
Goldminer wrote:
StevenO, on Monday, May 05, 2008, wrote:Well....I think we have to agree for SR that the formula's work. The formula's are basically a description of Doppler effects.

However, about the philosophy we could have a discussion. The Einstein relativity concept is both impractical and most likely incorrect since 1) not allowing independent yardsticks leads to an enormous mess 2) if matter is made of waves, then also matter waves will obey the same contraction as light waves, which would then prove that Lorentzian relativity is the correct one. And.....to show a practical example: actually Lorentzian relativity is used to do the relativistic corrections for the GPS satellites ;)

A great website to show the effect of the contraction of matter waves:

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity2.htm

About GR I have no opinion. What I remember it basically states that the "energy density of space equals the curvature of space" :?: Looks like some form of tautology to me... :? But I'm sure the forum could enlighten me :)
While I agree with much of Gabriel LaFreniere's theory, and the graphics he has put together are truly ingenuous, I must take issue with the top (first) graphic on this page.

Notice that Gabriel diagrams three frames of reference. The top frame is a point of view that is half way between the two oppositely going frames of reference. He supposes that the expanding sphere of light takes place in this frame of reference. (See how the expanding sphere remains stationary with this frame? This is the same misconception that Aardwolf has.)

(I think it is anyway. I can't really speak for Aardwolf!)

"So what is your opinion, Mr. Goldminer?"

I'm so glad you asked!

In my humble opinion, the expanding sphere must remain centered upon the source that emitted it.

"Why is that your opinion, Mr. Goldminer?"

I hold this opinion because this is what we experience in every day life. The speed of light is 0.983571057925 ft1/ns , [Handy calculator here: you must log-in to use it.] or about one foot per nanosecond, centered upon the source. If the expanding sphere is not centered upon the source, observers in the source frame would experience the Doppler shift while at rest with the source. This does not happen in real life!
For example; an observer at the "B' " origin will see a red shift in the wave-front emitted from the origin of "B," and the green wave-front emitted at "B' " will be observed at the origin of "B" as blue-shifted.

Further, observers anywhere in either "A" coordinate system will see no Doppler shift.

I think Gabriel intended for the diagrams to be thought of as being superimposed upon each other, but doing so would confuse what is contained within each set of coordinate systems.
If you have followed the reasoning above, about the necessity of the expanding sphere traveling with the source of the expanding sphere, another problem that arises with Gabriel's animated drawings is the mythical "foreshortening" along the "X" axis shown in each of the two moving frames. Einstein's so called foreshortening of matter cannot really exist, since it must exist between any frame claiming to be "stationary" and all other "moving frames!" This is another unexplainable Silly Einsteinian paradox.

Somehow, Gabriel's diagrams must show (according to Einstein's mythology; that everything motion-wise is relative) that any two of the three systems in this drawing are "foreshortened" when "observed" from the other! Gabriel's statement that "A" is stationary is superfluous, since an observer in "B" and/or "C" have every right to claim that they are the stationary frame, at the same time!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Aardwolf » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:48 pm

Goldminer wrote:I hold this opinion because this is what we experience in every day life. The speed of light is 0.983571057925 ft1/ns , or about one foot per nanosecond, centered upon the source. If the expanding sphere is not centered upon the source, observers in the source frame would experience the Doppler shift while at rest with the source. This does not happen in real life!
Do you have reference for where this has been shown to happen (or not) in an absolute vacuum?

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:20 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Goldminer wrote:I hold this opinion because this is what we experience in every day life. The speed of light is 0.983571057925 ft1/ns , or about one foot per nanosecond, centered upon the source. If the expanding sphere is not centered upon the source, observers in the source frame would experience the Doppler shift while at rest with the source. This does not happen in real life!
Do you have reference for where this has been shown to happen (or not) in an absolute vacuum?
You and I know that there is no "absolute vacuum," so I assume that is not your question. Other wise, is your question about whether the "expanding sphere" must be centered upon the source?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:43 am

While waiting for Aardwolf to clarify his question, allow me to re-quote Arc-us's post from above:
arc-us wrote:
Lord Louis Essen D.Sc., F.R.S. wrote:Einstein’s theory of relativity was dealt with very briefly in my university course but we were told that we must not expect to understand it. I accepted this situation and I have since discovered that most physicists are content to remain in the same position assuming that it must be right because it is generally accepted. My doubts about it arose when I found that the experts did not understand either. An exchange of letters in Nature between Dingle and McCrea showed that they had opposite views about some of the predictions of the theory and the arguments advanced on both sides were in my view illogical and unconvincing. Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks.

It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einstein’s famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments. This practice is contrary to the scientific method which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject. The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel prize winner. Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einstein’s paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion.

Special Theory flawed

There were definite errors about which there can be no argument. One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein’s assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe.

The question of units is a rather complicated one; and in this instance some writers are confused by the fact that the velocity of light is now often used as a standard, distances being calculated from the time of travel of a pulse of light or radio waves; but the value used is the measured value and the conditions of measurement are carefully defined. Quite recently a further complication has arisen. At the end of our work at the NPL we made the suggestion that as the techniques improved it might be advantageous to redefine the units of measurement, keeping the atomic second, giving a defined value to the velocity of light and discarding the unit of length. This has now been done, but these developments do not affect the criticisms of the theory. Even with these units it would still be absurd to assume that the velocity would be the same for two observers in relative motion. Units must be used with common sense.

Thought experiments

The other glaring mistake occurred in the course of one of his thought experiments. Einstein had never made any actual experiments, as far as I can find, and he certainly had no idea of how to compare clocks. He imagined two identical clocks side by side and supposed one of them to move away at a uniform velocity and then return. According to one of the results deduced from the theory a moving clock appears to go slower than the stationary one when viewed from the stationary position. Calling the clocks A and B the predictions are:

B is slower than A as seen from A

and since velocity is only relative and either of the clocks can be regarded as the moving one:

A is slower than B as seen from B

This is certainly strange although not logically impossible. It implies that something happens to the signals during their transmission. He then outlines his experiment without giving any details of how the measurements are made and concludes that:

B is slower than A

and although he does not specifically say so:

A is slower than B

in accordance with the relativity principle.

This result is of course impossible, and is usually called the clock paradox. Many thousands of words have been written about it, but the explanation is simply that he did not go through the correct procedures in making his experiment. It is a very simple experiment, being carried out every day in clock comparisons, and the correct result agrees with his predictions as indeed it must do since a thought experiment cannot give a new result. The predictions themselves are also inexplicable but this is one of the consequences of the duplication of units.

I had rather naively thought that scientists would be glad to have an explanation of the confusion which had existed for so long and would at least pay some attention to my explanation, since I had more practical experience in these matters than all the relativitists put together. But I was wrong. No one attempted to refute my arguments although they justified Einstein by repeating his thought experiment and his mistakes in different forms. I was, however, dropped some pretty broad hints that if I continued to criticise the theory my reputation and career prospects were likely to suffer. It was only a sideline to my experimental work but I found it so interesting that I did not feel like dropping it, and felt that it was very important that the theory should be exposed. My Director was good about it and said he had no objection himself as long as I did not involve the NPL. I was beginning to realise that scientists could be just as irrational as anyone else and having accepted the theory as a faith without understanding it they closed their minds to argument. They also tried to suppress opposition and two of my papers after being accepted by the referees were mysteriously never published.

I was not entirely without support and was invited to write an article by the Oxford University Press. It was not so comprehensive as they hoped, since I was not able to devote as much time to it as I would have liked, and lacked the secretarial assistance of my department, but it was accepted and published as one of their Research Papers (No. 5). The Director of the Royal Institution also invited me to give one of their Friday Evening Discourses. This was quite enthusiastically received and I had many letters of congratulation, although, as I noticed with some amusement, most of them were written on private notepaper and not on the paper of their organisations as one would normally expect.

The history of relativity would make a fascinating study and I regret that I do not feel competent to do it myself. I have kept to those aspects dealing with units of measurement and the comparison of clocks which I know something about. It was inspired by the puzzling results of an experiment made by Michelson and Morley. They argued that if light travelled at a steady velocity through the medium, or aether, and the surface of the earth was moving through this medium there should be a detectable effect on the movement, but they failed to detect any. Fitzgerald and Lorentz gave an empirical explanation that moving rods were shortened and moving clocks were slowed down. Scientists badly wanted a more detailed satisfactory explanation and this is what Einstein thought he had done. All he did was to introduce irrational ideas into physics and incorporate the Lorentz explanation into electromagnetic theory as an assumption. The original puzzling results, therefore, remain and it is important to science that a true explanation should be found.

Joke or swindle !

The famous paper published in 1905 does not appear to have attracted any attention until Eddington returned from an expedition to study the eclipse in 1919, and with great publicity announced to a meeting of the Astronomical Society in London that the results had proved Einstein’s theory. What he thought he had confirmed was Einstein’s value for the bending of light round the sun. Scientists were prepared to go to a lot of trouble to obtain experimental evidence for the theory as they realised that this was necessary and yet Eddington is supposed to have said that the theory was so satisfactory that if the experimental results did not confirm it then they must be wrong. A criticism of the results made later pointed out that in order to obtain the result he wanted, some of the observations which did not fit were ignored. Also someone has pointed out, with some evidence, that Einstein himself had predicted two results differing by 2 to 1 for the deflection. Finally the deflection of the sun’s rays has nothing to do with the special theory and the clock paradox and yet in some mysterious way it was claimed to confirm it. Still searching for experimental support an experiment was made in the US some years ago. Four atomic clocks were carried by plane in opposite directions round the world. The discrepancies between the results for different clocks were many times greater than the effect being sought, and yet by ignoring the results they did not like and performing some undescribed statistical analysis the authors claimed to have confirmed Einstein’s theory and specifically the clock paradox. There was a spectacular television programme about it in which a well-known actor was installed in a simulated space shuttle and told that he would come back younger than if he had stayed on earth. Being an intelligent man he appeared to regard it as a lot of nonsense as I hope the viewers did.

Unified field theory

My intrusion into theoretical physics must be regarded as a failure in that I did not convince the relativitists of their mistakes. It may have had some benefit in encouraging scientists to look for a rational extension of electromagnetic theory to explain the many mysteries not yet explained. There have been several attempts, that of Rene L Vallée being in my view particularly encouraging. It is a unified field theory giving an electromagnetic explanation of gravitation, and including a most important suggestion that it might be possible to harness the gravitational energy of space safely and economically. He argued that the nuclear energy programme in France was wasteful and misdirected and was in consequence obliged to leave the authority for which he worked. It is sad if his ideas were not fully studied because the nuclear fusion programmes throughout the world seem to make little progress in spite of the billions spent on them.

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html
During the last 50 years the revolution from cuckoo clocks to caesium clocks has gone largely unnoticed yet many inventions from satellite navigation (GPS) to the Internet itself rely on clocks that measure time to an accuracy unheard of only a few decades ago.

At the centre of much of this change has been the work of a controversial British physicist, Louis Essen. Known as "Old Father Time", Essen built the first atomic clock, accurate to one second in 300 years- sufficient to detect minute irregularities in the spin of the Earth itself.

Time Lord - Louis Essen
Louis Essen is indeed "Father Time," and since his criticism of Einstein's work found no valid "debunking," what has Consensus "Physics" done in the meantime? They have just ignored it. That's what they do when a valid explanation is presented. Anything that challenges the religion and the priesthood is ridiculed and/or ignored!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:39 am

From my point of view there are three primary fallacies in Einstein's theory, and they occus right at the start of his thesis.

1. His "Galilean Transform" is incomplete and does not consider nor contemplate the latency or finite speed of light. The diagram is faulty and limits further discussion.

2. His "Light Clock" mirror Gedankin reifies an imaginary "photon" where none exists. There are only two mirrors; they are located in only one frame; and only one observer in the other frame needs to observe it as it passes by. (there can be more observers, but each will see the same redundant scene pass by.)

3. His "relativistic triangle" utilizes the above mentioned imaginary, nonexistent, unnecessary, photon; one that moves slower that an imaginary shadow of said imaginary photon would move on a surface in the opposite frame. If the "real photon," the one actually bouncing between the mirrors, could be seen in the other frame by an observer there, it would appear to be accelerating and decelerating; due to rays of light changing angles as the mirrors traveled past. But "photons don't emit rays.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests