That time and space are left untouched. The alteration or change is with light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc
To my mind the errors are here :
2.25 "But remember, we've agreed that, we all agree on what the speed of light is, no matter how anyone moves around"
---------------------------
No, surely not. We have only agreed on the speed of light in one frame. We haven't agree on the speed of light -between frames- , which is what this setup discusses.
Light speed is always measured, for example in the Michelson-Morley experiment, in one frame ; the frame in which the apparatus is situated. We can always deem this frame to be "stationary" and so light speed is always constant only in one frame. Not between frames. What light does between frames, is not agreed.
And here :
2:50 : "what does that imply? ... you see my clock run slower, than I do. -----Why? Because the light had to travel further, to make one tick.."
---------------------------
No, surely not. All that has been demonstrated here is that light travels further (and at different rates) between frames, but the ticks in the stationary frame and the moving frame are coincident-- the rays arrive simultaneously.
So there is no difference in the clock rates in the moving and stationary frames-- the alteration is with light, how light behaves between frames -- but the clocks in the moving frame and the stationary frame remain the same (the events are coincident or simultaneous).
And here :
3:07 : "So that's a prediction, a very strange predictions-- says that moving clocks run slow, time slows down when you move".
---------------------------
No, surely not. What has been demonstrated here is that light moves at a different rate between frames-- only. In fact this setup actually demonstrates the reverse to the above conclusion : it demonstrates that time is the same in the moving and stationary frames : the ticks (events) are coincident or simultaneous. Light contrives or organises itself to make this so.
---------------------------
That is to say : light alters or manifests itself so as to ensure the reality is consistent among the (relatively moving) observers.
In this case, this means the light makes sure the events (the ticks) in the moving frame coincide with the events (the ticks) in the stationary frame.
The fact that these events are coincident, means, "time" has not changed.
What this experiment does demonstrate is that light has two lengths, one for the stationary observer, and one for the moving observer. A very extraordinary thing.
The further mistake is to suppose the equation obtained pertains to "time" itself -- it doesn't, -- it pertains to light only,-- the offsets and corrections pertain only to the light matter. Not to the "space". Not to the "time". These remain unaltered, as Newton left them.
So the Lorentz relations describe the corrections or offsets to light rays only-- and leave time and space, as we normally understand them, untouched.
This would also mean the corrections or offsets described by the Minkowski scheme apply to the light matter only. Not to time. Not to space. And not to mass.
So there is no time-dilation for moving clocks. There is no length contraction for moving rods, and there is no mass-augmentation for moving mass. This latter point was admitted by Einstein, (privately but not publicly, as far as I know,) in a letter to Lincoln Barnett, in 1948.
Gary Stephens ,
Einstein's 1905 paper begins with the assumption:
The light time to connect A to B is the light time to connect B to A.
The above is the definition of an isotropic frame for light.
In special relativity (SR) all inertial frames are the same hence all isotropic.
Einstein's synchronization procedure let the speed of light be measured the same from every inertial frame. It is a choice which makes a non-accelerated frames measure the speed of light the same in every direction.
The light clocks descends from the assumption that both the laboratory and the clock belong to different isotropic frames.
Einstein's stipulation is falsified by the linear Sagnac effect : the light-time in one direction is not the same as the light time in the opposite direction if measured by a moving detector in the lab. The same measurement on the contrary occurs only if clocks are Einstein synchronized but then it is easy to show in a close loop that such synchronization procedure fails by the amount predicted by Sagnac.
Lorentz Electrodynamics (LE) which has the same prediction power as SR, does not at all predict that light-clocks work like that, nevertheless the final formula is the same.
Being the embankment an isotropic frame (for both SR and LE ) light would not go sideways like that. It would simply not strike at the same position in the train although it would take a very fast train to notice it.
Gary Stephens Stefano Quattrini
As Stefano Quattrini writes, the light signal does NOT move obliquely, sideways in these devices. No one can ever explain why that would be the way scientists draw vertical light clocks!
See my question:
The special theory of relativity, Special Relativity, SR. The time dilation
Gary Stephens
You make a correct analysis of what Cox is saying. When talking about the special theory of relativity, SR, almost all scientists make the same mistake:
1) The speed of light is constant in a vacuum and is denoted by the same letter c in both inertial reference systems. Maxwell: c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2;
2) But (here most of them think wrongly) when we talk about the speed of light in a reference system, it is about the relative speed between the reference system and the front of the light wave. This speed is c±v where v is the absolute speed in space for reference system !
Jan Slowak Stefano Quattrini
Dear Professor Slowak,
"As Stefano Quattrini writes, the light signal does NOT move obliquely, sideways in these devices. No one can ever explain why that would be the way scientists draw vertical light clocks!"
This is a good question.
I suppose you are thinking.. as both mirrors move to the right, the ray enroute to the top mirror misses it, -- falls behind, as the top mirror has progressed further to the right?
Notwithstanding that, one can think of both mirrors as being "stationary" and it is the observer that is moving to the left. He would definitely see the light hit the top and bottom mirrors in their middle.
But this is exactly equivalent to the observer being "stationary" and the mirrors moving to the right, because we are only talking here about "relative motion."
So unless one denies "relative motion" exists, then one must conclude that the rays in the moving mirrors would travel "obliquely" and their resulting lengths would be longer, than in the stationary frame.
The reason light does this, is so that the reality is consistent between the (relatively moving) observers.
I think Professor Quattrini was talking about the AE train- embankment experiment, in which a similar thing happens. Here the aft ray moves at a greater rate, in the same time, and has a resulting longer optical length, and the fore ray moves at a lesser rate, and has a resulting shorter optical length, so that both rays arrive simultaneously to the middle of the moving carriage at M'.
Cf.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_misspeak_in_Einsteins_train_and_embankment_thought_experiment_as_described_by_Einstein_in_the_1952_edition_of_his_book
Gary Stephens ,
The E-TETE (Einstein - Train embankment thought experiment) involves two waves of light emitted along the direction of motion in opposite directions . Einstein's light clock is also a thought experiment. That involves waves emitted at right angles with the direction of the motion of the clock.
While E-TETE has to do with the term vx'/c2 of the Lorentz Transformations,
E-LC (light clock) TE deals with the origin of time dilation, as measured by moving clocks.
While E-TETE correctly accounts for the term vx'/c2 also conceptually and is in agreement with Lorentz Electrodynamics, E-LCTE outcome is the formula of the time dilation t' = gamma-1 t.
That formula comes out by assuming light aberration according to SR, at variance with Lorentz Electrodynamics.
SR denies that the emission occurs at right angle. It is yet another bizzare consequence of Einstein's postulate...
That gives really the side to dingle's objection...
Time dilation is a dynamical fact not kinematical and depends on the variation of kinetic energy per unit of rest energy..
Gary Stephens Stefano Quattrini
1) "the ray enroute to the top mirror misses it"
No, I don't think so. We are talking about thought experiments, this means that the light signal does NOT MISS any of the mirrors.
2) "one can think of both mirrors as being 'stationary'"
No, you cannot think that something is stationary when it is in motion.
3) "it is the observer that moving to the left"
No, there is no observer in these experiments. Because such an observer cannot observe how a light signal moves!
4) "He would definitely see the light hit the top ..."
No observer can do that!
5) "one must conclude that the rays in the moving mirrors would travel "obliquely"
That is what is wrong with all these explanations of vertical light clock.
Please see my question that I mentioned before.
6) "The reason light does this, is so that the reality is consistent between the (relatively moving) observers."
The light doesn't move for any reason! Light moves according to physical laws. There is nothing in this world that can explain why the angle of reflection would be other than 90 degrees!
7) "the aft ray moves at a greater rate", "the fore ray moves at a lesser rate"
Light travels at the same speed in a vacuum, regardless of whether there are any reference frames there or not.
8) I'm not a professor, I'm an independent researcher. Enough with Mr.
Dear Professor Slowak,
You said :
"As Stefano Quattrini writes, the light signal does NOT move obliquely, sideways in these devices. No one can ever explain why that would be the way scientists draw vertical light clocks!"
And then :
1) "the ray enroute to the top mirror misses it"
No, I don't think so. We are talking about thought experiments, this means that the light signal does NOT MISS any of the mirrors.
------------------------------------------------
Beg pardon, my misunderstanding. I thought your first comment indicated you did not think the light signal could move obliquely. Now I understand from your second comment, you think the light signal must move obliquely because you say it does NOT MISS any of the mirrors.
Gary Stephens
9) "Beg pardon, my misunderstanding. I thought your first comment indicated you did not think the light signal could move obliquely. Now I understand from your second comment, you think the light signal must move obliquely because you say it does NOT MISS any of the mirrors."
You are misinterpreting what I wrote. One can design these thought experiments so that the light signal does not miss the mirrors. What is fundamental here is that if the roof mirror is perpendicular to the light signal, then the light signal will be reflected back on the same "line". It can't go obliquely!
Stefano Quattrini
Dear Professor Quattrini,
"Time dilation is a dynamical fact not kinematical and depends on the variation of kinetic energy per unit of rest energy.."
Beg pardon, but what on earth does this mean?
Jan Slowak
Dear Professor Slowak,
So if I understand you aright, you are saying, if, for example, there were a tiny pencil-shaped laser, and its beam were pointed obliquely toward the top mirror, from the location of the bottom mirror, and both these mirrors were in motion, then, this beam would reflect off the top mirror toward the bottom mirror (at the same angle,) were there a bottom mirror in the right location to receive this ray?
And what you are also saying, is that were that same laser to point up vertically, then the light ray would miss the top moving mirror (which is to the right of the bottom mirror in any case) altogether, and simply fly up vertically, as the mirror to the right continued upon its journey?
And so you are further saying, that since in the initial setup-- in the stationary frame, the tiny pencil-shaped laser must have been pointing vertically upward, then, when this apparatus is set in motion, this vertically set ray will simply continue up vertically, and miss the top mirror as it journeys to the right?
So, in effect you are saying, the Einstein Light-Clock, as it is described, can't actually happen?
Jan Slowak
this is an interesting affirmation... I share this view point if we are in vacuo far from masses...
If we are on earth, light propagates in the ECIF if we are in the solar system, light propagates in the SCIF.
If we are in deep space the propagation occurs stationary with CMBR
Dear Professors Quattrini and Slowak,
this is an interesting affirmation... I share this view point if we are in vacuo far from masses...
----------------------------------------------------
Surely if we don't have a "frame" we can't have a "speed"? If we don't have an apparatus, and this apparatus, itself, forms a "frame"-- a stationary frame, then without this apparatus, we can't have a measurement, and without a measurement we can't have a speed. Said differently-- a "speed" relative to what?
Dear Stefano Quattrini
1) "this is an interesting affirmation... I share this view point if we are in vacuo far from masses..."
We are talking about SR, then mass has no meaning.
2) What is meant by ECIF and SCIF?
3) CMBG = Cosmic Microwave BackGround
4) My position regarding the light: The light knows nothing about ECIF, SCIF, CMBG or any reference systems. The light moves objectively relative to some objects that would constitute inertial reference systems. See possibly my book Light - the absolute reference in the universe
Dear Gary Stephens
1) "Surely if we don't have a 'frame' we can't have a 'speed'? "
In all thought experiments regarding SR, the speed of light = c is used.
Maxwell: c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2; ε0 = the permittivity of free space, μ0 = the permeability of free space. The speed of light is not dependent on anything other than the properties of the medium!
2) "If we don't have an apparatus, and this apparatus, itself, forms a 'frame' -- a stationary frame, then without this apparatus, we can't have a measurement"
There are no devices in thought experiments regarding SR. Despite the absence of devices, light moves with speed c.
3) "without a measurement we can't have a speed"
Regardless of whether we make measurements or not, light travels at speed c.
4) "Said differently-- a 'speed' relative to what?"
See 1)
Dear Jan Slowak ,
if that is the case then MMX experiment would not detect a null or just .5Km/2.
There is a "local propagation frame" which is determined by the static gravitational field of EARTH on earth which is stationary with the ECIF earth centered inertial frame.
Gravitation drives light...or better a background drives light and is at the origin of the phenomeon of Gravitation
by the way...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_experiment_performed_in_a_Lab_tested_the_tilting_of_light_emitted_by_a_moving_source_the_foundation_of_Einsteins_light_clock
Dear Stefano Quattrini
5) You have not answered question 3)
6) "then MMX experiment would not detect a null or just .5Km/2"
If in an experiment you do not get the expected result, how do you know what results come from, what that means?
In my book Special Relativity is Nonsense I show theoretically what the result from MME means. I have done my calculations and the result is the same as from the experiment in 1887. This means that my model and my calculations are correct.
7) "'local propagation frame' which is determined by the static gravitational field"
A field does not represent a reference system.
8) "which is stationary with the ECIF earth centered inertial frame."
But the earth's reference system is in constant motion. A reference system on the earth's surface is not "stationary"!
Quotes from my book:
- The Earth has a movement around its own axis
- Earth moves around the sun
- The solar system moves around the center of the galaxy
- The galaxy moves towards the Great Attractor.
- And …
9) "Gravitation drives light...or better a background drives light and is at the origin of the phenomeon of Gravitation"
When we talk about SR, we should not talk about gravity!
Dear Jan Slowak ,
sorry, I meant that it come out a null result or almost null, but the expected result for a travelling body in aether would be different...
let's call it domain then, "propagation domain"
that is used in GPS.
in motion where?? The ECIF is the centered non rotational
ECEF is the centered rotational.
Dear Professors Slowak and Quattrini,
"When we talk about SR, we should not talk about gravity!"
Absolutely. Once one starts mixing this in, you get utter confusion.
----
"
1) "Surely if we don't have a 'frame' we can't have a 'speed'? "
In all thought experiments regarding SR, the speed of light = c is used.
Maxwell: c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2; ε0 = the permittivity of free space, μ0 = the permeability of free space. The speed of light is not dependent on anything other than the properties of the medium!"
------------------------
What is noticeable above, in the definition of the speed of light, is that the units are absent. There is no mention of "metres per second, (m/s)"
Without these units, the number c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2 is meaningless. Surely we all agree on that?
These units provide the meaning to the number c.
They mean light travels along a metre rod, in some fraction of a second.
The metre rod-- (built into the number that is quoted, ie. c) provides the frame. Without this metre rod, the number is meaningless.
This metre rod is not an abstract thing-- it must be placed somewhere in the real world, for any meaning to be attached to it. The same is with light speed. "Nothing exists in itself, only in reference to something else". In this case the speed c, only exists in reference to the metre rod. And this metre rod, itself, is the frame.
----------
Regarding your other observation about the light traveling obliquely, in the Einstein Light Clock ; I think this is a very interesting point. The question is, in the moving frame, where does the light get its lateral impulse from, and not only that where does it get its increased lateral impulse, given the fact it has to traverse a greater distance in the same time as compared to the vertical light ray.
Ultimately, here, I think the answer lies in the supernatural.
Professor Brian Cox is a highly promoted propagandist in England like few others in USA, who strive to big-up modern theories of physics (and cosmology), especially Einstein’s theories of relativity; with even wild and exaggerated claims; so cannot be taken seriously. Please see the following RG questions: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_GPS_technology_require_SR_and_GR_for_precise_computation_of_time_and_location_claimed_by_official_science_What_do_you_think
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_Major_Problems_of_Natural_Science_in_the_Present_Epoch
Abdul Malek
Dear Professor Malek,
Fascinating. Thanks for your post.
Surely the γ [gamma] factor refers to the corrections or offsets to the light rays (the electromagnetic rays) --only. (The 2 or 3 mm).
This would comport fully with the contention above ; that it is the light (electromagnetic waves) that alters, and not the "time" nor the "space" nor the "mass." These remain as Newton left them, untouched.
Gary Stephens : Thanks for your response. The accepted axiomatic truths that the velocity of light c is a universal constant in any IRF and that the "rest mass" of (light) photons is zero are patently false. Also, the γ [gamma] factor of LTs (including Minkowski-Einstein “spacetime”) can be shown as nothing but fantastic geometrical and abstract mental constructs; with absolutely no basis in objective reality. Please see:
"New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity": Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...
“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
Abdul Malek
Dear Professor Malek,
Thanks, I'll take a look.
My feeling is there is something in the Lorentz relations, and the Minkowski scheme, but these are only to do with the character of light. They leave "space" and "time" and "mass" untouched.
In fact the Einstein Light-Clock proves they leave "time" untouched, (but the light alters) because the ticks in the moving frame and the stationary frame are coincident. These events are synchronous.
This all stems from Einstein's "Relativity of Simultaneity" in which it is propounded that time is different for moving and stationary observers. You will notice, though, there is no "Relativity of Simultaneity" in the Einstein Light Clock, nor in the Michelson Morley Experiment.
The "Relativity of Simultaneity" only crops up in Einstein's train-embankment experiment. Why is that? Cf.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_misspeak_in_Einsteins_train_and_embankment_thought_experiment_as_described_by_Einstein_in_the_1952_edition_of_his_book
We know there is something in the Minkowski scheme (stemming from the Lorentz relations,) because these were used in the construction of de Broglie waves and the Dirac equation.
Perhaps this "something" is the two lengths of light rays-- one for each observer. It could be that this manifested out in the twovaluedness (otherwise known as "spin") in the Dirac equation and two-placed-ness, (otherwise known as waves) in the De Broglie relation.
Gary Stephens : Your RG profile say, “There has emerged, in the current epoch, a difficulty in separating out the observer from the observed. This is most widely known in Quantum Mechanics. What is less well known, or less discussed, is that the same difficulty also arises in Special Relativity. Essentially, it is the "observers," or more particularly "mankind," that is the missing ingredient what is now called "science". The truth of this is just emerging”.
I came to a very similar conclusion in the early years of this century, after my intense interaction with my late friend Halton (Chip) Arp. I can fully understand the nightmare you are facing in this and the RG forum you initiated starting March 9, 2023 (I came to be aware of, only now); from the priests of official theoretical physics and cosmology; trying to stitch together the tattered clothes of their Emperor-Priest; with nothing but centuries long senseless, endless and meaningless scholasticism. What can be said of the scholasticism of these self-confident and humbug priests was already said before by Frederick Engels, “It is the old story. First of all, one makes sensuous things into abstractions and then one wants to know them through, the senses, to see time and smell space. The empiricist becomes so steeped in the habit of empirical experience, that he believes that he is still in the field of sensuous experience when he is operating with abstractions. We know what an hour is, or a metre, but not what time and space are! As if time was anything other than just hours, and space anything but just cubic metres! The two forms of existence of matter are naturally nothing without matter, empty concepts, abstractions which exist only in our minds”. Dialectics of Nature. Frederick Engels 1883 : Notes and Fragments: Dialectics.
I suffered even a worse fate (ad hominem abuse, threats of expulsion, closure of forums etc., from more or less the same crowd) than you; since I started commenting in RG from late 2017. But during all these years, I also sharpened my own weapon, namely, materialist dialectics; which now enables me to not only silence my tormentors, but also go on the counter-offensive.
This would be palpable from the following recent comment I made in a RG forum on Einstein’s theories of relativity, as follows:
Abdul Malek added a reply
3 days ago
Nancy Ann Watanabe > “The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed.”“The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed.”
But Truth Be Known:
The above-mentioned forum was eventually closed not by the author, but by an unprecedented RG ruling! There was so much personal abuse, hatred and complains against this author of that forum that RG ultimately decided to close it down; initially totally removing it, but later reinstalled it, but prohibiting any further comments. This author can continue to be active in RG only because of the great generosity and fairness of the RG authorities. One young man named Jerry Muzsik (totally unknown to this author) wrote a “Prose Collage” of only the comments by this author and posted it online, a copy can be seen in the attached file, below; which will indicate why there is so much vengeance perpetrated against this author by a powerful and internationally coordinated group. The Internet webpage of Jerry and similar other websites with favourable comments are either deleted or routinely removed from the Internet listings as hostile acts this author. Luckily, Jerry’s collage was saved in time, as a WORD-file, before it was removed from the Internet listing.
But in spite of all these, an ”Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity” came in a storm of publication by this author, particularly the following one: “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
A new publication shown below, as a Tsunami will complete the Herculean task. "New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity": Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...
But of course, this refutation is done in principle only. This Tsunami has to work its way through the strong and powerful pillars and foundation and the debris of the centuries-long establishment. This author of this Tsunami may not see his “Victory Crown” (Or Bijoyo Mukut in his native Bengali), in his life-time, but eventually will be a reality; his Quantum Dialectics gives him this assurance!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019/1320
Best regards, Abdul
Gary Stephens : I added the same comment as above, to your other form in support of your stance!
Regards, Abdul
Dear Professor Malek,
Thanks for your interesting comments and observations.
Halton (Chip) Arp was quite a famous Cosmologist, even I had heard of him, and I'm not really that too au fait with Cosmology or Cosmogony.
I think it is well known that there are quite a few questions regarding Special Relativity. There is, for example, a post on ResearchGate to do with Dingle's objections, which, the last time I looked had over 50,000 reads.
Dingle famously replied to Max Born in Nature on this issue, in the 1940s? was it?
For my own part, as I mentioned, I do think there is something in Special Relativity, but this is tied up with the extraordinary behaviour of light, which I believe is described by the Lorentz relations and the Minkowski scheme.
There is also A A Robb-- (the "Euclid" of Special Relativity) who questioned "The Relativity of Simultaneity". And produced many fascinating theories on light rays.
Then there is also a very famous french philospher-- whose name escapes me at present, who also questioned, as Dingle did "moving clocks run slow".
So I'd say you have quite a lot of company in raising questions about Special Relativity.
The writings of Einstein--- it could just be me, but they do appear to contain quite a large dab of waffle. This could explain why the "misspeak" shall we call it, has remained "in camera" for so long.
I don't get this impression with, say E A Poe, or for that matter Newton, in his letters in the Philosophical Trans.
Over the course of the next.. bit of time, I will detail these "divergences from the actualities," in the various waffles. And there is quite a lot of waffle to choose from, frankly speaking. But this is fortunate, because we do get a full picture of the muddle, and an understanding of how it has been hidden for so long.
Let us dive in willy-nilly, ---
In the above, for example, the "divergence from the actualities" is located in these two lines of waffle :
"By uniting these two postulates we obtain the law of transformation for the rectangular coordinates x, y, z, and time t of the events which constitute the processes of nature". And
"In this connection we did not obtain the Galilei transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, the -Lorentz transformation-."
--------------------------------------
For starters, no one can remember what these "two postulates" were, that were supposedly united. This is quite a common feature in Einstein's writings-- he continually adverts to vague notions, usually notions ere concocted by himself with grandiose sounding names like "The Principle of this, or the Postulate of that,".
In the subsequent sentence he broadens out what he styles "the law" of transformation of coordinates (Lorentz relations) to include "classical mechanics."
But there error is here :
"law of transformation for the rectangular coordinates x, y, z, and time t of the events"
These transformations are describing what light alone must do, in order to keep the time and the space Absolute, because, as we have seen, we actually have an Absolute character to Simultaneity. This is what the AE train-embankment experiment, the Einstein Light Clock, and the Michelson Morley experiment tell us.
So the coordinates x, y, z and time t, remain unchanged. The alteration is only with the light.
This is now certain, in my opinion--- how likely is it that everyone has somehow missed the "Relativity of Simultaneity" occurring in the Einstein-Light Clock, or in the Michelson Morley experiment? Not very likely I'd say. (These latter prove the Absolute character of Simultaneity, for the moving and the stationary observers.) The Relativity of Simultaneity only crops up (supposedly) in the AE train-embankment experiment, but we now know, this cannot be the case.
Dear Gary Stephens
Thanks for your posts. They confirm my position on special relativity, SR.
If SR were real, correct, without contradictions, etc., there would NOT have been so much written about it!
Isn't it strange that different researchers put over 50,000 comments on it just on one question?
I have never accepted SR and therefore I have tried to check how correct it is mathematically, physically and logically. It is NOT!
Dear Professor Slowak,
Yes I think you are referring to the post on Dingle's objection to Special Relativity.
The "Relativity of Simultaneity" -issue-, if you want to call it that, is very similar to Dingle's objection in that it is also a logical contradiction.
Initially Dingle accepted Special Relativity-- he wrote a fascinating book called "Relativity for All" in 1922. He subsequently met Einstein at the California Institute of Cosmology, I believe. It was only much later he realised that moving and stationary clocks, due to the very interesting circumstance of Relative Motion, had to tick at the same rate.
Simply put, you can always say, -it is the other clock that is doing the moving.-
Cf. also
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_something_amiss_in_the_figure_that_purports_to_demonstrate_the_Relativity_of_Simultaneity_from_the_Relativity_of_Simultaneity_wiki_page
The next bit of waffle, we find here (Cf. above).
Here again we find the author adverting to "two fundamental principles of the theory" in a rather grandiose manner.
These phrases tend to hypnotise the reader in believing what is subsequently and ere said must be true.
But the error is here :
"Thus for a coordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it -is- shortened for a coordinate system which is at rest relative to the sun".
----------------------------------------------
Simply put, the alteration is (not surprisingly) with the light, not the space and time.
The reason we know the alteration it is not with the clocks (or rods)-- is because the light rays always arrive back simultaneously in the Michelson Morley experiment and not one after the other, after traversing their respective paths. Again we have an "Absolute character to Simultaneity," and not the "Relativity of Simultaneity".
This is due to the light having to keep the reality consistent among the (relatively moving) observers.
So there is no shortening of the coordinate systems in either system, unless that coordinate system is applied to light -only-, but it is far better to say the light does move faster or slower, and covers less or more ground in the same time, than to actually alter the space and time for the light only. This is because the basis for space and time, is built around events the observers must witness, and we know these are not altered in going from one system to another.
So the Lorentz scheme applies to light -only-. The Minkowski scheme applies to light -only-. Not to time, not to space, and not to mass.
Gary Stephens ,
the explanation of the working principle of the light-clock given there is the one provided by Einstein, nothing more.
The light clock should give an explanation to time-dilation, meaning that time runs differently in the platform and in the moving system.
Time dilation is a fact measured in the experiments with the twin effect : two clocks are stationary together and set in sync (hence in Absolute sync), they are separated and rejoined after a while. What emerges is a difference in their counting which is an absolute effect since it is independent on the speed of signals (it is again AT ZERO DISTANCE). It is also Lorentz Invariant quantity.
Time dilation here is observer dependent, it is due to "aberration of light", which is a pure relative effect, hence it is not a Lorentz invariant quantity..
That already gives you the hint that the version of the Lorentz Transformations provided by Einstein on which this mechanism is based is just wrong physically.
This is very telling.
Einstein is jumping up and down in the above bit of waffle, exclaiming that this proves his Special theory of Relativity.
Initially I thought-- oh, this looks like some solid proof at last, but, then you realise the proof for his addition of the velocities theorem--- the experimental proof, is -for light rays only.-
"and finally, the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage,.."
This makes perfect sense, of course, when you realise the Lorentz relations (upon which the proof is based) apply only to -light rays -. Not to rods, not to clocks and not to mass, (and not to material bodies moving along train carriages).
This is also true of the Minkowski scheme, it describes the corrections and offsets to light rays only. Which is something very remarkable. But the scope of this was extended without proper consideration by Einstein to include rods and clocks and masses. This is where it diverges from the actualities, shall we say, and, as we have found, it is not in accord with reality. It also leads to logical contradiction, as Dingle and others have pointed out.
Dear Professor Quattrini,
Thanks for your comment.
That's right, the Einstein Light Clock purports to demonstrate time-dilation.
I wasn't aware there were different versions of Lorentz transformations, -- I had heard vaguely there might have been one by Voigt.
Dear Gary Stephens
1) I don't think I've ever discussed/addressed the concept of "Relativity of Simultaneity". In my analysis of SR, I mostly refer to newer books and articles, such as are used at various universities in the teaching of SR.
2) "It was only much later he realized that moving and stationary clocks, due to the very interesting circumstance of Relative Motion, had to tick at the same rate."
The clocks in the two inertial reference systems must tick at the same rate due to the principle of relativity.
3) "Simply put, you can always say, -it is the other clock that is doing the moving."
This is not about "Relativity of Simultaneity".
Dear Gary Stephens
4) "So the Lorentz scheme applies to light -only-. The Minkowski scheme applies to light -only-. Not to time, not to space, and not to mass."
By "the Lorentz scheme" do you mean Lorentz transformations?
Lorentz transformations do NOT verify our reality therefore SR is nonsense!
5) The Minkowski scheme is pure mathematics, how do THEY verify our reality?
Dear Professor Slowak,
Thanks for your interesting comments.
Apropos 1.
I'm not sure if in the newer books and articles side-step this aspect, or just don't mention it. It is supposedly one of the key findings of Special Relativity.
I don't think it is too strong a statement to say, that without this "Relativity of Simultaneity" then all of Einstein's results (or the main ones I'm aware of) evapourate. This is because he used this to argue that the "time" in a moving system is not the same as the "time" in a stationary system. A A Robb, the "Euclid" of Relativity questioned this notion, he was uneasy about it. Anyhow, please confer here :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_misspeak_in_Einsteins_train_and_embankment_thought_experiment_as_described_by_Einstein_in_the_1952_edition_of_his_book
Apropos 2.
I think that is right, yes, if by "inertial" system, you mean one that you deem to be "stationary". So I suppose you could say in all "stationary" systems clocks tick at the same rate. I've always thought the word "inertial" as used in the text-books is apt to confuse. What does it mean? Nobody really knows. It sounds scientific though, that's the main thing.
Apropos 3.
That's right, I was talking here about Dingle's objection to do with moving clocks. But, I would argue, Dingle's objection is quite closely related (or even very closely related) to the "Relativity of Simultaneity."
Apropos 4. and 5.
The Lorentz and the Minkowski schemes are actually true-- in my opinion, but they only apply to light rays themselves. A A Robb arrived at the Minkowski scheme, starting before Einstein prior to 1905, via a different route, and produced very many fascinating theorems on light rays. (I say fascinating, I should really say impenetrable).
So I'm with you on impenetrable mathematical schemes,-- mathematics is often used to hide all sorts of nonsense. But in this case, there is (in my opinion) something in them, but only in relation to light.
(de Broglie used the Lorentz relations to come up with his "matter waves". Dirac used them also, so there is likely something, what exactly no one is sure, in them.)
Dear Gary Stephens
6) "The Lorentz and the Minkowski schemes are actually true"
Yes, they are correct from the point of view of mathematics. But they do not verify our reality. And then one shouldn't use them as an argument that SR is right.
If we have a tree in one glade and a tree in another glade then we can apply the formula 1 + 1 = 2.
But if there is one tree in the first glade and two trees in the second, then our formula 1 + 1 = 2 does not verify reality! That's how Lorentz transformations work! If you find an experiment that fits their description then they are OK otherwise not!
But one cannot find an experiment in which the length of the body contracts in the direction of the movement, because one only believes that it is so. One only interprets an incorrect experiment that length contraction is taking place.
7) Please comment on my article Special Relativity and Length Contraction if you find it worthwhile.
8) I'm not a professor, never have been. Address me only as Mr or only by name.
9) "mathematics is often used to hide all sorts of nonsense"
Therefore, one must prove with mathematical or logical arguments where the error lies. That is what I have done in all my research on SR.
10) "But in this case, there is (in my opinion) something in them, but only in relation to light."
I have analyzed so far only Lorentz transformations. So if you point to a concrete example where LT works together with the light, I will look at it and probably prove where the error lies.
Dear Slowak,
6). If you notice in the video at the head of this post you will find that the Lorentz relations (or one of them for time) comes directly out of the Einstein Light-Clock via the different distances D and L the light has to travel in the stationary and moving frames.
These difference distances come from the need for the reality to be kept consistent for the stationary and the moving observer. (For the ticks to be kept synchronous).
It's all to do with the extraordinary consequences that follow from properly looking into the idea of "Relative Motion".
We are so familiar with motion we think we understand it, but, it actually lies at the heart of our reality. It's the mystery hidden in plain sight, so to speak.
-------------------------------------------
Apropos : length contraction. I agree, I now understand this cannot be the case. I will post something to illustrate this in due course.
(The Lorentz and the Minkowski schemes only describe light, in the context of Relative Motion (in my opinion,)-- not rods, not clocks, and not mass.)
7). Thanks, I'll take a look.
10). Cf also
https://youtu.be/5QUe51d_22w?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61Zc3rR6wVM0kpsiyIq0fk8&t=559
Dear Gary Stephens
6) I am familiar with the light-clock. But everyone gives a wrong explanation of the light's path for a light signal in the light-clock. My counter argument: There is no logical explanation that in the case when the light-clock is in motion the light would go awry!
6.1) "These difference distances come from the need for the reality to be kept consistent for the stationary and the moving observer."
Sorry, but reality does not have "to be kept consistent" for some researchers to make one or another explanation for something they cannot explain!
6.2) "We are so familiar"
Who? Ordinary people? Yes, but scientists should draw a figure, should describe a mathematical model of the experiment. If you do this correctly, you should not be able to come to conclusions (to a theory) in which are paradoxes!
Dear Slowak,
6) " There is no logical explanation that in the case when the light-clock is in motion the light would go awry!"
I think this is a very interesting observation. Like you say, there doesn't seem to be a reason, -- a cause, if you like, for the light to go awry.
To my mind, the cause, is with the observers, mankind. They cause the light to go awry, so that the reality is kept consistent between the moving and stationary observers. Through the logic of Relative Motion, when applied, the rays simply have to make it to the same place on time, in order that the two observers witness the same reality. That is why the light goes "awry".
As a propagandist for official science Prof. Cox has little credibility as a scientist. Any serious discussion on what he says or writes in meaningless. In a currently running following Youtube video, Professor Brian Cox claims that there would be 10 km difference/error in position per day for GPS location, if Einstein’s relativity is not used to make a correction in the GPS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc
The engineers. H.F. Fliegel and R. S. DiEsposti of the GPS Joint Program Office of the Aerospace Corporation involved in the development of the GPS system back in 1997 in a published paper came to the following conclusion: “Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no ‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed”. : https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1997ptti.conf..189F
And on Lorentz Transforms?
The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
Dear Professor Malek,
Thank you for your post. The engineers. H.F. Fliegel and R. S. DiEsposti do mention the γ [gamma] factor.
I take this to mean the Lorentz factor or Lorentz relation (which also forms the basis of the Minkowski scheme). This is fine, but all it means is the light progresses at a faster or slower rate in the same time, resulting in a greater or shorter optical length, in order to keep the events consistent among the, say, stationary and moving systems. It's a consequence of the logic of Relative Motion. (As exemplified in the Einstein Light Clock case).
But this is not Einstein's theory. His theory says that space and time are altered. That moving rods contract, that traveling clocks run slow, that journeying masses augment.
So it's not a verification of Einstein's theory. Confer also on page 4, above, my post "This is very telling."
Dear Gary Stephens
6) "To my mind, the cause, is with the observers, mankind."
A ray of light, reality, is 100% independent of one or more observers.
To say otherwise is nonsense!
Gary Stephens : As I have demonstrated in my publication cited above, the Lorentz Transforms are nothing but artificial mental/mathematical constructs; with the sole idea of making the velocity of light c as an invariable, absolute and axiomatic truth. These and Einstein's theories of relativity have no relevance to objective reality, hence meaningless for physics. If you are interested to know my position on these issues. please see my latest comment in the following RG forum:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_denying_Einstein_special_and_general_relativity_be_blocked4/112
The greater or shorter optical lengths can be seen as occurring here (above). My feeling is, there is something odd going on here, but it is with the light. Not with the space nor with the time (why should these be altered?) The proof of this is that we appear to have an Absolute character to Simultaneity, and not the "Relativity of Simultaneity" as Einstein thought.
Article The incompatibility of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity...
Gary Stephens ,
first of all there are two competing theories that use Lorentz Transformations (LT)
Lorentz Electrodynamics and Special Relativity (SR). A lot of attention though, the LT are not exactly the same in the two cases...
if you apply the SR version where t'= γ(t -vx/c2), and x'=γ(x -vt)
as also pointed out in that paper you referenced, there are violations of physical foundation laws.
By using the Doppler formula derived from LT, in a configuration with light waves exchanged between equivalent inertial frames, it is not so hard to show that the system allows a Perpetuum mobile.
That completely disrupts one of the main predictions of Einstein LT : Longitudinal Doppler effect.
LE starts instead with the following t' = ɣ-1 t - vx' /c2 where x'=γ(x -vt) mathematically equivalent to the previous that is why most of people did not bother about differences Article Poincar\'e, the Dynamics of the Electron, and Relativity
Nevertheless physically they are quite different considering that v is for Lorentz the speed in the preferred frame where light propagates assumed isotropic while in other non-accelerated frames SOL is not isotropic. In other words vx' /c2 has nothing to do with relativity of simultaneity but it is simply an additional light-time necessary to arrive at the observer in motion.
For that reason the following t' = ɣ-1 t - vx' /c2 cannot be a coordinate time as it should be in SR. The Doppler effect does not occur between equivalent inertial frames but between the preferred one and an object which is in general non-inertial so that the Doppler formula makes sense as a non attainable limit.
If, in the above, the light ray from the bottom figure has not -really- reached the right end of the carriage, when the left one has, --if this isn't something apparent-- but something real (as this wiki diagram purports,) for this observer, then why can't a mirror be tilted into place (very quickly) above the right-hand wheel of the carriage, diverting this ray before it reaches the end of the carriage?
In which case, for the bottom figure, with a firecracker placed at each end of the carriage-- the left firecracker would have fired, but the right would not have fired, by the time the mirror was tilted into place, meaning the right firecracker would never fire.
Of course, in the top figure, both firecrackers have fired. (At least according to the diagram).
(Remember the top and bottom figures purport to show the -actual- or -real- location of the rays-- not the -apparent- location, --- don't they?)
So, again we are left with two realities.
Who can resolve the above dilemma?
Cf. also
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376140283_On_the_incompatibility_of_Einstein's_relativity_of_simultaneity_with_Newton's_laws_of_motion
What actually happens, is, for the bottom diagram, the light rays always emanate from the middle of the carriage-- but proceed at different rates to the left and right ends. So that the man on the embankment perceives the rays arriving to the left end first, and then to the right, but this is due to the location of the observer -- he is nearer the left end than the right. Compensating for this, the rays actually arrive simultaneously to the ends of the carriage.
The situation is merely the time-reverse of Norton's animations, in which he correctly has the rays always together at the middle of the carriage, for both observers. Cf. a 1/4 way down the page under the text :
"Nonetheless, the two signals arrive at the midpoint at the same moment."
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html
If you consider this animation but reverse the flow of time (the light rays emanate from the middle, instead of converge) then you can see what actually occurs.
Although the rays appear to arrive to the left end first-- this is merely a perspective effect, due to the distance the observer is from these respective ends. In fact the rays arrives simultaneously to the ends of the carriage for both observers.
This whole arrangement can be rearranged so as to be viewed from the perspective of the man on the carriage. In which case he would see the rays proceeding at different rates along the platform--- ie. arriving one before the other to the ends-- but compensating for this perspective effect, the rays do actually arrive simultaneously at each end of the platform, and simultaneously at each end of the carriage.
Ironically, Norton got his animations right --- they are at variance to what Einstein says in his AE train-embankment experiment. But still Norton thought he was describing "The Relativity of Simultaneity" -- when, in actual fact he was describing an "Absolute character to Simultaneity".
Simply put, there is no "Relativity of Simultaneity".
Gary Stephens ,
in short, the light beams will not go sideways irrespective of the speed of the emitter. The light will not bounce at the same point in the wagon since there is just one isotropic frame for each physical problem, not many.
Gary Stephens Stefano Quattrini
You seem to have different opinions about these thought experiments. We can denote your statements as O(GS) and O(SQ). If your positions are opposite, then O(GS) = true and O(SQ) = false. It is unimportant in my reasoning which is true and which is false. You continue to discuss this endlessly (as people do in other threads).
You are both researchers/physicists so you should both be able to come to the same conclusion. This applies to everyone who discusses SR.
Why is it like that?
My position regarding thought experiments with light signals is as follows: the light moves independently if there are any observers --> you should then consider the light's path as it happens in reality and not as an observer perceives it. Because an observer can NOT actually observe how the light propagates, you do NOT have time to see anything! That's how it is!
Therefore, in the case of the vertical light clock, the light signal does NOT move obliquely! Point!
Yes, that is it, provided that in the LAB SOL is isotropic. The observer in the wagon might consider that light moves obliquely, noticing, with the help of high precision measurement, that emitting at 90 degrees the absorption will not occur in the relevant point set at 90 degrees but a bit backward.
"Because an observer can NOT actually observe how the light propagates, you do NOT have time to see anything!"
That's true, and an interesting observation.
What the observers do observe are the events. For example in the Michelson Morley experiment this would be the interference fringes between the light rays upon their reunion, proving they arrive back simultaneously.
These events are always absolute (and not relative) between the observers. Both moving and stationary observers witness these events to occur. Light moves to accommodate this.
Our understanding of light is occupied by the particle thinking and by the use of the concept rays, since rays do not exist in physics. Instead rays are just the normal to a wave front and this wave front is all that exists in physics.
With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
Apropos wiki figures, above.
It's actually the top figure that shows both frames in the one picture, -- to illustrate this, two posts either side of the breadth could have been included.
The bottom figure shows the view going between frames-- from a stationary to a moving frame (from one aspect.) Always, in such cases, we have different optical lengths, as for example in the Einstein Light-Clock. (Or for that matter the Michelson-Morley experiment). (Or Norton's animations.)
This is the clue (or one of them) that tells you these wiki figures are in error ; the optical lengths are the same, in the moving and stationary frames.
Stefano Quattrini
1) "Yes, that is it, provided that in the LAB SOL is isotropic"
What do you mean with LAB SOL? But regardless of what it is, we assume it is isotropic when we talk about SR.
2) "with the help of high precision measurement"
We don't need to do any high precision measurements, we're talking about thought experiments so we can imagine how it works! If we think right!
3) "that emitting at 90 degrees the absorption will not occur in the relevant point set at 90 degrees"
What absorption?
4) "but a bit backward"
Yes, the reflected light signal hits the floor behind the point where it hit when the light clock was stationary.
But this happens because during the time the light signal moves on the floor-ceiling-floor path, the light clock moves forward a bit!
If we mark half of this distance with x then we can calculate the speed of the light clock in space as v = xc/L, where L is the distance between the floor and the ceiling. (Published and explained in the book Special relativity is Nonsense, 2019)
Gary Stephens
5) "What the observers do observe are the events. For example in the Michelson Morley experiment"
There are no observers in the MME, the only thing observed is interference fringes.
6) "Both moving and stationary observers witness these events to occur"
There are no events in MME. They are only in the model that was described, but otherwise you can only observe the fringes and how they look.
7) "Light moves to accommodate this."
One can't say that!
Jan Slowak
yes due to its postulates.
Yes, because the LAB is a local preferred frame..
Preprint Animadversions upon the wiki figure purporting to demonstrat...
Stefano Quattrini
1.1 "yes due to its postulates"
Of course, SR has its postulates and when we talk about SR, these apply (we assume they are true).
4.1 "Yes, because the LAB is a local preferred frame.."
Please write what LAB SOL is so I understand you correctly.
5) "a local preferred frame"
What do you mean with 'preferred'?
Jan Slowak ,
Yes, for me they are not corroborated by facts, only Lorentz Electrodynamics describes Nature appropriately.
Speed of light in the LAB
preferred is a frame where SOL is isotropic.
I've just received this book in the post.
How likely is it, that I would come to exactly the same conclusion, totally independently, over the space of about a year? to someone whom I'd never met, never heard of? and never read any writings of?
And no he is not a lunatic ; he was a member of the Swedish Academy of Science--- the one that distributes the Nobel Prizes.
(I say exactly-- he thought the applicability of the Lorentz and Minkowski schemes was unknown. I say they apply to light rays only)
The only difference is, perhaps, I have dumbed-it-down, and made it more obvious, ----unanswerable even, with the tilting-mirror and firecrackers experiment.
As Nordenson says... by Einstein's own reasonings-- we arrive at the result that the rays always arrive simultaneously to the middle of the carriage, -for both observers- : "mid-point co-observed in the moving system (the train)"
ie. There is an Absolute, not relative, character to Simultaneity. t = t'. And we are back to Newton.
Gary Stephens
1) "How likely is it, that I would come to exactly the same conclusion, totally independently, over the space of about a year? to someone whom I'd never met, never heard of? and never read any writings of?"
If you think like someone else, you will probably come to the same conclusions. The question is whether you think in the right way.
2) "he was a member of the Swedish Academy of Science"
It does not matter. What matters is how physically, mathematically and logically correct the person's thoughts are.
3) "I say exactly-- he thought the applicability of the Lorentz and Minkowski schemes was unknown. I say they apply to light rays only"
It is not clear what comes from the book and what are your comments.
4) "As Nordenson says... by Einstein's own reasonings-- we arrive at the result that the rays always arrive simultaneously to the middle of the carriage, -for both observers"
It is completely wrong. "the rays always arrive simultaneously to the middle of the carriage" only if the reference system is at absolute rest in the direction of movement! Check out my figures from the book Light - the absolute reference in the universe.
Gary Stephens
Enclosing figures from my book: Bilder.odg
Please read my analysis of the book An Illustrated Guide to Relativity
by Tatsu Takeuchi, Virginia Tech
Dear Professor Slowak,
You will have to explain to me--- (considering Professor Kılıç's approach) :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let two small rockets be positioned at either end of the carriage, pointing out along the tracks, in opposite directions.
Let these rockets be fired upon the arrival of the light rays.
In the top figure, for the observer on the train, both rockets would fire simultaneously, and the moving train would not suffer a jolt.
In the bottom figure, the left rocket would fire first, followed by the right rocket, some time later, when this right-ray reached the end of the carriage.
So this observer would see the carriage jolt to the right first, and followed by a jolt to the left, at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will have to explain to me how that makes any sense? Are you cool with "two realities" -- one reality (no jolts) for one observer, and another reality (jolts) for the other observer?
Article The incompatibility of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity...
Gary Stephens
5) "You will have to explain to me"
I can do that but you haven't said anything at all about my post. I have attached pictures.pdf where there are several thought experiments analyzed.
T1) The Carriage is at rest (the first two figures from page 2)
T2) The Carriage moves to the right of the picture (the last two pictures on page 2)
T3) The Carriage moves to the left of the picture (the first two pictures on page 3)
In my figures there are no observers. I hope that a scientist who has studied SR can sit in these figures without further explanations and see what happens. What I show is the position of the carriage at two different times: when the light signal from left/right reaches the mit of the carriage.
I show the carriage in the reference system of the light signal, from there the title of my book: Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe.
6) "In the bottom figure, the left rocket would fire first, followed by the right rocket, some time later, when this right-ray reached the end of the carriage."
It is right and there is no length contraction. See my article Special Relativity: Comments on the book An Illustrated Guide to Relativity by Tatsu Takeuchi, Virginia Tech
Dear Professor Slowak,
Your analysis looks similar to the beginning stages they use in the derivation of the Lorentz relations, where light is treated classically, (according to the old concept of Newtonian time). The stage before they introduce the gamma factor.
Cf. https://youtu.be/pHfFSQ6pLGU?t=3071
The thing is, after they get the Lorentz relations, they then have the correct behaviour of light. And we have no Relativity of Simultaneity. Classically also distant events are simultaneous, in the Newtonian sense.
Space and time (rods and clocks) have an Absolute character. t = t', and we are back to Newton after this process of finding the correct behaviour of light.
This means that your "Classical" or "Absolute" considerations only apply to material bodies, and not to light rays. The light does behave oddly, as evidenced in the Michelson Morley experiment, and the Einstein Light-Clock. So the Lorentz relations and the Minkowski schemes are valid for light rays only.
Beg pardon. I correctly myself above.
Dear Professor Slowak,
Beg pardon. I corrected myself above. I haven't really thought about your analysis. But I think what I have said above is correct, as far as I can gather.
Again this evidences the unusual behaviour of light, -- this behaviour being always directed to one aim : that the rays make it back simultaneously.
This occurs in the Michelson Morley experiment, the Einstein Light-Clock, and in the above exploding shell theorem by A A Robb.
It is likely (isn't it?,) that this simultaneous character also pertains to the AE train-embankment experiment, and its reverse, discussed in the note. Why would they be any different?
Dear Gary Stephens
7) "Your analysis looks similar to the beginning stages they use in the derivation of the Lorentz relations, where light is treated classically, (according to the old concept of Newtonian time)"
In my analysis of various thought experiments with light, I do not use either Newton's, Einstein's or anyone else's model, but I follow my own logic.
8) "Space and time (rods and clocks) have an Absolute character."
When talking about thought experiments involving light signals, it is complete nonsense to talk about measuring sticks and clocks. There is no way for an observer to use them!
9) "The light does behave oddly, as evidenced in the Michelson Morley experiment, and the Einstein Light-Clock."
Light does NOT behave oddly!
MM experiments are no proof of anything, the interferometer they used was not suitable for determining the speed of the Earth.
Einstein's Light-Clock: you use it wrong, the light does not zig-zag! I have explained this in my own question.
10) "So the Lorentz relations and the Minkowski schemes are valid for light rays only."
Lorentz transformations do NOT verify our reality, nor does Minkowski's model. I have demonstrated this about LT. If you say that LT applies only to the light, then you should say that SR is nonsense because LT is the basis of the entire SR!
11) Please just call me by my name or Mr. + name. Tanks.
Since most of Special Relativity consists of theorems about light rays, that can be retained. In particular A. A. Robb's treatises upon the subject-- his many theorems upon light rays can be kept. The Lorentz and the Minkowski schemes or systems can be kept with the proviso they are to be understood as applying to light rays only.
The parts of Special Relativity to do with material bodies, ie rods and clocks, (like mass has already been, by Einstein in 1948) -- should be abandoned.
It looks like all the mathematical apparatus of General Relativity-- since it is dependent upon the new Einstein time concept, and is supposed to be applicable to material bodies, planets, black holes &c. will have to be abandoned too. There is no warping of space and time. These have an Absolute character (t = t').
That's a whole load of mathematical hot-air.
On this new understanding, it is probable that the below really are superluminal objects (notwithstanding the bending over backwards to say they are not) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion
12) "The Lorentz and the Minkowski schemes or systems can be kept with the proviso they are to be understood as applying to light rays only."
You cannot work with light rays without using a reference system (material bodies). Then the whole SR is nonsense. Do you agree with me on this?
Dear Slowak,
Nordenson thought the whole of it was nonsense, but then he had trouble explaining away the optical results, like the Michelson Morley experiment.
However he was correct to say we didn't understand how light behaves-- that was totally correct. I only differ from him, in that I think the odd behaviour of light is just so we don't have any alteration of space and time. Light works around the Absolute character to our space and time, t = t'.
This does mean most of Special Relativity as the publick understands it is gone. And I would say all of General Relativity.
Dear Gary Stephens
13) "Nordenson thought the whole of it was nonsense ..."
After all, if so many people believed/believe that SR is wrong/nonsense, how is it possible that this theory is still taught in various universities around the world?
14) "... he had trouble explaining away the optical results, like the Michelson Morley experiment"
I have an analysis of MME in my book Special Relativity is Nonsense. I got the same result as them though on the theoretical route. This means that my model and analysis is correct.
15) "However he was correct to say we didn't understand how light behaves"
I believe that the property of light, the one used in SR, is quite clear. There are no oddities there.
Contrary to what Pauli says in the above passage, due to the peculiarities of Relative Motion, each observer sees the -same sphere- from different perspectives or aspects. And each observer can only be in one place at a time.
In Norton's animations (or Fig. 2 (time-reversed) above,) by applying the logic of Relative Motion one notices that the observer sees only one sphere-- one set of light rays, but from two different perspectives. When this is rearranged, the other observer-- the "new stationary" one, sees likewise, the converse. ie. the same sphere from the converse perspective or aspect. This follows from the logic of Relative Motion : each observer can claim it is the other one that is "doing the moving".
The cursory treatment of the "Relativity of Simultaneity" by Pauli, in the above tract, neglecting the logic of Relative Motion, leads to a situation in which we have "two realities" as illustrated above in the tilting mirror and firecrackers experiment, or in Kılıç's observation, sketched in Scholium II, above.
It's the two -different aspects- that give rise to the Lorentz relations, which describe how the light rays behave in the "moving" frame, from the perspective of the "stationary" frame--- the frame the observer is in.
This reality is only consistent if we have an Absolute character to Simultaneity, and an Absolute character to breadth, (t=t'), (x=x'). The Lorentz relations (which apply to light-rays only) describe this circumstance.
This is why these Lorentz relations (these corrections and offsets for light rays) correctly illustrate both the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the Einstein Light-Clock case, in which the "Relativity of Simultaneity" is conspicuous by its absence.
Cf.
Preprint Animadversions upon the wiki figure purporting to demonstrat...
The simplest proof that the above wiki diagram purporting to demonstrate the "Relativity of Simultaneity" is in error, is to simply reverse the flow of time.
ie. the rays are converging inwards instead of emanating outwards.
We then find, in the top figure, the rays arrive to the middle of the carriage simultaneously (at t=2).
But in the bottom figure, the rays arrive to the middle of the carriage "one after the other" (at t=2) –-- the rays arrive simultaneously off-middle.
So we have "two realities" at a very definite place : the middle of the carriage.
Preprint Further Animadversion upon the wiki figure purporting to dem...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_General_Relativity_now_be_considered_an_established_fiction_What_about_Silbersteins_objection3
The whole argument of Special Relativity is contained in the contradiction :
c + v = c
and is resolved by the logic of Relative Motion, so we can write
c + v - v = c
meaning each observer can always say, it "is the other one that is doing the moving".
This in turn means each observer is viewing the same breadth, and each observer is viewing the same events (the arrival of the light rays) that take place say, at the ends, or the middle, of this breadth.
This means we have an Absolute character to breadth (x = x') and an Absolute character to time (t = t').
(The Lorentz relations describe the offsets and corrections light must undergo in order that the above is kept true when an observer is in one frame viewing the light rays in the other frame.)
One other thing to note, is that the reason why we can posit the notion of whether Simultaneity is dislocated or not, ---(it's not,) is because of the peculiar character of light-- and light only : that is, it can exist in more than one frame. This is connected, I believe with the fact that light "has no rest frame".
This is not true for material bodies, and so the dislocation of Simultaneity cannot actually be demonstrated with these-- material bodies cannot span frames. They can only exist in one.
This is why we can have different optical lengths, as exemplified by the Einstein-Light Clock or the Michelson Morley experiment cases, but no such different traversed lengths exist for material bodies. They (these material bodies) can only exist in one frame.
Dear Gary Stephens
16) "c + v = c
and is resolved by the logic of Relative Motion, so we can write
c + v - v = c"
a) If you have 'c + v = c' --> v = 0. You can't mess with the math!
b) How do you go from 'c + v = c' to 'c + v - v = c' ? Why add -v?
c) If v = 0 then we have within SR two reference systems which are stationary relative to each other. Then SR is not needed.
17) Regarding the article written by Georg von Gleich: In my work but SR I also usually write that SR is primarily a mathematical construct and that Lorentz Transformations, LT, do NOT verify our reality.
18) "They (these material bodies) can only exist in one frame."
I don't know if I understand you correctly here, what you mean by this.
A material body or a light signal exists only in one copy in reality. But there can be many reference systems that refer to the body or the signal.
Dear Slowak,
In repect to (18). I will post some extracts, one from Dingle (if I recall aright) one from Nordenson, which appear to give some insight on this point, in due course.
It is plain to me now, that neither Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski, Poincare, &c. &c. nor any of the rest of them, had the faintest idea what the Lorentz relations, and its adjunct, the Minkowski scheme, meant.
The proof of it lies here :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Einsteins_Light-Clock_discussed_here_by_Professor_Cox_actually_demonstrate_the_reserve_conclusion_to_what_is_propounded
You will notice that the optical lengths in the moving and stationary frames are different. You will also notice that the reason they are different is so that the light rays in the moving and stationary systems make it to the same place "on time" ---simultaneously. They have to-- or we end up with "two realities". This all emerges out of the logic of Relative Motion.
(Professor Klute-- in a post on one of my threads derives the Lorentz relations directly from these different optical lengths-- essentially by Pythagoras' theorem.)
A similar circumstance appears in Michelson Morley experiment-- and treatment thereof. Again the Lorentz relations are obtained (or applied) such that the light rays arrive to the same place, at the same time.
Very plainly the Lorentz and Minkowski schemes describe the offsets and corrections to light rays only, such that there is no Relativity of Simultaneity.
That's what they mean.
This is why these Lorentz relations are absent from the Einstein train-embankment experiment, and not mentioned in connexion with the wiki figure purporting to demonstrate the "Relativity of Simultaneity".
You could say the Lorentz Relations and the Minkowski scheme -disprove- the Relativity of Simultaneity. That's what the relation ds = 0 means. It means the rays make it to the same place, at the same time, in both systems. There is no dislocation of simultaneity. This is how the light behaves.
If you deny it, you will have to explain to me why the Relativity of Simultaneity is absent, in any circumstance in which we have a description of the experimental setup in terms of the Lorentz and Minkowski schemes. ie. in the cases of the Einstein Light-Clock, and the Michelson Morley experiment.
Feynman, in his Lectures on Physics, treats the Michelson Morley experiment and the Einstein Light Clock, one after the other, using the Lorentz relations, evidently not having the foggiest idea what it all means-- what he was staring at. If he had, he would have realised the Relativity of Simultaneity was untenable-- & actually precluded by the Lorentz and Minkowski schemes. And he would have realised that the Einstein train-embankment experiment, in which dislocated Simultaneity for light rays is posited by Einstein, had to be in error.
He didn't because he thought, somehow, that the Lorentz and Minkowski schemes, described the new concept "space-time," when in fact they merely describe the offsets and corrections light must undergo in order that we have an Absolute character to Simultaneity with (t = t') and an Absolute character to breadth with (x = x').
The very existence of the Lorentz and the Minkowski schemes precludes "The Relativity of Simultaneity" for light rays.
------------------------------------------------
It is also clear now, why the Relativity of Simultaneity is bound to lead to contradictions, as sketched here :
Preprint Further Animadversion upon the wiki figure purporting to dem...
Preprint Animadversions upon the wiki figure purporting to demonstrat...
Article The incompatibility of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity...
Dear Gary Stephens
It is good that you cite various previous works on concepts regarding SR. When I do, I usually show what fits my logic, otherwise I show what's wrong with them.
19) "You will notice that the optical lengths in the moving and stationary frames are different."
The light signal is independent of any reference system. During a time t, it passes a distance which is the same for all reference systems. This is reality! I am attaching the file Figures-02.pdf.
Dear Dear Slowak,
I would agree with you, if light behaved like all other material particles, in which, as you rightly say, we have x = vt.
Dear Gary Stephens
Check Fig.2: the distance between S and S' is vt = vt'. --> t = t'. This says it all!
1. Here is a very important point regarding the AE train embankment experiment.
To my mind, material bodies can only exist in one frame. They can either be on the train or on the platform.
That's why they can't have different optical lengths. (They're not optical for a start). --- continued below
Dear Gary Stephens
20) You have not answered my question regarding the distance between S and S' in Fig. 02 in the file Figures-02.pdf which I attached earlier.
21) The discussion here on RG should be primarily between me and you. We will get nowhere if you constantly refer to what others have said. We both know what the basics of SR are so we should be able to reason ourselves too. Of course, you should be able to quote others as well, but then it will be the same thing that was going on back then in 1905! We will step on the same spot all the time.
22) Please answer my question 20) and you are welcome to encourage others to do so. I would like to know what people say about this.
23) "To my mind, material bodies can only exist in one frame"
An event, E, a physical body, emergence of a light signal, exists in reality at a point in space and time, we denote these values by E(x, t). However, there can be many different reference systems from which to refer to this event:
In S1 these values become E1(x1, t1).
In S2 these values become E2(x2, t2) ... and so on.
If we draw a line between S1 and S2 and S2 is at a distance of 5 from S1, then the coordinates of the event are as follows:
E1(x1, t1), E2(x2, t2) = E2(x1-5, t2) and t1 = t2 due 20).
Dear Slowak,
I thought I answered your question quite comprehensively by posting that tract by Nordenson. But very briefly, yes I agree with you completely for material bodies we have : "Check Fig.2: the distance between S and S' is vt = vt'. --> t = t'. This says it all!" ie. --- classical time (t = t'). These are my conclusions too. We have an Absolute character to time ("now" at distant points is exactly as we understand it -- to be the same moment). This was also Nordenson's conclusion.
Dear Gary Stephens
24) "I agree with you completely for material bodies we have"
Glad you agree with me! Then we can proceed with the reasoning. Within SR, one always talks, in all thought experiments, about two inertial reference systems. These reference systems are physical bodies. Then it always holds that we have t = t'.
What does it matter if you send a light signal here and there? Shining a flashlight can NOT affect the time between these two reference systems!
25) "classical time (t = t')"
There is only ONE TIME! The fact that we name it in different ways should not affect how it is measured.
It is often forgotten (it is always forgotten) that the "metric" as they style it, --I suppose because it puts one in mind of "space," -- is nothing more than an expanding sphere of light.
--- It represents light rays only. Cf above.
The mistake von Laue makes, -- and Pauli makes the same error, as outlined in "Animadversions.." is that there are not "two spheres," -- only one.
When the two origins are coincident, -- the axes traveling past each other, a sphere begins to grow.
From the logic of Relative Motion, either we have an observer moving to the left looking askance at the growing sphere, or we have an observer moving to the right looking askance at the growing sphere.
The Lorentz transform then describes how they see the light behave in its trajectory along the x-axis, from their perspective.
The reason time and breadth are Absolute, is because both observers are looking at the -same breadth-, and the same events that occur along (or at the ends,) of that same breadth.
This in turn, is the reason there is no "Relativity of Simultaneity".
26) "The mistake von Laue makes, -- and Pauli makes the same error, as outlined in "Animadversions.." is that there are not "two spheres," -- only one."
Yes, exactly! Why draw the second sphere at all? Because we will only treat the light signal that emanated from A. The other sphere do not exist in reality, therefore the rest of their reasoning is pure nonsense!
27) I believe there is no point in talking about "Relativity of Simultaneity" if the mathematical model in their thought experiment is wrong.
Two observers will have different perceptions of the place and time of an event and this depends on their distance and movement relative to the point where the event occurs. There is nothing strange about it and to calculate the parameters of the event no SR is needed. It can be fixed just fine with ordinary classical physics.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Organizational Psychology
- Training