Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Eckard

I will have to be careful here, as it may not be what you are saying. But there is no duration in physical existence. Hence even the application of x = vt can be flawed (and indeed is). So by definition, there is nothing to be symmetrical about.

Either one stays within any given time and compares different physically existent states at that time, or one compares sequences of these as they progress over time. The point about x = vt is that distance, which is a difference, can only occur between two physically existent states which are existent at the same time. So any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.

The exception to this is that distance could be conceived as a single example of change, ie a difference. So it can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Failure to understand the absence of elapsed time in a physical reality results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt. Making this mistake reifies change, and hence duration.

Now look at Einstein1905, it falls over from the start. Even worse, distance is seen as being quantifiable in terms of subsequent timings, not just it is a duration.

Light is 'constant' in that it is an existent phenomenon. It is not dependent of being received (ie observation). It results from an atomic interaction, so it always starts at the same speed, ie the speed of what it reacted with is irrelevant, because it is not a collision. There is no dichotomy between 'constant' light speed and a variable timing. It is just that the latter is in the receipt timing of light, not physical existence. All other things being equal, then the time of receipt of light which carries a representation of any given existence will be a direct function of distance between observers and existence.

Light as in waves, etc, ie over time, is another issue. Here we need to understand how light works. How many photons are involved in a 'decipherable' light, does exactly the same effect in photons disperse in all directions after an interaction, what is the differential between one light and the next, how does the effect actually travel, ie does the effect itself move, or is it a chain reaction, etc etc.

Be careful with SR, it is not 1905. SR is a theoretical circumstance without gravity. So it involves fixed shape bodies (ie no dimension alteration), only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary movement, and light that travels at a constant speed in straight lines. It was his way of demonstrating that there was no inherent contradiction in the two postulates. Note the phrase "only apparently irreconcilable" when stating them in 1905. Now that is weird, a new theory, only requires two postulates, and yet the author is aware that those who have brains might spot there is an inherent contradiction somewhere. But the author does not explain why it isn't at that time. Just 'resolves' it later with a purely theoretical circumstance, then moves on to the actual theory, ie GR.

The point about 'frames' is this: it is a reference. The reference for both time and space are concepts. They have to be operationalised. So any given timing device or spatial measuring device is just 'telling' the quantity. It is, in practical terms, the best approximation we have to the concept, which enables us to compare differences. Those watches of Einstein's were in synch already, otherwise they are useless. There was no "common time" to find.

Having been stimulated by an exchange with Ben, I have written the core argument down. I am now wading through all the other stuff. I do not have the capability to be specific, but my view is becoming that this search for a stationary reference and consideration of ether/light/etc was a red herring. There is no problem. Obviously light arriving at earth is affected by a number of factors, but light here on earth? The immediate reaction, ie dimension alteration, just sort of gets left on the cutting room floor. Timing is the new kid on the block, thanks to the flawed concept of simultaneity. One gets 'echoes' of dimension alteration in the idea that it is OK for clocks to differ when they move, because movement is making them contract/elongate so they tick more slowly/faster.

Paul

Eckard

Absolutely. Though as I wade through all the quotes etc and organise them, it strikes me that Lorentz does a pretty good job of debunking the experiment anyway. Then Einstein really just ignores it under the guise of relativity, as he asserts that the whole question of ether/light, which is at rest, etc, etc, is effectively rendered irrelevant (ie neutralised) by the concept that 'everything is relative anyway'. But he then falls into the trap of equating light reality with existential reality. In other words, whether there were mistakes or not in those experiments, or their interpretation, is irrelevant, because that is ultimately not used in relativity. It just proked a train of thought. Remember the film Day of the Jackal, the policeman was always after the wrong man, but by being caused to look, he eventually found one that did exist.

The difference I refer to is the notion that measuring a distance in different ways will result in a different answer.

The difference you refer to in c, is something else, that is, c is a velocity wrt to some reference. The earth spins one way, it also is moving one way. So by definition, c depends on you reference.

Paul

Eckard,

Your short Michelson-Morley document refers to diagrams which are missing. Can you send me a file with the appropriate diagrams at bdribus@hotmail.com? Thanks, and take care,

Ben

Eckard

Good stuff. It's interesting what can be found out by just going back to the original and applying common sense, rather than replayingthe urban myths that have grown up since.

Leaving aside specific comments on M&M, I think, and you can understand the technical stuff, I can't, Lorentz & Poincare pursue arguments that reject the null result. Anyway, they, along with Einstein,ignore it. Effectively they presume the ether, whatever it is, to have no effect. Poincare found the M&M results "rather astonishing". The immediate explanation for it, ie dimension alteration, how that occurred, and its value as gamma is carried through but explained away by timing variations, which do not actually exist.

Paul

Eckard

As per your response in Ben's blog:

A) Re Fig 1: you will have to explain the point you were making in that post. As here we are back to my original comments when first reading your essay, which resulted in 17 exchanges but no conclusion. That is:

1 "his [Einstein's] obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity".

2 "time can strictly speaking not be measured at all"

Time can be measured very easily, but it is more important to understand what it actually is. Furthermore, in physical terms, there is no future, and the relevance of the past is that certain specific aspects of it, are each responsible for the next occurrence in the sequence (ie cause and effect). Einstein did not deny past/future, as such.

B) Re exchange with George Ellis: I will now try and track this down.

It would help if you read my post on my blog of 18 November, which summarises what I have been saying all the time, specifically in respect of Einstein.

Paul

Eckard

Para 3 of your essay. The next sentence is: "The notion time has been derived from elapsed time (see Fig. 1) which is a concrete, absolute, and always positive measure." Which is correct in so far as difference indicates to us that reality is altering. But the speed at which change occurs can be measured. This is known as timing, the unit of measure being time. What is being measured is the turnover rate of reality (either in its entirety or conceptualised sub-sequences thereof). You cannot measure the future it does not physically exist.

If you are referring to how relativity is wrong, then it is my "opinion" that is correct, and what I have been saying for the past 18 months. I do not know about Israel's comments, I seem to remember reading something by him early on, have you got a reference?

Paul

Eckard

"One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs"

This is a statement of the obvious, so I am not sure where it is taking you. Leaving aside actual practicalities of doing so, which is a different issue to the logically possible, measuring the speed of change is possible. Just as is size, colour, loudness, etc, etc. The key point here being that what occurred in physical existence is captured in a physically existent, but representational reality. That is known as light, noise, vibration, etc, etc. So, on the basis of understanding how those physical phenomena work, we can, and with the neutralisation of any influence introduced in the subsequent processing of what was physically received, identify what actually occurred.

Re Israel, et al. And indeed yourself. Fair enough. But as I keep on saying, any new fact in this area can have no impact on relativity. Because there is no connection. People can keep on trying to understand how light/the medium works till they go to their grave, but it is irrelevant to identifying the error in relativity. For the simple reason that that is not where the error is. Einstein conflated light reality and existent reality. Examination of all his examples, and overt statements prove this. Here is one (section 12, 1916): "As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity".

The other error is in measuring distance in terms of elapsed time, ie the time it would take something to travel that distance, either way. But there is no duration in distance, that is just an alternative method for expressing it. And guess what he uses to calibrate distance?? Yep, light. So c becomes the timing reference for physical existence (which is its role in light reality). It is constant because it is being used as the design determinant. It just so happens that, in physical existence observational light is practically constant. It always starts with the same velocity, and not much impedes that motion, and only marginally. Here is the mistake, copied from Poincaré Section 1, 1905:

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a"B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t(a) from A towards B, let it at the "B time" t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t'(a).

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: t(b) - t(a) = t'(a) - t(b)."

Einstein has , effectively, reversed how physical existence actually occurs. Section 8 1916: "Under these conditions we understand by the "time" of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation."

Einstein has equated the real time differential which occurs, because light travels, with a false differential attributed to an existential time difference. This is why relativity 'works'. It always struck me from the outset that whilst there is 'something wrong here', obviously the theory must come up with the 'right answers', otherwise it would have been rejected by now.

So, in amongst everything else you arereading, I can only ask you to read my post, or indeed I will send you a copy. And please ignore the first 3 paragraphs, because I do not want you to start thinking it's all philosophy. Start with what distance is (para 4).

Paul

Eckard

That equation is wrong for two reasons:

-there is no duration in distance

-a distance identified at a subsequent time cannot be presumed to be the same distance, or indeed a function of the same physically existent states.

Neither is the problem anything to do with the speed of light, because Einstein is not referring to light as in observational light, really he is using light as a timing device. And time is constant. Have you ever noticed how many of his examples have lightening or light beams, this masks the conflation of existence and a physical representation of that existence.

Distance is solely determined by physically existent states, since it is the difference between them in respect of spatial attributes, and differences do not exist physically. So distance can only involve physically existent states which exist at the same time. It is not possible to establish a distance, as opposed to some form of conceptual spatial relationship, between something which exists and something else which does not.

Therefore, any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.

Distance can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity.

Lorentz had the proper concept of local time, as deployed by Voigt/Doppler. That is, in a frequency, ie a sequence which is occurring over time, then each point in that frequency can be designated with a time. Which is correct. Poincaré highjacked this and incorrectly applied it, thereby giving everything in existence its own time. Einstein copied this. Michelson, and anybody else who thinks it, is correct to state that light must be quicker one way than the other, if the earth is moving. The simple fact is that you need something better than he had to detect it, assuming he got his sums right anyway. They did not really believe the result of M&M. Just paid 'lip sevice' to it. And yes, factored out the ether. But as I keep on saying, none of this matters in terms of what is actually driving relativity, because these considerations are not. It just set them on a particular path of thinking, with a number of coincidences which resulted in relativity.

Similar to the other quote I put up, here is another one, which encapsulates the error being made. The time delay which occurs whilst light travels has been reversed into physical existence. That is what the incorrect definition of simultaneity does.

1916 Section 9, para 3:

"Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity".

Paul

Eckard

"Neither he nor Doppler attributed a local time in the sense that was later meant by Lorentz (1895) and Poincaré to something."

The precision and the senses are not important, it is the generic usage. Fundamentally, local time was originally used to depict the time of different points in a sequence. This is what Lorentz is doing in 1895 when explaining oscillations. Poincaré never 'gets it', he sees it as being an explanation of his incorrect definition of simultaneity, ie that works because there is an inherent timing differential in physical existence. Which there is if one conflates light with existence!

All transformations will be gamma, because they are all being derived on the same basis, ie the relationship between the transversal and the vertical. The vertical being the 'ideal' situation, and the transversal being what occurred when something happened. Heaviside had gamma. The real question, before examining whether that value is correct or whether it is just a function of depicting events by triangles, is what is the purpose of the transformation, why is this correction being effected in the first place, and whether it is actually right to do so?

"If - as I found out - the expectation of a non-null result was a mistake"

?? You will have to explain this, ie are you referring to some technical point with the experiment or a more fundamental argument. Because since the earth is moving (various ways actually) then the calibrated speed of light will vary, depending on directions. Which is where they all started, the interrelationships with ether, permeability, etc, being detail. That is, if you have one moving entity (say light) and another moving entity (say earth) then the relative speed of either will depend on the way they are compared. They were hoping to discover something which was at absolute rest, and therefore could be used as the reference for calibrating all speeds.

The concept of local time is correct, if applied properly, ie to depict the timing of stages of a sequence.

"Don't you agree that there is a common moment of what you are calling existence?"

Yes. As at any given time, there are countless definitive physically existent states in existence. Put simply, at some specific point in time whilst I typed that, St Pauls Cathedral was in a specific physically existent state, so was I, the computer, a train travelling into London, etc, etc, etc. As at the next point in time, all these were in a different physically existent state. Now, we (and all sentient organisms) are only aware of those with the receipt of physically existent representations thereof (commonly known as light, noise, vibration, heat, etc). There is a time delay whilst this occurs, apart from the fact that what is received is a representation of the reality which occurred, not the reality. So, there are always two sets of times. The time of existence, and the time of receipt of a representation of that. Forget the subsequent processing of what is physically received, that is irrelevant, this is physics, not psychology. The real trick is, given the time of receipt, to infer the time of existence. And indeed, what it actually was.

And that answered your last question, ie "In other words, do we need Einstein's (Poincaré's) synchronization?" Yes, we need to understand the timing relationships, which fundamentally we can take as a function of spatial position (ie assume light speed as constant, which it more or less is, unless some specific circumstance arose, and we cannot calculate the 'actual'-ie wrt to some constantly used reference-on each occasion anyway). But, underpinning that, we first need to understand that physical existence is existential sequence. Because if we fail to do that, we end up with a confusion of what occurred when.

Paul