Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

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

I presume the exchange you referred to ran in 3 different threads in early November.

1 Infinity

There is no such thing as infinity in the physical existence we are examining. Because we are trapped in a closed system, ie a form of existence which is finite. Assertions outwith that form can only be belief, ie 'anything goes' and is of equal validity, or non-validity, whichever-as they are the same. The point being once extrinsic to the form of existence we can know, there is no validity reference. George Ellis's argument, which is a common one, that: "Anything to do with "infinite" is an unprovable hypothesis", confuses the logical possibilities as to what existence might be, with the form of existence we can know. [Remember our exchange on God with Ben, and you agreed with me. This is the same logical point]. Logically, existence might have a feature we refer to as infinity. But scientifically we cannot transcend one particular form of existence, so, as with any other such ideas, we cannot know, it is just a belief and therefore not part of science. The form of physical existence we are able to examine, objectively, is, by definition, finite. Though in terms of mathematical/narrative representation thereof, tends towards infinity, is correct, ie indicating that there is a definite quantity but it is too large to quantify. This might at first appear to be 'nit-picking', but this is a classic example of the failure to understand the nature of what is being investigated first, before constructing representations of it.

2 Dimension alteration (Length contraction)

Whether this actually occurs is something that needs to be proven, but that is a separate issue.

Whilst it was thought to be the explanation of the null result of M&M, whether it was, or a false interpretation, or the experiment was invalid, etc, is all irrelevant. The critical point is that they believed it to be so, which initiated a certain train of thought, but ultimately was not a driver in the resulting theory of relativity. That is, for example, it caused them to be concerned about relatively moving objects and hence their use as a reference. Because such objects were so moving as the force (really a differential) causing that, also caused dimension alteration. So they introduced a non-existent variable in their thinking, which then needed to be rationalised. This morphed into time variation (ie time alteration-again there is a tendency as with length to only refer to one effect-dilation). The quantification of these effects is the same, and is wrong anyway, since all it (gamma) really amounts is a comparison of the transversal with the vertical. The concept that there was dimension alteration also gave 'background comfort' to the notion of timing devices varying as their momentum varied, ie their tick rate might be so affected as they contracted/dilated. The supposed variance in time is derived via another route, the closest we get to this notion is a reference to a "normal" clock. You should also note that Einstein concluded: "that the expected difference is much too small to be noticeable in the measurement of earth's surface" (section 22 Foundation 1916)

3 The real point here being that relativity is the function of two interrelated fundamental errors:

-the assumption that there is duration in physical existence, which manifests as the incorrect application of x = vt . That is, time is reified.

the conflation of physical existence and light existence (ie what we receive, but do not confuse this with the subsequent processing thereof, which is irrelevant). That is, the elimination of time delays which actually occur whilst light travels, the reification of c as the constant/limiter-a determinant of physical existence-which it is not, AND its use in the incorrect application of x = vt.

In simple language: the existent time delay whilst light travels is conflated with a non existent time variation in physical existence. Which is, as Peter Jackson will confirm, what I have been saying for the past 18 months. It has nothing to do with presuming c to be constant, which is a valid simplification, and it has nothing to be with all these torturous arguments about the processing of physical input received.

4 I would need to know what you are referring to as SR. It was not 1905. Another factual point I keep making, like the one about light is just a moving entity therefore its speed depends on the reference used to calibrate it. Einstein was perfectly clear as to what constituted SR, it was a theoretical circumstance without gravitational forces, so it involved only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, fixed shape bodies, and light that travelled at a constant speed in straight lines. Remember, in 1905 we had dimension alteration, ie not fixed shaped bodies. This contradiction in 1905 was because matter was not 'in vacuo', whereas light was. He was aware of a problem, hence the two postulates were "only apparently irreconcilable", and this was 'reconciled in section 7 1916.

5 It sounds as if the Feynman lectures you refer to are not available on-line(?)

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

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

Eckard

1 Actual vrs logical

On many occasions precisely what happens is irrelevant to a correct logical/generic depiction. I could ask questions about precisely how does light work, but not knowing the answers does not detract from certain key logically correct statements. Similarly the point about local time is about designating a time to each 'point' in an elapsed sequence, which is correct, as opposed to using local time in a different way.

2 Fundamental vrs technical

As per the above, in respect of my question about the expectation from the M&M experiments, which you did not answer, I was asking whether your assertion meant: a) they should have not have been expecting that outcome because it does not occur, or b) they should not have been expecting it because the experiment would never identify it/the maths was wrong/etc.

3 Earth movement

I am not sceptical, it is a fact, and the point is not about absolute space. We can never know what is absolute and what is not. The simple fact is that, irrespective of what reference is used to calibrate motion (both in the sense of speed and direction), the earth is a moving entity, so too is light. Therefore, there must be differences with respect to one another, depending on relative direction and speed. A 'preferred' reference is just some entity which is best fit for purpose, it has no mystical properties and is not an absolute. And then, having chosen it, it must be maintained for all calibrations so that they are comparable. Irrespective of their precise concerns about ether, etc, their original point was correct, the speed of light going one way as opposed to the other wrt earth will be different.

4 Fundamental point

Just to amplify the underlying logic of the above and demonstrate that it is omnipresent: How do we know any given thing exists? Answer: because it is different from something else. Everything is relative. Every judgement has the logical form of comparison to reference in order to identify difference. This applies whether it be a manifest attribute (eg motion) or the very substance that is manifesting this. But we can progress in what is effectively a state of anarchy, because what we can know is a closed system. So all the logical possibilities which we cannot know are irrelevant, otherwise it would be impossible to make any objective judgement. In other words, what is relative within a closed system, has, within that closed system, an absolute quality, presuming that we did the sums correctly, etc.

5 Time

The point about local time revolves around its application to sequence, which is a series of events over time. This is the correct use of the concept known as local time. And as I said, Lorentz was using it correctly. Poincaré was the problem. Read his nonsense about time which starts in 1898 with The Measure of Time. Based of that, he incorretly applied the concept of local time. It must be understood that the reference in the measuring system known as timing is a constant rate of change. Timing devices just 'tell' the time, they are a practical manifestation of that. That is, they all individually function with the most constant and highest frequency of change possible, and are then synchronised, within the realms of practicality, to one common constant rate of change. If they do not work properly, or are not synchronised, then they are useless. Achieving this is a practical problem.

6 Synchronisation

The point was not whether we need Einstein's/ Poincaré's view, we need a proper view, which their's is not anyway. And we need to apply that in the context of a time delay between existence and receipt of representation of existence. Einstein relentlessly used time to express distance, he keeps on asserting that this is how we measure movement, ie change in spatial position. Obviously time is dervived from the deployment of some velocity, and he uses light. Now, this is where the error lies, so he has to, although he probably just did rather than make any conscious decision, maintain that flawed perspective for it to work. All that happens is he shifts the variable from one cause to another (or at least Poincaré did really). The point here being, 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. Try this: put two things on the table. There is now a distance, or space, between them. This does not physically exist, it is a difference, the result of comparison between two things that are existent. Now take one of them away. There is no distance. There can only be a distance between physically existent entities which exist at the same time. And there is no duration in physical existence for something to travel over this distance, because any given physical existence only occurs in that particular physical state for a 'point in time'. In the subsequent state, that distance may be the same, but it may not be. There are different physical states which are determining that distance. The idea of measuring distance as a function of time and velocity is correct, so long as it is not presumed that the duration thereby derived is real. The difference (ie distance) is not actually there for anything to actually travel along it. What we are saying is: had it been possible then z would have taken t at v to travel x.

7 Einstein

And finally(!), note that Einstein used c whenever he did this. It always struck me from the outset that a) relativity 'works' so if there is a problem then it involves compensatory errors, or the incorrect attribution of a real variable, b) that approximating light speed to constant cannot be a logical problem (see para 1). It obviously is more or less so, therefore that simplification cannot be a fundamental issue. What must be happening has something else to do with the conceptualisation of light. All these arguments over the actual speed of light are 'red herrings', they will never resolve the issue, because they are not the issue.

Paul

OK so your first point is a technical one.

But your second point is a fundamental one, which you do not explain, other than an allusion to constancy. The issue is not approximating the calibrated speed of observational light to a constant calibrated wrt earth. Quite obviously, that cannot be a fundamental problem, because in practical terms, it is. The issue is about assuming it is constant because it represents time for physical existence, ie incorrectly assuming the representational reality afforded by light is existential reality. Look at his examples, and indeed the Cox & Forshaw book. Relentlessly he conflates observational light with light being used for the purposes of timing, he has to do to make the theory work.

Putting the above another way, in order to substantiate your assertion that there was something fundamentally wrong with the concept being expressed, can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways? The fact that one of these entities is light is irrelevant, it is still a moving entity (and how it does so is also irrelevant to this question-there is some definitive physical effect, and it moves-that's all we need to know for this).

I am not quite sure what you are saying in the third paragraph. Einstein's references for constancy were a practical simplification of the actual speed in any given circumstance of observational light, ie c. And a really constant c as time. He did not tacitly relate existence to what was received by observer. It is very clear what he is doing. I think after about 5 minutes I could see this, with his AB example in section 1. But that is because I had no 'baggage' to blind me from seeing what was actually written. In SR it is not a case of the speed of light being "believed" to be, it is stated as being so, because there is no gravitational force in SR to influence it. This being a perfectly sound approximation of the real world. What you need to notice is that in SR there are also fixed bodies because there is no gravitational force. Whereas in 1905 there are bodies which change dimension. But in 1905 he said: "only apparently irreconcilable", ie he knew there was a problem which he 'fixed' with the theoretical context of SR, ie no gravitation. Then he went on to GR, where there is gravitation, and light, as well as everything else, is affected.

"Only naive people believe the slogan "anything is relative".

Really? Well you give me an example of an absolute, and explain how you know it to be so, ie how you have transcended your very existence in order to make this assertion. Since you cannot do that, I would suggest you are confusing constancy with absolute. We only know something to be so within the closed system of our existence. So it is absolute, or objective is a better word, within a context. Attributes of what is so, are calibrated by us by comparison to identify difference, ie they are a relative estimation. We cannot know what is not moving, hence there is no absolute reference. In respect of the notion of using 'space' as the reference, as I responded to Jonathan in one of his intial responses to me, how does that work? First I am not sure anybody has proved that space, as in spatial position with absolutely nothing there, exists. And second, if it does how does one reference to it? In other words, really the reference is to something which is existent, it just does not 'look like it' and appears to be constantly 'still'.

I have said enough about what future and past constitute existentially.

Paul