Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Eckard,

Did you see the Wesley take on Feist? (below). Also Harald van Lintel presented one at the 2003 NPA Conference in Storrs, CT, as noted by Tom Miles in a recent 'Dissidents' post. He apparently found the results of a repeat experiment 'inconclusive'.??

Wesley makes a distiction beween energy velocity and phase velocity.

Wesley_PhysEssays_v17n2(2004)159-165.pdf

Neither perceive the 'missing' point that it is not possible to have a real 'frequency' f without a corresponding wavelength once the detector and wave have interacted (and no interaction = no detection, so only 'apparent' not real f). So deriving local CSL.

I see Wesley as at least partly misguided, and haven't read van lintel.

Your views on all 3 subjects ??

Hope you're well. Best wishes.

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for the hint. I was not aware of Wesley. Here is the abstract of his paper you referred to (http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3025664):

"Classical waves in a medium, valid for light and for sound, involve two velocities, the phase velocity c′ and the energy velocity c, which in general are different both in direction as well as in magnitude. Doppler effects for a moving source and observer and for a wind are derived. The out‐and‐back phase velocity of a wave in a wind is proved to be isotropic according to classical wave theory, which explains the Michelson‐Morley null result as simply a classical Doppler effect. Feist has recently experimentally demonstrated the isotropy of the out‐and‐back phase velocity of sound in a wind, thereby confirming classical wave theory and duplicating for sound the Michelson‐Morley null result for light." This seems to be correct. The link you gave was perhaps faulty.

Miles is suspect to me. I will nonetheless search for Harald van Lintel NPA 2003.

Eckard

Attached is part 1 of the Mistake by Michelson and Morley.Attachment #1: MichelsonMorleys_Mistake.doc

Eckard

This may be a mistake, but it is not the mistake.

That is that with the conflation of reality and light reality, light speed becomes the time reference of reality. Which it may or may not be, coincidentally (ie from the perspective that it is what evolution used to develop sight). Also, coincidentally, observational light tends to be constant in that it is the result of an atomic interaction, not collision, and any startng speed is maintained unless impinged upon. That is considering light as a phyical enity, which it is, rather than some mysterious phenonomenon, which it is not. If light speed is actually the fastest rate of change there is, then it becomes the time reference for physical existence. But this needs to be proven. Which requires something more than, 'we cannot see anything faster'!! Precisely how one goes about that is somebody else's problem.

Paul

PS: I have completed a paper but want to read it through, finally. I will post it on my blog but I cannot do links, so if you want a copy send to paulwhatsit@msn.com

Eckard

Sorry forgot to check back for a response.

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is 'refreshed' at the mirror (ie it is not a reflection/collision) is irrelevant. Light in this respect is not some mysterious commodity which is above normal physical rules. But one would never detect that with the set up of Michelson.

No I don't know whether an alteration in dimension occurs as a result of accelerated/decelerated motion, somebody ought to find out. What I was saying was that they believed it did. The argument was: the expected differential was not proven, but we still think it exists, so therefore the equipment shrank to counteract that. The value derived was gamma, which is just transversal (hypotenteuse)/vertical. Which is something of a clue that they have not got the value correct, even if it does occur, and that they are conflating light reality with existent reality.

Although dimension alteration keeps getting a mention, it does not have an effect in their theory. It becomes the equivalent of the supposed shift in time (eg everyone is in 'their own time'). And that was the donkey that they pinned the tail on. In the first instant, it caused them to worry about referencing wrt things that were moving (in the sense of more than others), because if the reference is altering dimension then that is a problematic reference. But the perversion of local time (Poincare "most ingenious idea") 'solved' all that. It is all about time difference, allegedly. Of course, it one conflates light reality with existent reality, then it is, because there is always a delay whilst light travels.

Paul

PS: thanks for advice on attachments, I just could not understand what URL(?) to give it, so I just dumped it as a post and wrote an e-mail to the administrators.

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

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