Jim
The essential point here is that relativity is not a theory of observation, but a theory of referencing (the clue as they say, is in the title!). The next point, and most important one, is (see my post above to Daryl is that one needs to understand SR, as defined by the man who wrote it. And he defined what it was. At that stage, reconciling anything with SR can then be seen as the 'red herring' for which it is. But that does not necessarily then underrmine Darly's general arguement.
Paul
Hello dear thinkers,
It is interesting these cosmological analyzes.I love so much this matter, this topic. It is a little as a real dance of evolution, they build those spheres...
Let's go for a generalization of our laws. :)
Sometimes I say me that a lot of people have forgotten their foundamentals. The aim is to harmonize all the rational laws.The newtonian mecanic(see the correlations with my rotating spheres) and this constant of the gravitation.
If we continue we have the special relativity and so c for the light speed. The quantum mecanic , by the help of Planck of course implies h constant. The General relativity says that the space is curved by this mass(see also my spheres).This general relativity try to link G and c , 2 constants. The quantum theory of fields, it try to unify h and c .....the aim is in fact to harmonize all the constants in pure 3D spherical evolutive system.The motions and the volumes of sphere become so essential. The rotations spinals and orbitals like the volumes are also essential. Now , how can we unify all these constants.....SPHERIZATION THEORY .....QUANTUM SPHERES.....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES.....UNIVERSAL SPHERE. Why because we can unify the constants when we consider a different sense of rotations for hv and m.So h c and G are unified .The 4 foundamental forces are ok !!! if and only if the number of the serie of uniqueness is finite and precise, and the same for the two 3D scales. I beleive that the volumes are the keys of stability about the synchros and sortings of evolution between this light and this gravity.
My theory is a humble harmonization optimization spherization of the relativity.That's why I have inserted the 3 main motions of spheres.c o and s .linear , spinal and orbital.The duality is easy to see with these senses of rotations, 1 for m and 1 for hv. The GR implies a pure spherization due to this increasing of mass, the mass curves the space and more we evolve, more the space is curved, If the volumes from the main central sphere are inserted with a specific serie, so we see the rule of volumes of spheres. the Universal sphere possesses a central sphere, and it is the most important volume of the serie !!!The quantum scale is in the same relativistic logic.The space time is in evolution spherization in fact. The process is rational and deterministic and under a pure isotropical homogeneity. This Universal sphere is on a specific road, the steps are precise. We can have a contraction after a kind of maximum volume.If we see the accelerations of the expansion, we can also consider the possibility to have a deceleration towards this maximum and after we can have an acceleration also in contraction and after even a deceleration towards the perfect equilibrium of cosmological and quantum spheres. We can correlate with the volume of this universal sphere, changing in times and the density.The equation of Friedman Lemaître can be optimized with my equations and the spherization like general point of vue.
The black bodies,( so the spheres with their volumes increasing towards the centers.)are very intriguing. The cosmic microwaves background can help for an optimizations of equations. We can class the spheres and their volumes. We see our past but we can class the rational spherization of rotations of spheres.
Best Regards
oops sorry, this post was from me, the crazy spherical Jedi.
Hi Paul,
The title of Einstein's paper on SR is "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies". That title is in no way about the theory of referencing, it is a title about observations. Poincaré also tried to describe SR but he didn't get it quite right. Einstein correctly described SR not SR was created by Einstein. If you come along and give a better description of SR (not aether) then we will be calling it Reed's better SR. SR exists independently of it's finder. Science to be understandable needs SR. It is like trying to remove oxygen (SR) from the earth (science) and still have us living on it (universe making sense).
Jim Akerlund
Thanks Daryl in this sort of discussion it is easy to take statements too literally and out of context. Unless I detail exactly how to restate SR and start anew it does not do me much good, even though I have a specific set of assumptions in mind. It will take too long to explain these here - basically they are the same as expounded in my Beautiful Universe Theory link in my July 18 post above. I really should do more work presenting my case mathematically!
Cheers
Vladimir
James
Not so. The title of Einstein's 1905 paper is On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. But this is not SR (see my post in my blog 13/7 11.24). The other point is that none of his theory is about observation, per se. This is a misconception based on his frequent mentioning of light, the use of phraes such as frame of reference and observer moves with, and the substitution of light for distance incorrectly in an equation (see my post in my blog 11/7 19.33)
For now here are a few quotes where Einstein defines SR, ie it is not 1905:
1 Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3:"the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation."
2 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28: "The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists."
"In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity."
3 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18: "provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion."
Paul
Vladamir
Yes, but the crucial point here is what did Einstein define SR as, after all, he wrote it! To me, alarm bells go off when somebody writes 'special', so I went to the original writings of 100 years ago and tracked what constitutes 'special'. And Einstein clearly defines it, many times, in different papers (and probably more than I have read, as I understand the concept was first mentioned before it was articulated in 1916). And it is not that which was written in 1905. The conditions invoked in 1905 and SR are different.
Paul
Hi Paul,
If you want to call Darwin's theory of evolution, SR, I say go for it. You may not have a lot of takers, but that's OK.
So, in your investigations of GR did you perchance read Hilbert's GR? The story goes that Einstein described what he was doing about space being the mediator of gravity to David Hilbert. Hilbert understood what Einstein was talking about and knew the math better and in two weeks time wrote out Hilbert's version of GR. I suspect this version preceeded Einstein's version, but the scientific community says it was Einstein who did GR. So any arguments that you quote to Einstein in your post could equally apply to Hilbert. Was Hilbert wrong? Before you answer that question, you need to really understand who David Hilbert was. I'm just warning you. But I suspect you will go on with your own answer that will have nothing to do with my question. A good way to answer posts is to answer questions that the previous post didn't ask.
Jim Akerlund
Jim
"If you want to call Darwin's theory of evolution, SR, I say go for it"
It is not a matter of what I want to call SR, it is a matter of what Einstein said it was, after all, he wrote it.
"So, in your investigations of GR did you perchance read Hilbert's GR?"
No. Because I have not "investigated" GR, and am not commenting on its contents. Furthermore, your point does not relate to the above, because it certainly is not the author, per se, that creates the validity of what is being said, but the correspondence of what is being said with validated facts. Now it was Lorentz (and Fitzgerald) that postulated dimension alteration, Poincare with simultaneity, etc. But the point above is that Einstein said what SR constituted, many times, in different papers, and he did not say it was 1905. That is a presumption which is being made, without any deference to what the author wrote. Neither are the two similar, when they are compared, which is also something of a 'give away'. So SR is not 1905.
"So any arguments that you quote to Einstein in your post could equally apply to Hilbert. Was Hilbert wrong?"
I have not said whether SR is valid or not, that is a separate issue. But if one is going to comment on it, or reconcile other ideas with it, then the best start point is to ensure that the theory is properly defined, as per what the author said it was.
"A good way to answer posts is to answer questions that the previous post didn't ask"
Indeed so, but as far as possible I try to avoid doing that.
Paul
Jim
Another way of expressing this argument is as follows.
In 1905, in expounding his new theory, Einstein stipulates that only two postulates are necessary. In defining them he writes that they are "only apparently irreconcilable". This is bizarre. Here is a new theory, just two postulates, and yet the author admits to a potential problem. Which is then not formally addressed until 1916, when he expounds his real theory, GR, and reconciles that apparent irreconcilability with SR.
In other words, 1905 is, in effect, a first draft of GR. He knows it does not 'all fit together', as written, and possibly knew why and what the resolution was. Hence his admission that there might appear to be a problem, but it is resolvable.
And the problem is that in 1905, objects are not 'in vacuo' (there is dimension alteration, ie there is something affecting objects), BUT light is in vacuo. In other words, the two components cannot co-exist because they are not deemed to be existing under the same conditions. In SR everything is 'in vacuo', in GR nothing is.
Paul
Paul,
Everyone knows that Minkowski space-time is a solution of Einstein's equations where there is no matter or curvature; so if that's what you're getting at, it's hardly a revelation. The theory is called called "special" relativity because it's a special case of the general theory of relativity. Also, just FYI, to go along with the sources you've noted above: if you haven't done so already you might be interested to have a look at what Einstein wrote in the last (fifth) appendix he added to "Relativity: the special and the general theory", entitled "Relativity and the problem of space". I think you'd find the second last section, "The concept of space in the general theory of relativity" particularly interesting (and validating).
Jim,
Thanks for all three of your posts, and the first one in particular. I'm trying to write a response to your questions/criticisms, but things have been very busy around here and I may not have that done today. I'm really sorry about the tragedy that happened so near to you. I can't imagine the emotion you'd be feeling at having almost been there.
Since this thread has gone off topic, I'll just start a new one when I add my response. Really, thanks again. I'm glad you've given me this opportunity to try to make myself clearer to you.
Sincere regards,
Daryl
Daryl
No that is not what I am getting at. The points are that 1) SR is not 1905, 2) when the core concept of relativity (dimension alteration) was explained using Poincare's simultaneity and Minkowski's spacetime model, both of which are incorrect because they misrepresent time, then the physical explanation of that core concept of relativity is incorrect. But, just because the explanation is incorrect, this does not mean that the core hypothesis is. Dimension alteration may or may not occur, and may or may not do so in the way and at the calibrated level, that was proposed..
"The theory is called "special" relativity because it's a special case of the general theory of relativity"
It was 'special' because there was no gravitational forces involved. Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3: "the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation.". In other words it was a highly theoretical circumstance where objects remained fixed in dimension, light travelled in straight lines and at a constant speed, and motion only comprised of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion. Why? Because there was no gravitation force.
Which, of course, Einstein knows is not the real world. So in 1905 objects were subjected to a force (later identified as gravity, in addition to some omnipresent effect which might occur as matter travels through the 'ether') which caused dimension alteration (and momentum change), and in 1916 light (having been in vacuo previously), was also brought into the same world.
Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 22: "From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. In two respects this result is of great importance...... In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."
Thanks, I will have a look at that reference.
Paul
Daryl
Fiddlesticks (technical word!). Have you got a ref to an on-line Appendix V?
Paul
Hello Mr Janzen,
It is a reading full of news.
" The most important fact that we draw from experience as to the distribution of matter is that the relative velocities of the stars are very small as compared with the velocity of light.
So I think that for the present we may base our reasoning upon the following approximative assumption. There is a system of reference relatively to which matter may be looked upon as being permanently at rest."
I am happy to see those words from Einstein.It is very well said.The relativity of velocities is essential. My model is ok with this reasoning.The 3 motions must be correlated. The spinal vel.,the orbital vel. and the linear velocity of the sphere or the system of spheres.
We can see the gauge inside this 3D universal sphere.We have so an universal link between all physical spheres.So it implies a simple universal logic about the rotations.More a sphere turns , less is its mass.See that the Universal sphere so does not turn. I ask me what is the rotation of the universal central sphere inside this universal sphere.In logic , its mass is very important , so it does not turn also this central sphere.See that more we gor towards our planck scales and the walls.So we are at the central quantuùm sphere inside the fermions and the bosons.In this universal logic, these spheres , them turn very quickly at a kind of maximum.You shall understand why I have inserted the 3 motions of a sphere inside this general equation E=m(c³o³s³),
All turns in fact but not this central sphere and this universal sphere, you shall understand how we can calculate this maximum mass, so this maximum entropy in evolution furthermore.
An other point is that if this light is without mass, it is because it turns in the other sense than gravity. I ask me how we can interpret the main central quantum spheres.The universal process of evolution is fascinating.It is like a building, an optimization, a pure SPHERIZATION.The Universe is composed by spheres only.And these spheres can build all the 3d forms on the entropical arrow of times. See also my other equations and this one about the rotating quantum and cosmological spheres. mcosV=Constant. so it is relevant considering the maximum mass of our universal sphere and the calcul of all physical 3d spheres.The proportions, universal are so numerous.It is facinating.
The works of Newton,Einstein, Borh,....are optimized with my humble theory and equations. We search after all what are the secrets of this wonderful universal sphere. and this universal process of evolution is still young. If I extrapolate with some series of mass.We see that we are still at the begining of this universal sphere.I think that we have still more than 250 billions years for the equilibriums between quantum and cosmological spheres. it is fascinating this future. Perhaps that at this moment, we shall be at a kind of begining of physical eternity due to this infinite light behind the walls.
the motions, the rotations of spheres of light are the secret of all. All is composed by these spheres of light. The intrinsic codes of evolution are fascinating and the word is weak.
What is this universal puzzle?.....in all case ,imagine the number of creations in evolution towards this ultim equilibrium inside this physicality.
a wonderful project in fact ....
Regards
Dear Jim Akerlund,
Thanks for "raising your hand". First of all, to address your "warning sign", although Einstein's presentation of SRT seemed simple enough to start with, as he realised he could base the whole theory on just the light-postulate and the principle of relativity, and thus do away with absolute time, etc., there are significant philosophical issues with the theory that have been subsequently realised---at least for those of us who trust our senses enough to maintain that things must *actually* change. Because the thing is, that the implication of a block universe, in which the dimension of time physically exists as a coordinate of a four-dimensional continuum (which cannot in any way change, because it doesn't *exist* in any temporal sense, time already being a part of the four-dimensional block) is a direct consequence of the simple way that Einstein interpreted the relativity of simultaneity. The fact of this is quite well-known, which is why I dedicated only a paragraph to a number of statements that were made in reference to it, by Minkowski, Einstein, Weyl, and Geroch. In fact, this is what Minkowski's (1908) invention of space-time, as an "absolute world" in which "everywhere and everwhen there is something perceptible", was all about. You mentioned the Andromeda galaxy, and I urge you to re-visit Penrose's discussion of what has been referred to as the "Andromeda paradox", which provides a very clear illustration of the problem. You could also look at the paper by Putnam that I mentioned to Paul Reed above.
Before moving on, I just want to clarify that I believe we live in a three-dimensional Universe, where the Earth truly exists, and where everything has ever happened. But I believe those happenings have only been real in the moments that they occurred, as the arrangement of things in the Universe has continuously changed; e.g., according to this theory, I'm not being born thirty years ago in Saskatoon, because none of that exists any longer, because all that exists exists presently. By this I mean to describe a very Newtonian picture of physical reality, to which SRT is supposed to be opposed. But I don't think that it is, as I think the mathematical theory reconciles very well with such a Newtonian picture, in which photons move at finite velocities through a "present" three-dimensional universe, with the *metrical structure* of the map of events that occur in the special relativistic universe given so that photons travel through it along (invariant) null paths.
Now, I'll repeat the problem: if simultaneity is defined so that the events that occur "simultaneously" in any given inertial reference frame, are those that occur at the same time---i.e., *synchronously*; at the same value of the time-coordinate---according to an inertial observer who remains at rest in that frame, then, because "what simultaneously exists" will be different for all observers, if we integrate over all possible descriptions of "what simultaneously exists" for all possible inertial observers who might be moving relative to one particular observer at one value of their proper time, we find that "what simultaneously exists" actually has to be all of space-time, as a block---so that the best we can say about the perception of change is that "To us believing physicists the distinction between past, present, and future has only the significance of a stubborn illusion", which is something that Einstein wrote in a letter commemorating Michel Besso only weeks before his own death.
Now, (I'm coming to your issue, so please bear with me) I want you to have a look at my Fig. 2. A, B, and C are all inertial (non-accelerating) observers. B and C are moving relative to A, and at rest with respect to each other, with A moving in their proper frames. The figure is supposed to be used to understand how it's possible for only the events that are synchronous---i.e., which occur at the same time---in A's frame to be thought of as actually occurring simultaneously. Therefore, in the right-hand-side image (B's frame) I want you to think of "the universe" as the x-axis, which moves along the t-axis. (Do you see that B and C can then be thought of as moving through "the universe"?) Now, the causal structure---i.e., the light-cone structure, together with the distinction between past and future---becomes important for the following reason. In both graphs, null lines have to trace out as 45-degree lines; therefore, although "the universe" is tilted in B's frame, everything that moves through "the universe" has to move along a timelike worldline. Not only is it true that no particle can move through "the universe" fast enough that its world-line would have a negative slope (as if it moved down and to the right very quickly), but no particle can ever move through "the universe" so fast that the slope of its world-line is anything less than 45-degrees.
Make sure you understand this, because it's what I'm getting at in that paragraph that you disliked so much: although "the universe" is tilted and evolving upwards in B's frame, everything still can only move through "the universe" so that it traces out timelike or null world-lines.
Now, given this very different interpretation in which particles actually move through a particular hyperplane (absolute space, which may or may not be real independently of the particles that exist) that actually evolves (i.e., in absolute time), let me explain that paragraph better. Inertial particles trace out straight world-lines which are their proper time-axes (inertial structure). Inertial particles with non-zero absolute motion (B and C) can describe themselves as remaining at rest in "space", and light as propagating at the same rate in either direction of "space", by defining "space" as the hyperplane that's tilted towards their world-line as depicted in Figure 2. This is simple enough to see if you draw B's light cone in the left-hand side diagram: in an interval of t', light moves through x' just as far to the right of B as it does to the left. B can therefore use these primed coordinates to describe themself as "remaining at rest in space in which light propagates isotropically", as shown in the right-hand side image. However, this is not enough to fix the magnitude of c as being the same in B's coordinates as it is in A's. In order for that to be, B's coordinates need to be scaled hyperbolically with respect to A's, according to a Lorentz transformation. Therefore, distances in the space-time continuum of events that occur in the universe are determined according to the Minkowski metric.
Another way of thinking about this is as follows: assuming a Newtonian universe that's evolution is described by the Minkowski metric (i.e., the map of events that occur in the evolving universe is described by the Minkowski metric), given the requirement that light propagates along null lines while everthing else must trace out a timelike world-line, the space-time continuum of events that occur in the universe will be coordinated in local inertial frames just as it is in special relativity theory. Therefore, the mathematical theory is exactly the same, but an absolute simultaneity-relation has been assumed in order to reconcile SRT with a true passage of time, in contrast to Einstein's interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity which leads to the requirement of a block universe.
Now, to address a few of your points more explicitly: 1) I've answered; 2) it's perfectly acceptable to write about "uniform motion through the cosmic present" in a theory where I've already stated that there is a true cosmic time and a corresponding absolute rest-frame; 2) (again) at the point where two relatively moving observers meet, their light cones are exactly the same, but according to the common interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity, what's simultaneously happening on a planet in Andromeda will be different according to each observer. I'm arguing that this is wrong; 3) do you see what I mean about the x' axis being tilted with respect to x, the cosmic present, so that light will be described by B as moving at the same rate in either direction? In an interval of t', light doesn't move as far to the right through x as it does to the left; 4) (I just answered the first part, but also) it's not enough to simply rotate the axes to make light propagate with the same speed in either direction for B: the coordinates also need to be re-scaled so that speed of light remains the same finite value in all inertial frames; 5) they only need to be parallel if they're not moving at all relative to each other, and if that were so, the figure wouldn't illustrate much.
Anyway, I've done my best to handle your objections. If you do have another look at the paper and something still doesn't sit right, or if you see something else you don't like, I'll continue to do my best to explain myself for you. I'll be out of town for a few days, with only a phone to respond with, though, so if you write a lot again I may just wait to respond when I'm back.
Regards,
Daryl
Paul,
I haven't found an online version. The fifth appendix (1954) is still under copyright. It's not printed in every edition that comes out, but it's in my Routledge Classics 2001 edition. It's also in Ideas and Opinions (last entry) if you've got that. Actually, now that I think of it, there are pdfs of Ideas and Opinions floating around on the internet. I just googled the book and found that I could indeed read this last appendix online. I'm not going to provide a link here, though, for the obvious reason.
Daryl
Dear Vladimir,
I'm sorry that I took your statements too literally. I certainly didn't mean to sound less than appreciative of your kind words and enthusiasm, though I can see how my response sounded that way. So, thank you very much for the congratulations and nice things you said about my essay. I do really appreciate that. I found your essay for this competition very intriguing, and of course I liked the excellent illustrations a lot. I do want to look at it more carefully, along with your Beautiful Universe Theory. You can definitely expect the feedback from me that you asked for, but it will unfortunately take me a few days to get that done.
Best regards,
Daryl
P.S. I just posted a response to a comment by Jim Akerlund below (I created a new thread though, because the one he began was getting a bit long and off topic). If you're interested, I think it would really help with some of the technical details you may have had trouble with in my essay---and I think it would help you to see that I really favour the same conception of time as you; e.g., one thing that I didn't get the chance to say much about in my essay is the clear distinction that I feel needs to be made between the present as *real* and the past and future as purely *ideal*, in the adjectival sense of idea that's defined, e.g., in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary. I think the quote that he provides for that entry says it all: "There is a two-fold knowledge of material things; one real, when the thing, and the real impression thereof on our senses, is perceived; the other *ideal*, when the image or idea of a thing, absent in itself, is represented to and considered on the imagination."
Paul, "special" relativity simply means that the theory applies only to the special case of uniform motion. When generalized to accelerated motion, relativity theory describes gravity over the entire universe. This is conventional mathematics terminology; there is no philosophical significance to it.
Tom
Daryl
Thanks So I noticed! I ordered a copy by high priority shipment from the US, since I am due to go on holiday (motorhome) any day now. Re your post below to Jim, you might like to look at my response I have just written on Peter Jackson's blog, under a thread started by Joe, 13/7 15.31. This explains timing. And yes I do agree with you about 3D (well conceptually that's the minimum but we won't go down that road!) and existence. The sooner these fundamentals are sorted out the better. On that topic, you might like to read my short paper on my blog which I put up this morning, 24/7 06.42.
Paul
Steve
What is this universl puzzle? We can never ever know. However, within that which we can potentially know a generic answer is provided by my post this morning (06.42) in my blog.
Paul
