According to special relativity (SR), the relative velocity between two inertial reference frames (IRF), say two spaceships, is calculated by
u=(v1-v2) /(1-v1v2/c2) (1)
Where v1and v2 are constant velocities of the two vessels moving in parallel to each other.
For low speeds v1v2/c2 is negligible and the formula is reduced to
u=v1-v2
But neither v1 nor v2 is supposed to be known in SR. Both can have any value between -c and +c as illustrated in Figure 1 (please see the attached file).
Not knowing the speed of each vessel means that the calculated relative speed can also be any value between -c and +c. For example:
v1= - 0.6c v2 = - c ̀ ==> u= -c (possibility 5 in Figure 1)
v1= 0 v2 = - 0.4c ==> u= -c/2.5 (possibility 2)
v1= 0.2c v2 = - 0.2c ̀ ==> u= c/2.6 (possibility 3)
v1= 0.4c v2 = 0 ==> u= c/2.5 (possibility 1)
v1= c v2 = 0.6c ==> u= c (possibility 4)
Meaning that the real relative speed between two IRFs in fact cannot be calculated.
To remedy this situation, it is assumed that:
1. One of the vessels in which observer number one, Bob, resides is stationary and the other vessel, Alice, is moving at the relative speed of u.
This is, obviously, a wrong scientific statement and in contrast to SR. Here only one specific possibility among countless possibilities is arbitrarily selected to hide the difficult situation. We should also remind ourselves of the damaging effect of this type of assumptions. Scientists tried hard to discard the dominating geocentric dogma of the past, championed by the Catholic Church, and now a comparable assumption is accepted under a new groundbreakingly concept.
Based on this assumption, the equation is simply reducing to either u= -v2 or u=v1, depending on the observer.
2. There is a third reference frame based on which the speeds are measured.
Like the first cases we are back to Newtonian mechanics, an assumed fixed reference frame. This assumption explicitly accepts the first assumption. Only then, the formula makes sense. Specifically, to be able to present SR as a scientific/quantitative theory it is forced to accept that the frame of the observer or a third frame is a stationary reference frame for any measurement or analysis. Zero speed is just a convenient value between countless other possibilities which SR has introduced and then has decided not to deal with the consequences.
The problem with Einstein velocity addition formula also applies in this case as the assumed velocities as well as the calculated relative velocity between Bob and Alice depends on the relative speed of the observer.
Somehow, both conflicting cases are accepted in SR quite subjectively. In other words, SR is arbitrarily benefiting from classical science, to push its own undeserved credibility, while at the same time denying it.
Is this a fair assessment?
P.S. for simplicity only parallel movements are considered.
Ziaedin Shafiei :
In terms of rapidity variables, vi = c tanh ηi , Lorentz boosts act by translation: ηi → ηi + ψ. Relative velocity (speed, rather), given as u = c |tanh(η1-η2)|, is therefore Lorenz invariant. You get different results because your velocity pairs do not correspond to the same physical situation viewed from different Lorentz frames.
The same is true for full three-dimensional motion. Relative speed is a Lorentz invariant, which can be used to define a metric on relativistic velocity space, thereby making it mathematically identical to (3-dimensional) Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space.
Ziaedin Shafiei: "Somehow, both conflicting cases are accepted in SR quite subjectively. ... Is this a fair assessment?"
Hmmm ... how can I say this tactfully ... it will not help your legacy ;-D (to paraphrase a recent elect).
Suppose that under SR, we have two specific inertial frames F1 and F2 (identified by at least one mass that is stationary wrt a frame).
The velocity-addition formula, used in reverse, can break the velocity-difference into an arbitrary range of component velocities.
Or we can use an arbitrary third reference frame (F3) and use it to assign any subluminal velocity to F1, and then get different nominal velocities for F2 w.r.t. F1, as seen from F3.
However, no matter how we add or subtract velocities, or split or compound them, the SR relationships conspire to make it so that a signal emitted by a body in F1 always (somehow) ends up being received by a body in F2 with precisely the same properties. All those funny compound Doppler shifts and angular aberrations, when multiplied together, will always give the same physical outcome. If we take that final SR outcome for signals exchanged between F1 and F2, it only corresponds to one velocity value, and that's the value that SR assigns to the relative velocity of F1 and F2.
----
Most people don't realise that C19th Newtonian theory //also// has a special velocity-addition formula, so that large velocities also don't add simply under NM.
The main difference between the two systems (other than the fact that the Doppler relationships and v.a.f's are different) is that in the Newtonian system, the "effective" relative velocity of a body, as v/c, is altered by the properties of the signal path, because intermediate objects in the path, and how they move, are assumed to alter the behaviour of light.
In the SR system, the presence and motion of intermediate masses is assumed to have no effect at all on light (despite refractive index and the the Fizeau result), and the SR velocity-addition behaviour is therefore treated as a structural attribute of spacetime itself.
So under SR, if you look at a body receding at 0.5c, you see a given shift, you can then invent an intermediate frame, claim that the two smaller velocities are each greater than 0.25c, calculate the two Doppler sub-shifts, multiply them together, and get exactly the same physical prediction as before.
Under NM, the final shift seen depends on how masses move int he signal stream.
As usual, the mathematicians make nice formulas but, they don't understand any physics!
JES
Locally we have the same formula in GR. I think your conclusions are wrong, because you define speed like YOU want, not how it must be in discussed formula. Length and velocity must be measured with the help of clocks and light sources. Then you will find, that formula is correct (also in general case of non parallel movement).
It has been demonstrated that there is a reference system, (for particles associated wave) surrounding all major masses (planets, suns, galaxies...),
so the relativity theory is right, but only within e specific reference system!
"https://daontheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pro.pdf"
JES
Dear Kåre Olaussen
KO - “You get different results because your velocity pairs do not correspond to the same physical situation viewed from different Lorentz frames.”
This statement is not true. Here we discuss the simplest possible case which is used by physicist to construct special relativity; two frames drifting from each other with a constant speed u. We are told that the observer in frame 1 sees frame 2 is going away with the speed of u and the observer in frame 2 sees frame 1 is moving away with the speed of -u. Meaning that u is the same for both observers and is calculated in Newtonian mechanics.
If according to SR the speed of each frame is not known then it is false to assume any value, including zero, for them. The formula thus does not make sense if we do not know individual speeds. Relativistic physicists are only able to do so by continuously switching between Newtonian mechanics and SR at will or assuming a convenient specific set of values.
Stellan Gustafsson , do you consider electron as particle to speak about it's speed? Here we discussed many times, that if you works with plain wave, associate with electron (what is nature of this wave?), then you must consider all infinite space-time or wave will not be plain. And what about black holes? There definitely will not be frame near it.
Dear Eric Baird
I do not know why we need mass here.
I simply say if we claim that we do not know something then it is false to immediately claim we know it. SR says we do not know the speed of any frame. Then produces a formula which is based on knowing the same quantities. I tried to show that the formula only works if
- we assume a convenient values
and
- retreat to Newtonian mechanics at some points
Dear Eugene Prokhorenko
The LEP experiments have shown that the electron is a sphere without any substructure. The associated wave of an electron must therefore come from a transverse oscillation. I suggest you read the small paper indicated in the previous post.
Black holes pull their reference frame around them, its a completely (and more complex) situation.
JES
It is really difficult for me to understand why something which is so clear turns to be so unclear to someone.
SR is a kinematic theory based on "relativity" of motion, which intrinsecally requires the use of "reference frames" as a key concept.
The speed composition equation is to be interpreted as follows (using your examples):
all the speed variables are intrinsecally defined with respect to one "observer" or another, who have the tools to measure lengths and time durations by "their own point of view".
Therefore, v1 and v2 in the above equations are the speed of Bob and Alice as "measured by me", that is by the observer that measure such two quantities. Instead, u is the speed of Alice "as measured by Bob". The speed composition formula simply says that relative speed of Bob with respect to Aòlice "as measured by me" differs from the number u by a factor which accounts for the relativistic Lorentz correction due to possible high values of v1/c, v2/c or even just one of the two. And there is no point in claiming for me to be a specific reference frame, because I, the observer, consider myself as in quiet with respect to my own reference frame (in my space and time axes, my speed is obviously 0), and this does not involve any lack of generality. To consider me in motion there should be another inertial observer F4 who looks at me and says to me: hey F3, I see you are moving "while I'am in quiet!
I'm sure I have been clear enaugh, but I am also almost sure that there always be people who would prefer to keep raising doubts.
Dear @Stellan Gustafsson, I read classical works, showing that any classical electron model give you singularity. Mix classical and QM is also bad idea. As for mentioned article, it's hard to understand not standard concepts.
Dear all,
the article "https://daontheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pro.pdf"
simply demonstrates that the velocity of an electron can be correctly calculated only in the reference system of the laboratory. That is, any non-relativistic observer will, using the Louis de Broglie relation (mv lambda=h), find different velocities of the electron. This is non-relativistic, so since the relativity theory says that all laws of physics must remain the same in all reference systems, we have here a demonstration that the special relativity theory is wrong. It follows that also GR is wrong.
JES
Dear Giuseppe Curro
GC "It is really difficult for me to understand why something which is so clear turns to be so unclear to someone. …
I, the observer, consider myself as in quiet with respect to my own reference frame (in my space and time axes, my speed is obviously 0), and this does not involve any lack of generality.
… I'm sure I have been clear enough, but I am also almost sure that there always be people who would prefer to keep raising doubts."
I suppose a person who tried to defend geocentric worldview also thought his speed was obviously zero. Now we know that claim is not true. We have learned that when we are talking about a scientific issue, we need to be quantitively accurate and not accept any convenient value as it entails consequences.
If you think I am still wrong please refute my main claim in the following question and I will donate the specified sum in that question to your nominated charity as my appreciation for clarifying the issue for me.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity
Ziaedin Shafiei " I do not know why we need mass here. "
Within SR, we don't ... unless we're interested in whether SR relates to real-world physics in a testable way, in which case experimental hardware tends to be made out of atoms.
SR assumes that the presence and relative motion of matter has zero effect on light, and that the velocity-addition formula works precisely the same way regardless of whether there is any real matter in the intermediate frames or not. the SR v.a.f. is a structural property of Minkowski spacetime.
However, in the real world, things are a bit different. In a real laboratory, the presence of matter slows lightspeeds and the motion of that matter causes physically identifiable anisotropies in the speed of light (Fizeau effect). In reality, moving matter drags light (or appears to drag light) in its region.
This means that if we are defining velocities as fractions of lightspeed, v/c, the variations in c caused by the presence of moving intermediate matter in the signal path should tend to mess up the SR v.a.f.
The SR relationships for a signal passed between frames with relative velocities v1, v2, v3 do not therefore necessarily correspond to the relationships for a signal passed between masses with relative velocities v1, v2, v3. The introduction of an intermediate frame under SR does not change the outcome, but the introduction of an intermediately-moving mass in the signal path alters the lightbeam geometry, and arguably should affect the outcome.
Any attempt at experimental verification of the v.a.f. means inserting masses into a region and therefore altering the lightbeam geometry away from SR's description.
SR defines its spacetime geometry based on the assumed properties of entirely empty space. As soon as we start inserting objects to watch and other objects to act as observers to watch them, and we give these bodies relative velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light, the region is no longer empty, and the region's lightbeam geometry is no longer flat.
Dear Eric Baird
EB "Within SR, we don't ... "
Surely we talk within SR.
Einstein formula for the velocity is accurate in frames of mathematical base of Theory of Relativity. The mathematical base of special Relativity is the flat 4-dimensional space (space-time), where transformation of the value of 4-velocity follow from transformations of coordinates by pading to other system of reference.
Dear Larissa Borissova
Do you mean that in "frames of mathematical base of Theory of Relativity" the speed of any other frames or observers are known? Would you mind clarifying your comment using my simple example please?
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei, You can get velocity formula from mathematical fact, that group of frame transformations is Lorentz group for O(3,1).
The four-dimensional reference system of observer is determined by 4-velocity U^\alpha = dx^\alpha/ds, where \alpha = 0,1,2,3. Its components are: U^0 = 1/(g_00)^1/2, U^i, i = 1,2,3, The components of 3-velosity V^i = dx^i/d\tau, where \tau is the own time of observer. Its elementary interval is; d/tau = (g_00)^1/2 dt – (v_i dx^i)/c^2), i = 1,2,3. Here v_i is 3-dimensional velocity of of reference system rotation. If gravitational field of non-rotating reference sstemvis absent (g_00 = 0), the space-time is flat (Minkowski space). The 4-dimensional impulse of particle with the non-zero mass at rest m_0 is unit: P_\alpha P^\alpha = m_0^2. The expression of relativistic mass m = m_0/(1 – V^2/c^2) follows from the law of conservation of 4-impulse. Multyplaying the expression for m on c^2, we obtain well known formula E = mc^2 = E_0/c^2, where E_0 = m_0c^2 is energy at rest. The problem of determination of th velocity of moving bodies can be solved correctly only in flat Minkowsky space. i.e. in Special Relativity, as it is homogeneous and isotropic. Rirmannian (curved) space-time is nonhomogeneous and anisotropic. It means that the reference system must be different for every point. Therefore were obtained transformation analogic to Lorenz transformations. Infact, this problem is solved only approximately, in frames of the observer being inside own reference system.
Dear Larissa Borissova
You have tried to explain the four-dimensional reference system which is not really the answer to the issue raised. Please read my initial comment and my first answer to Eric Baird which I repeat below.
I simply say if we claim that we do not know something then it is false to immediately claim we know it. SR says we do not know the speed of any frame. Then produces a formula which is based on knowing the same quantities. I tried to show that the formula only works if
- we assume a convenient values
and
- retreat to Newtonian mechanics at some points
Dear Eugene Prokhorenko
I have tried in other questions raised in RG and a few articles that the theory of special relativity was initially founded on a mathematical error by Lorentz and FitzGerald. Lorentz transformation equations and its various other representatives are in fact has no sound mathematical basis. For example, please see the following article in RG.
Preprint Michelson and Morley Experiment Does not Validate Length Con...
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei
I see that you have a serious interest in this question, so maybe you would be interested in this article
https://daontheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pro.pdf
It demonstrates that the relativity theories are wrong.
JES
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei
We are using Maxwell equations in invariant form (via differential forms: F=dA, *dF=J. There can't be math error in them. They are based on interval invariance: ds^2=dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2. Transformation group can be extended up to Poincare group. Then conservation laws can be derived. All this will die if you will change anything.
The velocity light can be obtained as a result of null geodesic equations, Photons travel along geodesic lines along which ds^2 = 0. Modeling the geometry of the curved 4-space, where photons travel, we alculate Christoffel symbols for concrete space-time. In this case we"ll find the form of trajectories, the velocity of photons and theirs frequencies.
Dear Eugene Prokhorenko
Yes, Maxwell equations can be written in an invariant form but is everything correctly proven with this transformation. Unfortunately, not. For example, even Einstein’s claim in the electromagnetic section of his 1905 paper is not yet proven. Feynman attempted to prove it. He could not and still we take this failure very lightly and try to sweep the issue under the carpet. Here is my short report of this case, related to your comment, in which I have critically reviewed Feynman’s failure.
Preprint Electromagnetic Force and Special Relativity
Einstein velocity addition formula fulfilled two criteria: The first one is, that for small velocities the result is a conventional addition of both velocities. The second one is that adding up velocities can never get larger than light speed.
The formula proposed by Einstein feels more like being added to special relativity in an ad hock manner than the result of a formal derivation due to its basic postulates. The formula seems also not to describe a basic principle for this huge cosmic conspiracy that nothing can move faster than light speed.
If you re-define velocity as a probability to travel with light speed
/beta =v/c
the velocity addition is derived (not postulated) to be given by
u + v = (u/c + v/c - (u*v)/c^2)*c.
A related question is how velocities are subtracted from one another. It seems another ad hock assumption that summation and subtraction are symmetric to one another. In a probabilistic approach, this is no longer the case.
More on this thinking can be found in this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344751140
Zero Accuracy!
Einstein's special relativity is mathematically invalid. It only takes the college entrance level of mathematics to witness. Please visit the following article
Article Speed of Light = 0, -So "Proven" by Special Relativity, Indisputably!
Dear Cameron Rebigsol
One point to be clarified by SR is the definition of time. It is not clearly identified whether it is t, τ or ct? One thus has the luxury of switching between them at will. It somehow resembles the doctrine of Trinity in Christianity.
I have asked a separate question in RG about this dilemma but as usual have not seen any clear response.
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei
If it fails to define time, it would become a good base for it to lose its validity.
"Einstein's special relativity is mathematically invalid "
And also conceptually non-sensical:
1) His second postulate reads:
"Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c, independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
But since he doesn't say with respect to what the velocity is measured, on his own criterion his statement meaningless.
2) His two postulates taken together lead to the conclusion that two clocks can each run slower than the other. Making them together contradictory and nonsensical. One or the other must be wrong. In fact both are.
The velocity addition formula derives from his unsubstantiated - and nonsensical - declaration that no relative speed can exceed that of light.
Relativity is for nutters. Drop it, and you will have a far simpler and happier life.
" Relativity is for nutters. Drop it, and you will have a far simpler and happier life. " You and me are in the same lane. Unfortunately, the mainstream will defend it at all cost, no matter what.
Cameron Rebigsol
Agreed. BUT one day it has to collapse. As Einstein said: come tumbling down like a house of cards. And when that happens it will be instantaneous, with all yer yes-man physicists falling over each other to get onto the new bandwaggon: "Of course, I always knew it was wrong, but couldn't say so opensly because blablabla." The moment is coming ever closer, thanks mainly to the internet and non-peer-reviewed sites like this one. The physics establishment made a massive show on the aniversary of the 1905 papers. But was amazingly subdued last year on that of the 1919 Royal Society eclipse show, which was far more significant for Einstein. I interpreted it as their not wanting to stir up dissent. Penrose's Nobel prize for GR I also see as a last-ditch attempt to shore up relativity. It needs just one major media event to trigger the collapse. Who knows, we might live to see the day. Better late than never!
"Relativity is for nutters. Drop it, and you will have a far simpler and happier life."
Dear Jeremy Fiennes , Tell this to engineers. maintaining GPS or GLONAS. Satellites movement can't be calculated without Relativity! The same is for planets.
Dear Cameron Rebigsol
Majority of people, including myself, in the world go through life with no clear idea of the reality due to their native culture, education, etc. We need to do our best in removing false information collectively while respecting each other’s beliefs and opinions.
I know some of us are frustrated with the current situation in some branches of mainstream physics but it does not warrant us to seek unscientific approaches in our debates.
Dear Eugene Prokhorenko
Science has already solved this issue for us. When Newtonian mechanics was not able to resolve one new case, mercury perihelion precession, it was mercilessly shown the exit door. If I now argue that the Newtonian mechanics works for Mars, earth, Jupiter and so on, I am sure your response will be “SO WHAT?”.
Even if you are right on those mentioned cases in your comment, we need to be very concerned and solve those unresolved ones. I, as an engineer, did not create some of those issues. They were bare from the beginning of relativity but while we continuously point out the mercury issue, we ignore shortfalls in relativity. The problem is this double standard in treating different theories. We do not help relativity if we keep quiet on those glaring problems.
Eugene Prokhorenko
GPS uses the ECI (Earth Centred Inertial) as its preferred reference frame (the one that works). SR specifically states that there is no such thing; that all inertial observers' views are valid. GPS directly refutes SR. Tell that to the engineers and get a reply. Or provide one yourself.
You can find in "https://daontheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pro.pdf"
a demonstration that there is a local reference system centred on the earth and in principle, on any mass.
The time dilation, mass increase and contraction are valid, but only within a preferential reference system. For Mercury, it's obviously the Sun.
JES
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei ,
I do not understand your comment "it does not warrant us to seek unscientific approaches in our debates". It seems to me you are suggesting that I put up "unscientific approaches" by referring you to the link Speed of Light = 0, -So 'Proven' by Special Relativity, Indisputably Would you please let me know how unscientific has my article been?
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei,
>>When Newtonian mechanics was not able to resolve one new case, mercury perihelion precession, it was mercilessly shown the exit door.
It was not that “Newtonian mechanics was not able to resolve one new case”, it is that we have been led to mistakenly handled Newtonian mechanics. Very simply, have you ever found relativity able to lead to the establishment of an equation to describe a close orbit movement? But close orbit movement is so universally existing among heavenly objects! This failure of relativity is enough for it to deserve being “mercilessly shown the exit door”. If you learn the close orbit movement equation, you will unlock the mystery of “mercury perihelion precession”. Unfortunately, the close orbit equation from Newtonian mechanics needs many papers of math work to lead to and cannot be shown here.
>> The problem is this double standard in treating different theories.
It is exactly the relativists who hold the double standard. Relativity begins an era of “modern physics”. However, it also begins an era in which fairytales are written with equations. Simply, the photoelectric effect equation E(max)=hf-w is a mathematical invalid equation, but it has been worshiped as the irreplaceable foundation of quantum physics.
1. Each theory has its limits and precision. There is intermediate area between Newton and Einstein where both give closed results. You can choose any.
2. Fortunately difference can be written as first approximation.
3. Unfortunately there are no rigid bodies in relativity and it's hard to build planet/sun models.
The “limit” that relativity can approach is not even close. The best description I can find from relativity about object’s moving loci is “a parabola”. No one can use relativity to pursue a close orbit movement equation. Nevertheless, special relativity is self-refuted in mathematics, and no one can say so to Newtonian mechanics. The maximum one can accuse of it is “not accurate enough”. So, first approximation cannot be an excuse for relativity’s mathematical failure.
Dear Cameron Rebigsol
My comment was related to "Relativity is for nutters". Therer is no need for such comments. I am sorry, I thought you wrote it. I now noticed that Jeremy wrote the comment and then you quoted it. Very sorry again.
Ziaedin Shafiei
"Relativity is for nutters"
Do you diferentiate those who say the Earth is flat from those who say two clocks can each run slower than the other?
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
I do not diferentiate between them. I respect them all.
What is the gain to call someone a nutter? Don’t you think we are better to explain our findings in some better way rather than hurt people?
With warmest regards
Ziaedin Shafiei
If someone won't wake up, you sometimes have to shake him. Do a google search for "Michelson-Morley result". Every single hit will tell you it was null (or at least it did for me). Now look up the original 1887 M&M report. They measured ~5 km/s, i.e.18'000 km/hr. Very definitely NOT null. We are being deliberately lied to. And not only that, WE are supporting the liars with our taxes. You think this should be met with politeness?
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
I do not think we can solve any problem by name-calling, let alone a scientific issue. This method, no doubt, results in feast fighting and the real issue becomes irrelevant, like this discussion.
Ziaedin Shafiei
"We can't solve any problem by name-calling."
We also can't hope solve it by rational scientic discussion when one party, the mainstream, is deliberatly lying. That is the unfortunate situation we are now in. Not to recognize it is to bury one's head in the sand.
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei ,
>> I now noticed that Jeremy wrote the comment and then you quoted it...
Thank you for your reply. No worry, each of us do sometimes read across the line.
Thank yo very much for clarifying.
Cameron
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
Surely, I have not buried my head in the sand. My questions in RG and draft articles are the evidence. Two of them challenge students and their professors to defend the idea of length contraction which was Lorentz's conclusion from M&M experiment. I have committed myself to financially reward a student or donate to a nominated charity for them doing so.
I have not seen you or those who reject relativity to support my challenge in any shape or form. Likewise, I am sure I have not supported you, or others, to promote your effort. Simply I want to make this point that we have not tried our best so far. Far from it we are miles away from acceptable commitment. And now trying to justify that name-calling is the only way forward left for us is just beyond belief.
Ziaedin Shafiei
"Challenge students and their professors to defend the idea of length contraction."
There certainly is length contraction. But to make sense of it you have to take the original rationally coherent Lorentz model, and not rationally incoherent Einsteinian relativity.
Cahill's analysis is fundamental. It is laid out in my short:
Article Michelson-Morley: Cahill's analysis
There is an overview of the Lorentz model, with experiemntal confirmations, on p.28 of my:
Article EINSTEIN'S TERRIBLE TWINS and Other Tales of Relativistic Woe
Dump relativity, accept the aether (positive M&M result), and everything starts to click into place.
Regards.
Jeremy Fiennes
You are absolutely right!
If you want a simple and effective demonstration you should read
"https://daontheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pro.pdf"
JES
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
Length contraction (LC) was suggested by Lorentz and FitzGerald to justify the existence of aether based on the null result. If M&M experiment convincingly found some results for the speed of aether then there was no need for this new theory.
Now you have accepted
- there was a result for the speed of aether
- LC as a proven fact without referring to its root cause
What I have tried to say in my article is that proposing LC by Lorentz was not correct as the theory does not apply to the movement of half-silvered mirror in the same experiment. This is what I have challenged physicists to disprove me.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity
Ziaedin Shafiei
– 1) "The surprise null result from Michelson and Morley."
M&M reported "one sixth of the Earth's orbital velocity [of 30 km/s]" I.e. ~5 km/s and not null. Check it out.
– 2) "The theory of length contraction was initially proposed to uphold the existence of aether after the M&M null result."
No. From my Einstein article:
"In 1888 Oliver Heaviside showed from Mawell's equations that movement though the aether alters electric fields by the Lorentz factor. The following year George FitzGerald used this and the ad hoc hypothesis that intermolecular forces are electrostatic to derive the length contraction relation, thereby explaining the alleged 'null' result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:
"The forces binding the molecules of a solid might be modified by motion through the aether such that the base of the interferometer is shortened, neutralizing the optical effect."
In 1892 Lorentz, independently and more rigorously, arrived at the same conclusion:
"There will be a contraction in the direction of motion proportional to the square of the ratio of the velocities of translation and of light, such as to annul the effect of aether drift in the Michelson-Morley interferometer."
so length contraction was originally derived from the electrostatic forces between molecules. And was then used to explain the alleged null (in fact not null) M&M result. That is not the same.
– 3) "The M&M experiment does not support length contraction."
You obviously didn't look at the Cahill article I gave you. Length contraction is demonstrated by the null results with vacuum interferometers (LIGO for example). And the small positive results with air interferometers (M&M, Dayton Miller). .
– 4) "The experiment does not support the constancy of the speed of light."
'Constancy' with respect to what? A speed without a reference is meaningless. .
– 5) "The experiment does not support special and general relativity."
Agreed. By demonstrating the aether, M&M refutes both Einstein's postulates. The first by providing a preferred reference for light. And the second, because the speed of light is then constant through the aether, and not with respect to any inertial observer
– 6) "Michelson and Morley experiment, carried out in 1887, to verify the existence of aether and to measure the velocity of the earth through it."
Yes and no. It was to measure the aether's speed. But it wasn't to verify the aether's existence, which no-one at the time doubted. It was to distinguish between opposing theories of aether dragging. Read their report.
That's enough for now. You are obviously an organized person, and may answer my points one by one.
Regards .
Stellan Gustafsson
I looked at your article. But since I'm unfortunately (maybe!) not really into the maths, much of it was over my head. My main interest is the underlying assumptions. Maths based on erroneous premises (e.g. relativity) can only give erroneous results.
My feeling is that the universe is basically made of aether. And that matter is snarled up knots, standing waves, of it. Hence the 'wave' of the duality. But our perceptual mechanism is binary/digital. A retinal neurone either fires or it doesn't. So we inherently perceive things in particle terms. Hence the 'particle' of the duality. A shorter and longer article on this if you are interested.
Article Quantum reality: really indeterminate?
Article The COPENHAGEN TRIP, the Dicey Interpretation of quantum physics
Regards
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
Sure, let us discuss the issues one by one.
I am not interested in the real outcome of M&M experiment in this dicussion. What I am concerned about is the theories which were proposed based on the outcomes of the experiment.
I think you agree with me so far as you quoted “George FitzGerald used this and the ad hoc hypothesis that intermolecular forces are electrostatic to derive the length contraction relation, thereby explaining the alleged 'null' result of the Michelson-Morley experiment”.
In the second case, I have tried to prove that the idea of length contraction was not based on the correct and comprehensive analysis of the experiment, , as it does not resolve the contradiction for the movement of the half-silvered mirror.
I read Cahill and your articles. What is puzzling is that you have accepted positive result from M&M experiment as well as length contraction. You need to make it clear in your article the foundation of your/Cahill's claim.
As you know Lorentz Transformation Equations (LTE) were developed by Lorentz as a mathematical tool for a world in which both aether and the null result were parts of the reality. Now, if you have accepted LTE, then it comes with time dilation. In that case, you accept what you think others must refute. What Einstein did was to illustrate the idea of time dilation by two moving clocks which you vehemently deny.
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei
– 1) "I am not interested in the real outcome of M&M experiment, but the theories which were proposed based on it."
I don't get it. The theories depend on the outcomes. Science is based on the actual outcomes of experiments, not just the ideas behind them.
– 2) "If there was a positive result as you seem to believe.".
It's not a question of belief. M&M reported a positive result. Múnera confirmed this to p=~10^-12. Anyone who maintains the result was null either hasn't read the report, in which case they don't know what they are talking about. Or they have, and they are lying. One or the other.
– 3) "If the null result was the outcome, then it means there is no aether."
Firstly as just noted, it wasn't null. And secondly, even if it was, it would only have meant that the aether speed was zero at that particular point in the Earth's orbit. In his report Michelson recognized this, and said he would repeat his experiment at other times of year. But he never did (why?). Dayton Miller did, and got positive results all year round.
– 4) "I have tried to prove that the idea of length contraction was not based on the correct and comprehensive analysis of the experiment."
Length contraction is not proved by M&M alone, but by comparing the results of vacuum and not-vacuum experiments.
– 5) "You have accepted positive result from M&M experiment as well as length contraction."
I don't think you've got the essence of Cahill's analysis. In a vacuum, length contraction exactly cancels the speed difference effect. In air it leaves a small residual, which is what M&M measured (M&M can't be blamed for not realizing this, since length contraction was only proposed 8 years after their experiment. But Dayton Miller should have seen it. He realized that his results were too low). The true aether speed is ~400 kms.
– 6) "The idea of time dilation by two moving clocks which you vehemently deny."
No way. The difference is that Einstein bases dilation on the clock speed relative to the observer. This leads to the clock absurdity and refutes SR. On the Lorentz model, using the speed through the aether, there is no contradiction.
Over to you.
Ziaedin Shafiei
A further thought, pertinent to your original question.
For two objects A and B moving at speeds va and vb, the relative speed vab of A relative to B is by definition vab=va–vb. For two photons moving towards each other at c, for instance, their relative speed is then by definition 2c.
Einstein said no, it is c. Based on his 2nd postulate that that no relative speed can exceed that of light. But what experimental evidence is the 2nd postulate based on? Absolutely none. It is something Einstein wanted to be true, so he simply postulated that it is.
The velocity addition formula violates the definition of a relative velocity, .and is effectively yet another demonstration of Relativity's incoherence.
Science is based on experimental results. Relativity is based on postulates, not experimental results. And is therefore not Science.
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
length contraction (LC) was suggested to uphold the existence of aether in the case of null result. I have shown that suggestion was a blunder. What you are advocating is both LC and positive result for M&M experiment with no proof.
Cahill just accepts Lorentz Transformation Equations and your paper introduces LC as a proven fact. Where is this coming from? Did Cahill perform an experiment to measure the length of a rod in a vacuum or there is a new analysis with positive results which proves LC? This is not given in Cahill and your articles and I want to first know where is the logic/argument/analysis or experiment for your theory.
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
I want us to focus on important issues rather than get distracted by trivial disputes such as why I have not mentioned Heaviside as the first person to propose the idea of length contraction (LC) for electrical fields. LC was initially known as Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction and for good reasons Heaviside was left out as a contributor to this idea.
Please also note we are not discussing whether M&M experiment showed a null or positive result. However, I considered both results for making my main point.
Ziaedin Shafiei
This unfortunately seems to be getting us nowhere. The basis of Cahill's analysis is clearly set out in eqs 12-14 of my article:
Article Michelson-Morley: Cahill's analysis
Let's at least get these these agreed on first.
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
- In the abstract it is clearly written “Cahill showed that this was due to their having failed to consider 1) the FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction”.
This is the length contraction (LC) which was based on the null result not positive result. This is the contraction which I have tried to show is baseless.
- In Figure 1, LC is accepted as a fact.
- page 1 “Without length contraction, this would give an average light speed of c/g2. Length contraction however increases this value by a factor of g, giving an apparent average light speed of c/g. … The same apparent light speed is thus obtained on both axes.”
Here is Cahill and your analysis which is exactly what FitzGerald and Lorentz argued.
- After equation 11 the same argument is repeated accompanied by equations 12 to 14.
Simply you have accepted LC as a proven fact and are trying to tie it with positive result. There is no new proof or analysis based on positive results but criticizing others why FitzGerald-Lorentz LC is ignored.
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei
"You have accepted LC as a proven fact."
Not quite. I assume it; and then show that it is coherent with the experimental results, chich is not the same. Let me summarize:
– M&M's classical analysis shows the apparent speed of light to be c/g^2 on the main axis and c/g on the perpendicular axis, differing by a factor g
– FLLC increases the apparent main axis speed by g, giving the same speeds c/g on both axes. And therefore a null result, as Fitzgerald and Lorentz argued
– BUT, the M&M experiment was carried out in air where the speed of light is lower (c/n, where n is the refractive index of air)
– in this case the FLLC doesn't exactly cancel the axis speed difference, but leaves a small residual
As you rightly say, the approach starts off assuming FLLC. But:
– 1) it leads to coherent aether speeds. Cahill's corrected M&M and Miller aether speeds of 350-400 km/s are compatible with those obtained from 1-way experiments (Cahill himself did one). And also those from spacecraft flyby Doppler shifts.
– 2) it predicts a null result for vacuum interferometers and a small positive result for air ones. This is again what one gets in practice. In one of his experiments Demanjov noted that as he evacuated the air from his interferometer, the fringe shifts progressivly decreased and finally vanished. One can hardly get a more graphic illustration than that.
If an assumption correctly predicts experimental results, those results support that assumption. They obviously don't prove it. But no scientific theory can ever be conclusively proved, but only refuted – as even Einstein recognized.
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
In that case if we cannot prove something by experiment or logic, we can just assume it and everything will be fine. We can assume that an aeroplane gets smaller and smaller if it flies away from us and gets bigger and bigger when it approaches us. One can experiment this fact with every single aeroplane.
Please read Appendix A: Boat Clock in the following article which shows why your assumption is wrong in this specific case.
Article Is Time Dilation a scientific theory?
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei
"If we cannot prove something by experiment or logic, we can just assume it and everything will be fine."
You seriously misrepresent me. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that 'explains', i.e. accommodates within its conceptual structure, experimental facts. The Big Bang hypothesis explains (in this sense) the expanding universe and the CMB. The FLLC explains the abnormally low aether speeds given by interferometers compared to those from 1-way and Doppler shift measurements. And also why vacuum, but not air interferometers give null results. That's what Science essentially is: adapting hypotheses to experimental facts. Those hypotheses that fit the facts are accepted. Those that don't are rejected (in theory at least).
It seems we now have two points of divergence: time dilation (clock slowing) and length contraction. Taking them separately.
Time dilation: this is easier. Look at pages 3-4 of my .
Article Special Relativity: the Clock Absurdity (6 pages)
article. Although a refutation of SR, if for "relative to the observer" you read "through the aether", it gives correctly time dilation on the Lorentz model. If the speed of light is constant through the aether (as for any physical wave through its medium), a photon clock moving through the aether has to run slower than one stationary in the aether. This is confirmed experimentally by the decays of atmospheric muons, and also unstable particles in accelerators.Length contraction: The best experimental evidence I know of is this present one from interferometers. I have asked Physics Forums. And included your question on the velocity addition formula. Let's see what they say.
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
I just gave an example for a wrong assumption. Another famous example was the assumption that the earth was immobile which resulted in the geocentric idea.
Why did you assume length contraction? Another assumption is no aether. What if I say that the arm perpendicular to the assumed movement of aether get longer? It will solve the problem too.
As I said I have refuted the idea of LC and I will be happy to donate the nominated amount to your designated charity if you disprove me in RG. The challenge is there from October 2019.
Ziaedin Shafiei
"As I said I have refuted the idea of LC and I will be happy to donate the nominated amount to your designated charity if you disprove me in RG."
I can't find the ref. Can you give it again?
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
Here is the link.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity
Jeremy Fiennes : " Relativity is for nutters. Drop it, and you will have a far simpler and happier life. " Eugene Prokhorenko : " Tell this to engineers. maintaining GPS or GLONAS. Satellites movement can't be calculated without Relativity! The same is for planets. "
Actually, Eugene, if you google the name "Ronald Hatch", you'll find that one of the world's foremost GPS engineers, with a stack of GPS patents to his name, and a member of the GPS steering committee, was a major critic of special relativity.
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
One of the problems with trying to have a serious conversation about special relativity is that a whole stack of people who defend the theory routinely lie. Perhaps they don't deliberately lie, but they propagate counterfactual information without bothering to check it back to its source, or do the math, or actually engage their brains and think.
Satellites orbit very well indeed, thankyouverymuch, without special relativity. SR doesn't do gravity. The SR geometry only works in a gravity-free universe, in which the idea of a satellite having an orbit at all doesn't make sense.
What about Einstein's general theory? Don't satellite orbits and the orbit of Mercury prove spacetime curvature and therefore prove the 1916 theory?
Yes and no.
In Newton's system, the speed of light varied as a function of the gravitational field (aether density). Gravitational fields bent light. So under Newton's system , space (as mapped by lightbeams) was curved by gravity, giving the precession of an elliptical orbit.
Newton's system also generated gravitational shifts (Michell, 1783). In 1911, Einstein showed that the general result of gravitational shifts was gravitational time dilation. So Einstein's pre-GR work has gravity also curve time coordinates, so that Newtonian theory associates gravity with curved spacetime!
Does updated Newtonian theory give the same additional 43 arcseconds per century for the precession of Mercury's orbit as GR1916? Conceivably. Since the GR folk never seem to present the correct curved-spacetime Newtonian prediction for us to compare against the GR1916 prediction, I think we have to be a bit suspicious.
When Einstein presents the Mercury result and compares it with the "Newtonian" prediction, he is slightly less than honest. He compares the GR1916 prediction against the exactly-retracing "ellipse on a flat background" of Kepler (zero precession), which is the pre-Newtonian prediction, and he also ignores his own proof that Newtonian gravity also curves the spatial aspect of the metric.
Also, note that Michell's 1783 result and Einstein's own 1911 result both predate GR1916, and that neither obviously depends on the principle of relativity, and that Newtonian theory is also a relativistic theory (in the restricted sense). So most solar system orbital arguments aren't about "Einstein is right because relativity says ..." True, Newtonian gravity was inconsistent, but so is Einstein's .
So you've been lied to.
And consider: if Einstein's 1905 and 1916 theories were anything like as great as people claim, then people wouldn't have to cheat, would they? Why would anyone need to misrepresent the data, and the arguments, if these genuinely showed that Einstein's 1905 and 1916 theories were brilliant? Wouldn't it be a bit silly to be fiddling the facts and the arguments to "prove" Einstein wrt the 1905 and 1916 theories, if the unfiddled facts proved him right anyway?
... to get back to the original question, the SR velocity addition formula(e) are uniquely defined by the theory (and what we want to do with it) and are as accurate or inaccurate as the rest of SR.
The formulae are a simple result of demanding that if a signal goes through two shift stages, associated with relaitve velocities A and B, then if its frequency is shifted by Shift(A), and then again by Shift(B), that the total frequency must be Shift(A) x Shift(B)
This is non-negotiable.
The trouble is, that if we say that the behaviour of light is wholly unaffected by the presence or absence of moving matter (SR), and try to calculate the total shift just by saying
E'/E=Shift(A+B)
, we get a different answer. And we're not allowed to get a different answer.
Since the total shift HAS to be
Shift(X) = Shift(A) x Shift(B)
, we can work backwards from the known right-hand-side of the equation , to work out what X has to be, and this relationship between A, B and the equivalent total velocity X, is given by the theory's velocity addition formula.
So suppose that A and B are both 80% of the speed of light, v=0.8c
if object o1 and o2 are receding at A and o2 and o3 are receding at B, and everything is in a straight line, the recession shift will be
E'/E = Shift(X) = Shift(A) x Shift(B)
= Shift(0.8) x Shift(0.8)
= SQRT[0.2/1.8] x SQRT[0.2/1.8]
= 1/9 = 0.111'
Now, we have to work out what velocity, plugged into the SR recession Doppler formula gives E'/E = 0.111'
according to the SR v.a.f.,
0.8+0.8 = (0.8+0.8) / (1+ 0.8*0.8) = 1.6/1.64
0.8+0.8 = 0.9756...
, and a body receding at that velocity does indeed have a redshift of
E'/E = SQRT[ (c-v) / (c+v) ] = SQRT[ ~0.024/ ~1.9756] = SQRT[~
0.01234567901234567901... ]
= 0.111'
So it all works out.
---
Reading Einstein, you could be forgiven for thinking that this is a new behaviour unknown before SR, and that under pre-SR theory, v3=v1+v2
Under Newtonian theory, where the recession Doppler prediction is
E'/E=(c-v)/c
, two successive Doppler recession shifts of half lightspeed give a total shift of
E'/E = 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25
To get that same Doppler recession shift in a single stage , we'd need the recession velocity to equal 0.75c
So under Newtonian theory, we can argue, at a pinch, that 0.5c + 0.5c = 0.75c
Just like under SR, we find that any two velocities each below c, add to a total "equivalent velocity" that is still below c. The physical interpretation of what is happening is different, but there is still a v.a.f.
-----
PS: Oooh, I hadn't realised that 1/81 was such a cool number in base ten!
Dear Eric Baird , 1. GPS& SR for me is not only satellite trajectory, but also established global time services, where we have frequency shifts, calculated with SR.
2. I don't think, that it's possible to rewrite Newton as GR gravity with some metric tensor.
3. Parametrized Post-Post-Newtonian (pp2N)
Formalism for the Solar System
A. F. SARMIENTO G)
And other books.
4. You forgot elementary particles :) Can you build accelerator without SR?
Eric Baird
Agreed entirely. For me, the simplest way to show that GPS refutes SR is that GPS uses the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) as its preferred reference frame - the one that works. Whereas SR specifically states that there is no such thing, and that all inertial frames are valid. Some don't like the expression. But for me Relativity continues to be for nutters. Flat Earthers maintain the Earth is flat, and produce allegedly cogent arguments to support it. Relativists maintain SR is correct, and produce allegedly cogent arguments to support it. Oh Sigmund! Where are you now that we really need you?
Eugene Prokhorenko: " 1. GPS& SR for me is not only satellite trajectory, but also established global time services, where we have frequency shifts, calculated with SR. "
Yep ... but the difference between the SR and Newtonian gravity-shift predictions is pretty tiny for Earth gravity. Once you also realise that the shape of the gravity-well is also likely to be fractionally different in the two systems, and that the definition of the satellite's nominal height might be nominally different ... it's not obvious whether or not there's actually any measurable difference.
Hatch was an engineer who did this stuff for a living, and he seems to have been convinced that GPS didn't require SR to work.
The main theoretical differences between Einsteinian gravity (using the SR equations) and a modernised Newtonian system (similar in most respects, but using the redder Newtonian equations) are that:
- With SR-based gravity, gravitational horizons are absolute event horizons, with NM-based gravity, horizons are effective, observer-dependent horizons that fluctuate and radiate. So an "updated Newtonian" system seems to mesh with quantum mechanics regarding Hawking radiation, while the SR-based system doesn't.
- Cosmologists seem to be quite emphatic that Hubble shifts obey the Newtonian Doppler relationships rather than the flat SR ones. Unfortunately, since we can treat a Hubble redshift either as a cosmological redshift or as a gravitational redshift (because the light originated in a denser universe with a greater gravitational field flux density, and has in a sense climbed "uphill" to reach our more rarefied region), Hubble and gravitational shifts need to be equivalent. So if one was designing a general theory from scratch after the Hubble result, one would tend to want it to use the Newtonian equations for gravity rather than the SR set.
- Under SR-based gravity, a signal passing through a gravity-well returns to its original height with exactly the same energy it started with. With the Newtonian equations, there's a small energy-loss. So for signals covering cosmological distances, assuming a roughly uniform sprinkling of gravitational features, one expects a distance-dependent energy-loss, which can then also be interpreted as a (non-SR) recession redshift. So the Newtonian system tends to predict an expanding Hubble-shifted universe, while an SR-based system lends itself better to a static universe (Einstein's original choice).
Eugene: " 2. I don't think, that it's possible to rewrite Newton as GR gravity with some metric tensor. "
It probably needs to be implemented as an acoustic metric.
Eugene: " 3. Parametrized Post-Post-Newtonian (pp2N) "
Thanks for the reference, I'll look into this. I've looked at PPN, hadn't come across PPPN.
Eugene: " 4. You forgot elementary particles :) Can you build accelerator without SR? "
Probably. I don't see why not.
- For particles moving in straight lines at constant speed, the physics is usually identical for SR and NM, once you remember to compensate for SR's redefinitions of distances, times and velocities. The physical decay position for a particle with agreed rest-frame lifespan and energy and momentum seems to be identical under both systems, once you bear in mind the SR redefinitions.
- Both systems produce a lightspeed limit as an upper limit to direct acceleration. The Newtonian Doppler equations are actually redder than the SR set, for both recession and transverse shifts, so with either system, once a particle moves at c, you can't get it to move any faster by throwing energy at it from the lab frame.
- For curved paths (muon storage rings), the Newtonian system can point out the presence of gee-forces, invoke the principle of equivalence, and predict time dilation as the equivalent of a gravitational time dilation effect.
PS, When people have tried to derive the SR equations of motion by treating elementary massed particles as pointlike masses (teeny black holes with with little gravitational fields), AFAIK, they've always failed. They always seem to end up with the Newtonian equations instead, and then describe their result as proving SR "to the Newtonian approximation".
Perhaps the "Newtonian approximation" is actually the right answer.
BTW, I'm not actually a fan of C19th Newtonian theory, I'm a fan of "purist" post-Einstein general relativity. It just happens that the only equations that seem to work for a "proper" general theory seem to be the Newtonian set.
I was actually pretty annoyed when I found this out, but ... geometry is geometry ... there's not a lot one can do about it.
Dear Eugene Prokhorenko
Adding to what Eric said, a GPS satellite has a speed of 3.9 km/s or 14000 km/h and we think there is a need to use time dilation for its correct/accurate operation. This speed is less than the speed of Pluto which is 4.74 km/s and we do not need any helping hand from special relativity to correctly predict its orbit. This is true for all planet but Mercury. Venus has the speed of 35.02 km/s which is almost 10 times faster than the speed of a GPS satellite. Don’t you think that we should not credit SR only because of our inability in controlling GPS satellites accurately?
Eric Baird , Ziaedin Shafiei
It looks like you don't understand what I'm talking about!
There are such devices as "atomic clock" with 10^(-18) precision. Here you see very small corrections because of it's movement with satellite.
Also because of precession we don't have good definition of year. There is long list ...
About electrons or protons: You need to know magnetic field value to keep them on the orbit. SR and Newton give difference in 10-100 times.
Eugene Prokhorenko "Also because of precession we don't have good definition of year. "
Precession also occurs in any sensible modern model of Newtonian gravity.
Newton's model made lightspeed a function of gravitational field density (aether density), so Newton's model, using modern terminology, can be classified as a "curved space" model, with the the warpage of apparent spatial distances (due to the variation in aether density) making the resulting lightbeam geometry non-Euclidean, so that elliptical orbits no longer retrace themselves, but precess.
Einstein then showed (1911) that any system that predicted gravitational shifts also had to generate gravitational time dilation, so from 1911 onwards, modern Newtonian gravity changes from being a curved-space model to a curved-spacetime model.
As with general relativity, if the effects of the spatial and temporal curvatures are cumulative rather than dual, you get twice as much lightbending as from just curved space.
When Einstein presented the argument for Mercury's precession being a proof of GR, he cheated. He represented the prediction of Newtonian physics as being that of a Keplerian ellipse on a flat background. That's not Newtonian, that's pre-Newton. Also in his book he represents the Newtonian vs the GR prediction as being zero precession vs 43 arcseconds per century. That's again not true, because even with Keplerian orbits, perturbations cause a precession effect of ~532 arcseconds per century. The 43 arcseconds was the shortfall between the "perturbed-Keplerian" ~532 and the observed ~574. So when Einstein said "there's no effect unless my theory is right", there's a bigger effect regardless of whether it's right or wrong.
If you've been taught that we don't get orbital precession without Einstein's 1916 theory, then I'm afraid that you've been mistaught physics.
And if you've been mistaught this case, then you should ask yourself what else you may have been mistaught.
You should also ask yourself, if SR/GR1916 are really such great theories, why people keep feeling the need to "fiddle the figures" to make them look better. If the theories were really as good as claimed, the evidence would simply stand up on its own, and there'd be no need for people to make dishonest comparisons with other theories, tailored to make Einstein's look better.
----
Textbook representations of what Newtonian theory predicts, in comparisons with SR, are often garbage. For instance, you'll normally be told that the pre-SR predictions for recession Doppler shift and transverse redshift are
E'/E = c/(c+vRECESSION), and
E'/E = 1 (no transverse effect)
Those are wrong.
The actual Newtonian predictions are
E'/E = (c-vRECESSION)/c, and
E'/E = 1 - v2/c2 (Lorentz-squared aberration redshift)
Where SR is described as showing a Lorentz redshift compared to classical physics, Newtonian theory gives a further nominal Lorentz redshift compared to SR. The actual comparison of NM and SR is not "no transverse component vs Lorentz", it's "Lorentz-squared transverse component vs Lorentz". Trouble is, the proper experiments are more difficult to do ... distinguishing between a Lorentz and Lorentz-squared redshift is far harder than between a Lorentz redshift and no redshift at all. And there's no guarantee that even if one managed a proper comparative experiment, that it wouldn't turn out to disagree with the SR prediction. So it's easier (and safer) to simply compare SR against the wrong Doppler predictions, which are pretty lousy, and against which pretty much anything looks good.
Again, Einstein cherry-picked the "worst" pre-SR predictions to compare SR against, as opposed to the most appropriate.
In other words, you've been conned.
Now, just because the experimental cases made for special relativity often appear to be based on convenient incompetence or dishonesty, it doesn't mean that the theory itself is necessarily wrong. A good theory can be supported by bad scientists, and when that happens, it's not the theory's fault. But the significant level of uncorrected misinformation in the literature about SR testing means that you should not trust what the physics community have to say about SR being necessarily right, until you've checked the numbers yourself.
Eugene Prokhorenko : " There is long list ... "
There is a long list of pro-SR claims that simply don't hold up to basic scientific analysis. Here are some examples (the list is probably not exhaustive):
Preprint Ten Proofs of Special Relativity
Dear Eugene Prokhorenko
Sure, I have not been involved with putting a satellite in orbit but one simply needs to search the internet to understand that contributing the correction of their orbits purely to SR is not true.
First fact is that modern GPS satellite has about 15 years of service life. If the issue was due to only using Newtonian Mechanics which can be fixed by SR accurately, then why these satellites do not use them and stay on correct track forever. The fact is that there are several other reasons for orbit deviation. The main effects are the interference by the movements of other planet, solar wind and atmospheric drag. Also, earth is not a perfect sphere which is exacerbated by the tide.
What I said is: attributing all corrections to SR is not true, unless you tell me otherwise.
Eric Baird
I had a quick look at your "10 proofs of SR". Mainly due to thinking "Wait a minute, he's now trying to justify SR?!!" The title is maybe somewhat misleading. Or maybe you are trying to attract readers who still belive in it.
For me the best conceptual refutation is th clock absurdity (on my profile). And the best experimental refutation is GPS (its preferred reference frame).
Do you mention Einstein's 1918 Naturwissenschaften "explanation" of the twin "paradox"? Where he demonstrates it is the travelling twin who ends up younger by showing that he ends up older? If anybody still thinks Einstein had even a vestigial capacity for rational thought, let him work through this "explanation" and think again!
Regards
Dear Eugene Prokhorenko
I really like to hear your answer to my latest comment.
It is surprising to me that we are eager to credit SR for correcting an issue with so many unrelated dynamical disterbaces and I wouldlike to make sure I have not missed something obvious.
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei , I only can repeat: you are mixing different things: I'm talking about other scale. Your scale is 10-100 meters for trajectories(10^(-6)), mine: 10^(-18) for atomic clocks. Is it clear? It's evident, that nobody use full SR/GR in calculations because difference with Newton is
Dear Eugene-Prokhorenko
The assumed accuracy of SR is meaningless in the presence of all the disturbances mentioned in my earlier comment. If one plans to travel from A to B in a car and the time of travel depends on some unavoidable causes such as traffic and road work, using a very accurate clock to keep time does not improve on the arrival time. That is why I think we wrongly credit SR in accurately position GPS satellite.
Of course, the accuracy of the clocks in a GPS satellite and on earth helps in correcting the position but this has nothing to do with SR as well.
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei , "accurately position GPS satellite" - I don't speak about this! Time precision needs for stocks over world. Each wrong microsecond costs billions of dollars during money transfers.!
Main question: HOW YOU WILL CALCULATE TIME CORRECTIONS WITHOUT SR?????
What are alternative formulas? Anybody on the Earth have them?
Eugene Prokhorenko
"HOW YOU WILL CALCULATE TIME CORRECTIONS WITHOUT SR????"
The time corrections ARE calculated without SR. Further, the ECI frame it uses REFUTES SR. If this is not obvious, please advise and I will explain in detail.
Ziaedin Shafiei
ZS: >>Not knowing the speed of each vessel means that the calculated relative speed can also be any value between ─ 𝑐 and + 𝑐.Meaning that the real relative speed between two IRFs is in fact cannot be calculated
Dear Joachim Domsta
Many thanks for representing the main issue with clarity. The question thus goes back to SR which says we do not know the speed of any frame. Then produces a formula which is based on knowing the same quantities. I tried to show that the formula only works if either
- we assume a convenient subjective value such as zero, similar to what the proponents of the geocentric theory assumed for the speed of our earth
or
- retreat to Newtonian mechanics at some points.
Ziaedin Shafiei
>>The question thus goes back to SR which says we do not know the speed of any frame.
Earth shape must be treated with multipoles as in EM. Last cherry is to account Tomas precession - like effect.
As personally for me, I noted many contradictions in SR and GR, but can't solve them.
Dear Joachim Domsta
Bob and Alice in two space ships moving at constant speeds have this conversation.
Bob: Alice I am stationary and you are moving away from me. You look so abnormally slim and your clock is ticking much slower.
Alice: No, I am stationary Bob. It is you who are moving away. It is you who are paper thin slim and your clock is ticking slower.
Isn’t this conversation a typical SR story we are told to learn in physics textbooks and papers and not question it? Why both Alice and Bob assume they are stationary? Who is right? And pertinent to the subject of this discussion, what is their relative speed?
If SR has only two postulates, then which theory is responsible for relativistic mass, time and length? Which theory tell us that the earth become really flat if you happen to pass it by with high speed?
It's trivial: SR introduce group O(3,1). All laws must be Lorentz invariant, means - tensorial. And question: who is right is senseless. You can increase group and make 10 theories per day.
A theory of relativity without any knowledge is empty. Dear
Ziaedin Shafiei do not ddress further notes, since I am not able to follow your undefined notions, please.
Best, Joachim Domsta
Dear Joachim Domsta
Many thanks for your kind advice. I will not address you anymore after this post. If you think you can help me improving my knowledge of relativity, I will appreciate it if you could correct me with my understanding of the basis of relativity by responding to my question in the following link. By doing so you will also help your nominated charity with some donation from me as a sign of my appreciation for your support.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity
Dear Eugene-Prokhorenko
EP " As personally for me, I noted many contradictions in SR and GR, but can't solve them."
Many thanks for your honest comment. I personally ask these questions in RG as a seeker of knowledge and for no other reason.
The problem with SR is that when you critically scrutinise the basis of the theory you are refuted by pointing out that so many experiments corroborating it. When you bring up a glaring example which fails to do so, such as Feynman's failure to demonstrate that Maxwell's field equations respect Lorentz symmetry, you are reproached of being too demanding. When you ask about relativistic mass, time and length you are blamed for your lack of knowledge.
I do not know why highly knowledgeable people find it demeaning to respond to simple questions about the basis of length contraction and time dilation? Why do not they try and better Feynman’s attempt. Why do they accept a theory solely based on thought experiment done with thought equipment? Why is no longer relativistic mass part of SR and which theory actually implanted that idea into physics?
The general 3D case of velocity addition is the velocity which give the same Doppler shift as the products of the shifts from for the velocities you want to add.
Therefore, the velocity addition formula accuracy depends on the accuracy of the resultant of the axial and transverse shift. The the mathematical basis of the Lorentz transformation ignores the axial shift and says the axial effects of aether winds cancel when the light goes back and fort between mirrors. But the axial shift is not aether winds when mirrors move to each other you get a blue shift without any cancelation; when moving away from each other a red shift again without cancelation. So the found formula transverse shift is what would be without the axial shift existing, but axial shift exists. If no assumption about the axial shift (like the cancelation) was used in the Lorentz transformation there would be more unknowns then equations. The transverse also exits but is small and difficult to measure. Since axial shift is proportional to the cosine of observation angle, adding its existence will add some function of that angle to the transverse shift.
The effects of giving the axial shift all the powers of the transverse is shown here:
- Independent of the Michelson-Morley experiments: If one looks at waves moving at the speed of light, A cos (wt) or B sin (wt), (where A and B are constants, w frequency and t is time, K=a Doppler shift frequency ratio) giving them a Doppler gets A cos(Kwt) and B sin (Kwt). A cos(Kwt’) and B sin (Kwt’) have the same value as A cos(wt) and B sin(wt) at t’=t/K. The Fourier series is a way to write any function G in a period of 0 to Q as the sum for all n of its harmonics [A cos (wnt) + B sin (wnt)]. That means by superposition the Doppler shift G =G’(t’) has the same value as G(t) when t’=t/K. Proving, in short, all Doppler shifts impact time not just the transverse. For details open this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16oJTvHAaV6TYPXMtGdz-NBqc1RW3yY-n/view?usp=sharingThe importance of that is for most angles the axial shift is larger than the transverse; the axial shift is directional giving direction to all things it affect and we measure all things by forces whose transmitted energy have Doppler shifts. That impacts a lot of relativity. Also, we sense all things by forces traveling at the speed of light and have Doppler shifts. Note: outside of the period 0 to Q the coefficients of the Fourier series was found for, the series just repeats. A Fourier series interpolates the the original function in 0 to Q but des not extrapolate it beyond 0 to Q.All the common mathematical models of Michelson-Morley experiments have axial aether winds cancel each other (Lorentz , Fitzgeald). Text books then assume axial Doppler shifts do that also or just ignore their existence. In any case axial shifts exist and unlike winds if the source is moving toward a mirror (or any receiver) you have blue shift and if away a red. Even if red and blue shifted light are put in the same space they do not cancel each other.
- A link to a paper describing an omission in the application of relativity to beams in most books:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-XsC_MFLSZKgQZ_2tDugiolji7lvgVd/view?usp=sharing
- This link is to a paper on: One important constant is NOT invariant during change of reference frame:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ljTtjvx5HiFi3vguznj8p-8XRtXa85NV/view?usp=sharingThank you for your time and I hope the above gave you some new ideas. Samuel Lewis Reich [email protected]
This formula follows from the structure of 4-dimensional flat space, where 4 vector of basis possess different properties: the vector tangential to the line of time possess imaginary length, 3 vectors which are tangential to spatial lines are real. Lorenz transformations are consequence of the structure of flat Minkowski space --- mathematical base of Spesial Relativity.
Dear Larissa Borissova
LB “Lorenz transformations are consequence of the structure of flat Minkowski space --- mathematical base of Special Relativity.”
Please note that historically Minkowski space-time was developed after Lorenz transformations equations (LTE). Also, space-time is nothing but a representation of LTE. It is easy to demonstrate this claim by using time and just one spatial dimension.
x = γ(x’ + vt’) = γ(x’ + βct’) -------(a)
t = γ(t’ +vx’/c2 ) = γ(ct’ + βx’)/c ------ (b)
Now square both sides of (a) and (b) and then subtract them, you end up with Minkowski space-time formula.
x2 - (ct)2 = x’2 - (ct’)2
That is why it is said that Minkowski diagram is just the geometrical version of LTE.
I have shown that LTE is based on a false foundation so the same goes for space-time. Please see the following draft article for my argument. I simplified the argument in Figures 12 and 13.
Preprint Michelson and Morley Experiment Does not Validate Length Con...
Dear Larissa Borissova , The Theory, you mentioned, exist for a long time :) This is fiber bundle. Gauge transformations are what you nee. In general case you need to add torsion field. Try look at
Modern Geometry - Methods and Applications Dubrovin, B.A., Fomenko, A.T., Novikov, S.P
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychometrics
- Measurement