| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2006 12:21:58 AM |
| Object: |
The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
Albert Einstein, 1905 :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions."
Through this text the Juggler managed to convert an obvious idiocy
(EITHER clock runs SLOWER than the other), which is a corollary of
another idiocy (the principle of constancy of the speed of light), into
a glorious discovery (the clock at rest runs FASTER than the moving
clock). So, like Procrustes, the Juggler tied theoretical science to
the iron bedstead his mediocre mind had created and started cutting
healthy parts of its body until the victim eventually fitted the
bedstead.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 02:06:46 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein, 1905 :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions."
Through this text the Juggler managed to convert an obvious idiocy
(EITHER clock runs SLOWER than the other), which is a corollary of
another idiocy (the principle of constancy of the speed of light), into
a glorious discovery (the clock at rest runs FASTER than the moving
clock). So, like Procrustes, the Juggler tied theoretical science to
the iron bedstead his mediocre mind had created and started cutting
healthy parts of its body until the victim eventually fitted the
bedstead.
Pentcho Valev
Go away. You are a bore.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 02:49:54 PM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140336406.673899.90030@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein, 1905 :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions."
Through this text the Juggler managed to convert an obvious idiocy
(EITHER clock runs SLOWER than the other), which is a corollary of
another idiocy (the principle of constancy of the speed of light), into
a glorious discovery (the clock at rest runs FASTER than the moving
clock). So, like Procrustes, the Juggler tied theoretical science to
the iron bedstead his mediocre mind had created and started cutting
healthy parts of its body until the victim eventually fitted the
bedstead.
Pentcho Valev
Go away. You are a bore.
No he isn't, you are. *****!
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
Right or wrong, dumbfuck?
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are,
pathetic *****.
For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is
sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c
Right or wrong, shitforbrains?
Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab.
Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
BA = -AB,
2AB = AC,
[AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0
Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid).
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
incompetent ***** without a scrap of logic in you,
you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
*****, useless tord!
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 06:01:27 AM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1140336406.673899.90030@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein, 1905 :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions."
Through this text the Juggler managed to convert an obvious idiocy
(EITHER clock runs SLOWER than the other), which is a corollary of
another idiocy (the principle of constancy of the speed of light), into
a glorious discovery (the clock at rest runs FASTER than the moving
clock). So, like Procrustes, the Juggler tied theoretical science to
the iron bedstead his mediocre mind had created and started cutting
healthy parts of its body until the victim eventually fitted the
bedstead.
Pentcho Valev
Go away. You are a bore.
The more one tells a bore to go away, the longer he will stay,
and telling a bore to go away might attract even bigger bores
like Osher and Dennis ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 06:06:55 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1140336406.673899.90030@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein, 1905 :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions."
Through this text the Juggler managed to convert an obvious idiocy
(EITHER clock runs SLOWER than the other), which is a corollary of
another idiocy (the principle of constancy of the speed of light), into
a glorious discovery (the clock at rest runs FASTER than the moving
clock). So, like Procrustes, the Juggler tied theoretical science to
the iron bedstead his mediocre mind had created and started cutting
healthy parts of its body until the victim eventually fitted the
bedstead.
Pentcho Valev
Go away. You are a bore.
The more one tells a bore to go away, the longer he will stay,
and telling a bore to go away might attract even bigger bores
like Osher and Dennis ;-)
Dirk Vdm
The signal of agreement with the OP to which
we have grown accustomed.
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 03:11:22 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Jan Bielawski typed:
Go away. You are a bore
I think that Bielawski has some justification in being irritated by the
comparison which Pentcho Valev made between Einstein's mind and
mediocre minds. Pentcho is too negative in his dislike of Einstein,
and I think that it comes out subconsciously in this case. The case
for superluminal travel doesn't require destroying the reputation of
Einstein, who both physically and mathematically was a Creative Genius
despite (in my opinion) being wrong about the speed of light. Even in
being wrong (about c), Einstein used the best available evidence at the
time, and in fact superluminal travel has to be invisible to subluminal
or arguably even luminal observers since our sense of sight and our
"mechanical" light sensors involve light. For example, during
Inflation, the Universe arguably accelerated to superluminal speeds
geometrically, which would be invisible to observers at least directly.
We don't "see" geometry in space directly. So there is a finite
"analog" of c, namely the maximum visible speed. The question is
whether the maximum visible speed equals an actual maximum speed, and
that I doubt as does Professor Nimtz of U. Koln/Cologne, Germany and
others.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 03:35:37 AM |
|
|
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
Jan Bielawski typed:
Go away. You are a bore
I think that Bielawski has some justification in being irritated by the
comparison which Pentcho Valev made between Einstein's mind and
mediocre minds. Pentcho is too negative in his dislike of Einstein,
and I think that it comes out subconsciously in this case. The case
for superluminal travel doesn't require destroying the reputation of
Einstein, who both physically and mathematically was a Creative Genius
despite (in my opinion) being wrong about the speed of light. Even in
being wrong (about c), Einstein used the best available evidence at the
time, and in fact superluminal travel has to be invisible to subluminal
or arguably even luminal observers since our sense of sight and our
"mechanical" light sensors involve light. For example, during
Inflation, the Universe arguably accelerated to superluminal speeds
geometrically, which would be invisible to observers at least directly.
We don't "see" geometry in space directly. So there is a finite
"analog" of c, namely the maximum visible speed. The question is
whether the maximum visible speed equals an actual maximum speed, and
that I doubt as does Professor Nimtz of U. Koln/Cologne, Germany and
others.
Osher Doctorow
Pentcho's objection is valid.
Einstein only defines the appearance of receeding clocks
because that is all that is required to derive retarded time
and retarded potential.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
For half of each polygon line segment the clock is
*approaching* the observer, a condition for which
there is no Maxwell field equivalent. Advanced
potential is a causality violation so the mathematical
operations are invalid here.
OTOH... I too have grown tired of people nit-picking
the 1905 (time travel enabled) paper when most of
the issues are clairfied in the 1920 paper.
(mostly by overly broad application of sqrt -1 )
The ploygon error seems absent in the 1920 paper:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
So I have to assume Einstein would agree with Pentcho
on the issue.
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doune" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 06:35:26 AM |
|
|
From the OP. Pentcho Valev wrote:
A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A
This, of course, is not valid. The motion is scalar, not vector.
Sue Wrote
OTOH... I too have grown tired of people nit-picking the 1905
You're right, this does come up time and time again as the implication
of relative motion slowly dawns on people.
So I have to assume Einstein would agree with Pentcho on the issue.
Well, I don't think Pentcho Valev has helped his argument in his choice
or language, but you do concur?
Either there is a problem here or someone has a definitive solution -
if anyone has a reference (not Wikipedia please, a proper paper).
Best regards
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 06:57:15 AM |
|
|
Doune wrote:
From the OP. Pentcho Valev wrote:
A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A
This, of course, is not valid. The motion is scalar, not vector.
Sue Wrote
OTOH... I too have grown tired of people nit-picking the 1905
You're right, this does come up time and time again as the implication
of relative motion slowly dawns on people.
So I have to assume Einstein would agree with Pentcho on the issue.
Well, I don't think Pentcho Valev has helped his argument in his choice
or language, but you do concur?
Either there is a problem here or someone has a definitive solution -
if anyone has a reference (not Wikipedia please, a proper paper).
The 1920 paper is the reference. The imaginary aspect of
the space defined by Einstein's mentor is discussed with
a few more disclaimers.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
Sue...
Best regards
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doune60" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 12:41:02 PM |
|
|
Sue Wrote:
The 1920 paper is the reference.
The paper seems to dump the idea in favour of space-time, which is not
what I'm asking - is there an explanation in SR?
Einstein did the same thing with aether in SR - he decided he didn't
need it and so it suddenly went away.
I'm not advocating aether here, btw. I just think this is a little
sloppy.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 12:51:05 PM |
|
|
"Doune60" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1140374462.680229.259680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sue Wrote:
The 1920 paper is the reference.
The paper seems to dump the idea in favour of space-time, which is not
what I'm asking - is there an explanation in SR?
Einstein did the same thing with aether in SR - he decided he didn't
need it and so it suddenly went away.
He dumped it because he figured once he had length contraction
and time dilation set up as the "Wizard of Oz" nobody
would look behind the curtain of the "mathematical fixing"
he achieved with such.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 01:19:53 PM |
|
|
Doune60 wrote:
Sue Wrote:
The 1920 paper is the reference.
The paper seems to dump the idea in favour of space-time, which is not
what I'm asking - is there an explanation in SR?
I doubt there is an SR explanation. The rotating FoR isn't
necessary to resolve Maxwell's equations with Galilean relativity.
All that is required is retarded time in the near-field.
Einstein did the same thing with aether in SR - he decided he didn't
need it and so it suddenly went away.
I am not sure he said what he believed. Any theory had
to overcome a lot of political and religious inertia with regard
to an absolute frame of reference.
I'm not advocating aether here, btw. I just think this is a little
sloppy.
Ya have to make electrons and positrons out of something...
may as well call it aether. Richard Fitzpatrick calls it magic.
Sue...
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doune60" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 03:31:04 PM |
|
|
Sue Wrote:
Any theory had to overcome a lot of political and religious inertia with regard to an absolute frame of reference.
Yes, difficult to believe that now. Then again, with the Creationist
lobby in the US, possibly we haven't moved that far after all!
Take care
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
19 Feb 2006 05:36:40 PM |
|
|
"Doune60" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1140384664.870098.198050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sue Wrote:
Any theory had to overcome a lot of political and religious inertia with
regard to an absolute frame of reference.
Yes, difficult to believe that now. Then again, with the Creationist
lobby in the US, possibly we haven't moved that far after all!
Take care
Yep. People haven't changed even if engineers have brought them
cars and televisions and refrigerators and MP3 players and iPods
and computers and world wide travel in aircraft and the internet and
well... information beyond their wildest dreams, such as Cassini
in orbit around Saturn. Not bad for 100 years.
They still drag their arses off to church begging for king Jupiter the
chief god (he has a different name now) to boss them around when
they are dead so that they can wear wings and halos and zoom
around heaven singing hosannas and hoping to see for themselves.
Nothing makes them happy, nothing ever will.
You take care too.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
21 Feb 2006 01:54:23 PM |
|
|
ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME
Vertner Vergon
Abstract
We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving
contradiction. We also find it
is contrary to empirical experience. In examining Doppler time we find
it has none of these
deficiencies. We therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time
dilation be
replaced with the concept of Doppler time variation.
We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
source -- Einstein's paper,
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We refer to his gedanken
experiment of moving
clocks. One of two identical clocks remains at rest while the other
moves away and returns. When
Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings in his
calculations, he stated the moving
clock "was slow by ...". The immediate perception by the public was
that he meant if a clock was
"slow by" - it had to have run slower. He also said the moving clock
was "behind" the inertial
clock by ... . These two statements do not mean the same thing. If one
clock is running slower,
then it is running slower, and that has only one meaning.
On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
alternative explanations, eg.,
the moving clock could have traveled a shorter world line -- or may
have traveled faster than
observed. In either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper)
rate but for a shorter
duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. At any rate the
accepted version is that the
clock ran slower and thus was born the concept of time dilation.
This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if one were
to observe a clock on a fast
moving spaceship, they would observe it to run slowly. It must be
emphasized that this running
slowly occurs regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That
is to say it matters not whether
the spaceship is receding or approaching, time runs slower. Also to be
emphasized is that this
slowness of time is not just a matter of observation but actually takes
place -- for when the clock
returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or Earth) clock.
Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one conclusion,
the moving clock has to be
running slowly in its own coordinate system. Here we are faced with an
unforgiving contradiction
for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in their
respective coordinate systems. It
is inconsistent that a clock can actually run slowly in its own
coordinate system - and also, the
while, keep proper time. This contradiction requires that the time
dilation concept, i.e.,
t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) be discarded.
The question arises, is there something to take its place? The answer
is yes.
To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any known
constant frequency is a clock.
The scientific community has chosen the excited cesium atom as the
standard. This is an
arbitrary choice. Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other
constant frequency atom) will
never vary in its rate. So they will always keep proper time. However,
observations of these
clocks will show a variation due to the Doppler effect. We declare this
variation in frequency is a
variation in observed time. Since the frequency is a clock, an observed
variation in the frequency
is an observed variation in time. Call it Doppler or what one will,
that is merely a description of the
mechanics. In the final analysis it is a variation in observed time.
Next, we examine a counter argument which states that the relativistic
Doppler rate is the result
of the following: If one takes the non-relativistic Doppler rate and
modifies it by the time dilation
they, come up with the relativistic Doppler rate. This, supposedly,
confirms time dilation. Upon
further examination, we perceive that even if we were to accept that
explanation, what we have is
the situation whereby an approaching clock is observed to run fast --
not as fast as non-relativistic
mechanics would have -- but fast. This is contrary to time dilation
which requires an approaching
clock to run slowly. That a reversal in direction results in a
reversal of time rate is to be expected
since time variation is the result of velocity vectors - and vectors
are directional.
If a theory conflicts with empiricism, it has to be discarded.
Next we point out that we need not necessarily accept the above
explanation. We note that
above, the non-relativistic Doppler is modified by applying time
dilation. We also note that time
dilation is written
t' = t v(1 - v2/c2), where v(1 - v2/c2) is the Lorentz
transformation.
Now non-relativistic Doppler in direct approach is written (where V =
v/c and nu is frequency).
nu'/nu = 1/1- V
Next, we apply time dilation:
nu'/nu = (1/ 1 - V) x t v(1 - V2).
It is immediately apparent how clumsy this equation is. Frequency times
time is n/t x t = n (where
n is a number) To avoid this problem we may write: nu'/nu = (1/1 -
V) v (1 - V2)
Now the argument presents itself that the equation immediately above
does not represent the
application of time dilation but does instead simply apply the Lorentz
transformation to the
frequency as it does to other parameters in transposing from one
coordinate system to another.
Thus relativistic Doppler is simply that - and not modified by time
dilation.
It can easily be shown -- using the famous "Twin Paradox" as an example
-- that utilizing the
observed Doppler time rate will yield -- when the clocks are reunited
-- a difference in the
readings commensurate with the time dilation rate. And to restate, it
can be shown that using the
Doppler time rate will yield the time dilation effect. And that is the
proper way to refer to it -- "time
dilation effect". The reason: The net time differential when the
movement of the clock is complete
is the same as though dilation time was operative throughout, whereas
it was Doppler time
operating.
What then? What is the explanation for the "effect", but not the
actuality of time dilation? Particle
accelerator operators and Ives & Stillwell claim to have "directly
observed" time dilation.* What
they have observed is transverse Doppler rates. It so happens, by some
extraordinary
coincidence, that the transverse Doppler rate is the same as the time
dilation rate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
21 Feb 2006 02:13:58 PM |
|
|
ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME
Vertner Vergon
Abstract
We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving
contradiction. We also find it
is contrary to empirical experience. In examining Doppler time we find
it has none of these
deficiencies. We therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time
dilation be
replaced with the concept of Doppler time variation.
We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
source -- Einstein's paper,
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We refer to his gedanken
experiment of moving
clocks. One of two identical clocks remains at rest while the other
moves away and returns. When
Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings in his
calculations, he stated the moving
clock "was slow by ...". The immediate perception by the public was
that he meant if a clock was
"slow by" - it had to have run slower. He also said the moving clock
was "behind" the inertial
clock by ... . These two statements do not mean the same thing. If one
clock is running slower,
then it is running slower, and that has only one meaning.
On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
alternative explanations, eg.,
the moving clock could have traveled a shorter world line -- or may
have traveled faster than
observed. In either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper)
rate but for a shorter
duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. At any rate the
accepted version is that the
clock ran slower and thus was born the concept of time dilation.
This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if one were
to observe a clock on a fast
moving spaceship, they would observe it to run slowly. It must be
emphasized that this running
slowly occurs regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That
is to say it matters not whether
the spaceship is receding or approaching, time runs slower. Also to be
emphasized is that this
slowness of time is not just a matter of observation but actually takes
place -- for when the clock
returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or Earth) clock.
Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one conclusion,
the moving clock has to be
running slowly in its own coordinate system. Here we are faced with an
unforgiving contradiction
for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in their
respective coordinate systems. It
is inconsistent that a clock can actually run slowly in its own
coordinate system - and also, the
while, keep proper time. This contradiction requires that the time
dilation concept, i.e.,
t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) be discarded.
The question arises, is there something to take its place? The answer
is yes.
To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any known
constant frequency is a clock.
The scientific community has chosen the excited cesium atom as the
standard. This is an
arbitrary choice. Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other
constant frequency atom) will
never vary in its rate. So they will always keep proper time. However,
observations of these
clocks will show a variation due to the Doppler effect. We declare this
variation in frequency is a
variation in observed time. Since the frequency is a clock, an observed
variation in the frequency
is an observed variation in time. Call it Doppler or what one will,
that is merely a description of the
mechanics. In the final analysis it is a variation in observed time.
Next, we examine a counter argument which states that the relativistic
Doppler rate is the result
of the following: If one takes the non-relativistic Doppler rate and
modifies it by the time dilation
they, come up with the relativistic Doppler rate. This, supposedly,
confirms time dilation. Upon
further examination, we perceive that even if we were to accept that
explanation, what we have is
the situation whereby an approaching clock is observed to run fast --
not as fast as non-relativistic
mechanics would have -- but fast. This is contrary to time dilation
which requires an approaching
clock to run slowly. That a reversal in direction results in a
reversal of time rate is to be expected
since time variation is the result of velocity vectors - and vectors
are directional.
If a theory conflicts with empiricism, it has to be discarded.
Next we point out that we need not necessarily accept the above
explanation. We note that
above, the non-relativistic Doppler is modified by applying time
dilation. We also note that time
dilation is written
t' = t v(1 - v2/c2), where v(1 - v2/c2) is the Lorentz
transformation.
Now non-relativistic Doppler in direct approach is written (where V =
v/c and nu is frequency).
nu'/nu = 1/1- V
Next, we apply time dilation:
nu'/nu = (1/ 1 - V) x t v(1 - V2).
It is immediately apparent how clumsy this equation is. Frequency times
time is n/t x t = n (where
n is a number) To avoid this problem we may write: nu'/nu = (1/1 -
V) v (1 - V2)
Now the argument presents itself that the equation immediately above
does not represent the
application of time dilation but does instead simply apply the Lorentz
transformation to the
frequency as it does to other parameters in transposing from one
coordinate system to another.
Thus relativistic Doppler is simply that - and not modified by time
dilation.
It can easily be shown -- using the famous "Twin Paradox" as an example
-- that utilizing the
observed Doppler time rate will yield -- when the clocks are reunited
-- a difference in the
readings commensurate with the time dilation rate. And to restate, it
can be shown that using the
Doppler time rate will yield the time dilation effect. And that is the
proper way to refer to it -- "time
dilation effect". The reason: The net time differential when the
movement of the clock is complete
is the same as though dilation time was operative throughout, whereas
it was Doppler time
operating.
What then? What is the explanation for the "effect", but not the
actuality of time dilation? Particle
accelerator operators and Ives & Stillwell claim to have "directly
observed" time dilation.* What
they have observed is transverse Doppler rates. It so happens, by some
extraordinary
coincidence, that the transverse Doppler rate is the same as the time
dilation rate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
20 Feb 2006 07:17:17 PM |
|
|
You'll find the answer to the clock differential in the following
artilcle:
THE DUAL VELOCITY THEORY OF RELATIVITY
The special theory of relativity enjoys its unusual status because
certain conclusions were made by Einstein that a rational mind has
difficulties digesting. There is a saying that many physics
theoreticians are correct in their mathematics but err in their
interpretations.
The object here is to correct Einstein's misinterpretations and clear
up some of the misunderstandings. Rather than analyze the said
misinterpretations, we simply present the proper interpretations and
let the reader draw his own inferences.
First, we must recognize that what happens to mass, energy, momentum
and time is simply an observation. These parameters in their own
co-ordinate system do not change. They are known as "proper".
Let us consider length, say the length of a rod. As its co-ordinate
system approaches the speed of light, the length of the rod appears to
foreshorten. Next we recognize that length and distance are synonymous.
We also recognize that velocity is distance/time. Therefore, we are
drawn to the conclusion that if the observation of a length contracts,
so does the observation of a velocity.
So what we have, then, is the dual situation of proper length and
observed length -- and likewise, we have proper velocity and observed
velocity, thus, the dual velocity that is the subject of this writing.
We shall refer to the proper velocity as "Newtonian" for that is what
it is -- and the observed velocity as "relativistic" because that is
what it is.
Next, we note (after proper investigation) that as the velocity of the
moving co-ordinate system approaches infinity, the relativistic
velocity approaches c. The relationship can be written as
V x sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) =3D v, where V =3D Newtonian velocity, v =3D relative
velocity, and sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz operator -- for which,
henceforward, we shall use the letter, R.
Thus we have V R =3D v.
MASS
Amongst other things this posit clears up the old bugaboo of
relativistic mass which was inferred from the expression for
relativistic momentum, p:
p =3D mv/R
In this expression, as v goes to c, p goes to infinity. And it was
concluded that since v had the limit c, the only way p could go to
inifinty was if the mass, m, increased. So Einstein concluded.
But in the light of dual velocities, we see another explanation.
Instead of R modifying m, (m/R) it modifies v, (v/R) -- and we see that
v/R =3D V. So it is the Newtonian velocity that goes to infinity.
TIME
We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
source -- Einstein's paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We
refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. One of two identical
clocks remains at rest while the other moves away and returns. When
Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings in his
calculations, he stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". The
immediate perception by the public was that he meant if a clock was
"slow by" - it had to have run slower. He also said the moving clock
was "behind" the inertial clock by ... . These two statements do
not mean the same thing. If one clock is running slower, then it is
running slower, and that has only one meaning.
On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
alternative explanations, eg, the moving clock could have traveled a
shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. In
either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate but for a
shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. At any
rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and thus was
born the concept of time dilation which led to the famous Twin Paradox.
We see here the answer to the problem is that the moving clock traveled
faster than observed. The clock in the moving system kept proper time
but did so for a shorter duration than experienced by the stationary
clock because its velocity (Newtonian) was faster than the observed
relative velocity.
We shall illustrate -- and in doing so, we shall also illustrate the
existence of superluminal velocities.
We assume a co-ordinate system that travels at the rate of 1.732 c. By
VR =3D v we see the relative (observed) velocity to be .866c. {R can be
obtained from V by sqrt{1/(1+V^2)}.
We set the conditions as follows: The traveling system ,S, will travel
a distance of 1.732 light seconds (LS). Since the velocity is 1.732
LS/sec, the clock in the system will record the transit as taking one
second. One second up and one second back equals 2 seconds for the
round trip.
The observation in the inertial system is different. There, the
observed velocity (relative) is .866 LS/sec, and the round trip will
occupy 4 seconds -- two seconds each way.
However, that is not the way the inertial system actually observes. One
has to take into account that in observing a moving co-ordinate system,
the time for radiation to transmit the record of it has to be included.
So the actual subjective description can be mathematically described as
follows:
( where c=3D1) v_ diverging =3D v/(1+v), v_converging =3D v/(1-v=
)=2E
Thus in our illustration the subjective observed velocity in recession
is .4641c -- and the transit time is
1=2E731 LS/.4641c =3D 3.732 sec.
The subjective observed velocity in approach is 6.4641c -- and the
transit time is
1=2E732 LS/ 6.4641c =3D .26795 sec.
Adding the recession time to the approach time gives us a 4 second
round trip, for the inertial observer whereas it is 2 seconds for the
moving observer.
ENERGY
We write generically E =3D m a d =3D mv^2 (m =3D mass, a =3D
acceleration, d =3D distance)
For kinetic energy we write E_k =3D mv^2/2
This is the Newtonian expression and valid for relatively low
velocities.
By considerations not displayed here the factor 1/2 is replaced by
1 /R + R^2
Thus we write the expression for kinetic energy as
mv^2
E_k =3D ---------------
(R + R^2)
It will be found this is exactly equal to Einstein's
E_k =3D (1/R - 1)mc^2 and good for all velocities.
We note that the expression for the kinetic energy of radiation is
E_k =3D h nu =3D m_photon c^2, which is of the form mc^2.
The mass of the photon is derived from Einstein's m =3D E/c^2.
We also note that in this latter form, E =3D mc^2, there is no modifying
factor as there is for ponderous bodies. We take this to mean that the
Lorentz transformation is not applicable to radiation (except where
there is an interaction between radiation and matter in motion).
In the Newtonian case, we also note that the factor =BD is only
applicable at very low velocities. In the kinetic energy equation
above --- good for all velocities --- we have the factor 1/(R + R^2)
replacing =BD.
Note that at very low velocities, R is 1 --- and the factor
1/ (R + R^2) becomes =BD. As we go up the scale of velocities, this
factor goes to infinity as does the velocitiy.
For more information and monographs see the General Science Journal at
http://www.wbabin.com. Go to "List of Authors" and click on Vertner
Vergon.
see the monograph "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity" go to
http://www.wbabin.com, Then go to
"List of Authors" and click on Vertner Vergon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The Text That Devastated Theoretical Science |
21 Feb 2006 06:55:57 AM |
|
|
wrote:
You'll find the answer to the clock differential in the following
artilcle:
THE DUAL VELOCITY THEORY OF RELATIVITY
The special theory of relativity enjoys its unusual status because
certain conclusions were made by Einstein that a rational mind has
difficulties digesting. There is a saying that many physics
theoreticians are correct in their mathematics but err in their
interpretations.
The object here is to correct Einstein's misinterpretations and clear
up some of the misunderstandings. Rather than analyze the said
misinterpretations, we simply present the proper interpretations and
let the reader draw his own inferences.
First, we must recognize that what happens to mass, energy, momentum
and time is simply an observation. These parameters in their own
co-ordinate system do not change. They are known as "proper".
Let us consider length, say the length of a rod. As its co-ordinate
system approaches the speed of light, the length of the rod appears to
foreshorten. Next we recognize that length and distance are synonymous.
We also recognize that velocity is distance/time. Therefore, we are
drawn to the conclusion that if the observation of a length contracts,
so does the observation of a velocity.
So what we have, then, is the dual situation of proper length and
observed length -- and likewise, we have proper velocity and observed
velocity, thus, the dual velocity that is the subject of this writing.
We shall refer to the proper velocity as "Newtonian" for that is what
it is -- and the observed velocity as "relativistic" because that is
what it is.
Next, we note (after proper investigation) that as the velocity of the
moving co-ordinate system approaches infinity, the relativistic
velocity approaches c. The relationship can be written as
V x sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = v, where V = Newtonian velocity, v = relative
velocity, and sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz operator -- for which,
henceforward, we shall use the letter, R.
Thus we have V R = v.
MASS
Amongst other things this posit clears up the old bugaboo of
relativistic mass which was inferred from the expression for
relativistic momentum, p:
p = mv/R
In this expression, as v goes to c, p goes to infinity. And it was
concluded that since v had the limit c, the only way p could go to
inifinty was if the mass, m, increased. So Einstein concluded.
But in the light of dual velocities, we see another explanation.
Instead of R modifying m, (m/R) it modifies v, (v/R) -- and we see that
v/R = V. So it is the Newtonian velocity that goes to infinity.
TIME
We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
source -- Einstein's paper,
<<On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We
refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. One of two identical
clocks remains at rest while the other moves away and returns. >>
The 1920 paper says nothing about the clock returning.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
Light doesn't return to the radiating structure, if it does
we know it is older.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
When
Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings in his
calculations, he stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". The
The 1920 paper includes the phrase "as judged from k" clearly
implicating the light path and not the moving oscillator.
Sue...
public perception snipped
" and click on Vertner Vergon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
