Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

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

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

Eckard

"Can you please either refute or support my claims?"

I have done, whenever there is something secific to comment on, and where I cannot comment I have said so. Indeed, I made 2 specific points on what you had previously written in the last post, neither of which were answered.

""Look at his examples" without specifying to whom you are referring"

Does the word Einstein spring to mind? But again this is a point I have made several times already.

"I fear, your often reiterated views concerning..."

Like anybody else, you could of course point out why these statements I make are incorrect. And in the more general sense, if you read what I have written you might be able to take a more informed position, indeed, you might learn something.

Paul

Eckard

"You asked: "can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways?" While I understand this question as addressing SR, I do not see it directly related to my essay."

Why has this go it anything to do with SR? And even if it has, that was clearly not my point, because I did not mention SR when I made it. Indeed, in its original format it was very clear. That is: the start to all this was to find something that did not move and could therefore be a reference to calibrate movement (which was incorrect because no absolute can be known and it has to be assumed that everything is moving, finding something that moves consistently and independently is a different point). However, the other component of their start point was that light must travel at different speeds one way as opposed to the other, because the earth moves, hence the desire for a stationary reference to calibrate this. Now, leaving aside their views as to the relationship between ether, etc, etc, which is detail, this view is correct. By definition, two entities with different momentum will result in different calibrations thereof, when compared in different ways.

There seems to be a fundamental problem on this forum, and possibly with physics in general in understanding light. It is a physical effect, which is moving. To my left there is a waste basket and a chair with the dog sitting on it. Light is currently travelling between the chair and the basket, and vice versa. Light is travelling from the dog, or me, to the chair and basket. The physics of that is exactly the same as the light travelling from the basket/chair to the dog/me. The only difference is that the dog/me, being sentient organisms can process that light upon receipt, the basket/chair cannot. That processing is irrelevant to the physics of what occurred.

My other question related to what was the fundamental mistake Michelson made?

In general, as I have said before, I cannot comment on the specifics of the M&M experiments, but suspect you are 'on to something'. Indeed I remember some months ago a response to me when you said something along the lines' well I'm not sure about that, but you have prompted a thought'. My point is that this has no connection with the structure of relativity and its fault. The reaction, warranted or otherwise, that there is dimension alteration, certainly influenced how they thought, and was therefore to some extent self-fulfilling, ie they looked for an answer to fit this. And again, can I ask you to read my post of 187 Nov, or send a link and I will send you a copy, paulwhatsit@msn.com

Paul

Eckard

""everything is moving" ??? If the universe is moving, what does its speed refer to?"

No, I am saying we must presume everything is moving, which effectively is the same end result, but the correct expression. Because we have no absolute reference against which to make a judgement. And if you, or someone else you know thinks otherwise, explain to me what that something is, and why you know it is absolutely stationary. In other words, when we choose a reference, which could be anything (but it has to be something) then that is conceptually deemed to be stationary whilst all other speeds/directions are calibrated against it, ie it either appears to be stationary, or if we can see that it is relatively moving we can discount the effect over time whilst measuring (aka translation).

And presuming that the 'universe' is another label for 'all of existence that we can know', then the answer is that we do not know anything extrinsic to that. So it is irrelevant. We can only have knowledge. When we think we are comparing knowledge with reality, we are not. We are comparing knowledge with other knowledge. We can only know, and we can only know what it is possible for us to know. Which, by definition, does not include what we cannot know. We can think up a countless number of ideas, but that is not knowledge/ science.

Now, if your 'universe' relates to a sub-set of all we can know, then we just need a reference extrinsic to 'universe' to calibrate its speed. Which might well be difficult, but that is the point.

Another point to make here is that in either case, but especially the former, this effect is omnipresent, so it is irrelevant for calibration purposes, which is about comparison to identify difference. Discounting an effect that is everywhere makes has no effect on difference.

"I consider the propagation of a wave related neither to its emitter nor to any receiver but to the medium of propagation."

Fine, that is as good a choice as any for the reference against which to calibrate. Now tell me what specifically it is, and how you identify, and then maintain identification, of a specific entity of this 'medium' in order to effect all the calibrated measurements. Remember, to ensure comparability of measurements, the same reference must be used (or adjustments factored in to effectively make it the same), otherwise they are useless. Because I can say that A measured X speed and B measured Y speed. To which you would think there was a difference, but then get annoyed when I reveal that A was moving X when measured against D, whilst B was moving Y when measured against F. You would immediately point out to me that I have to use the same reference, or what was the difference between D & F, which of course requires another common reference to establish. This is the mistake Peter, and others, keep making in their emission theories, the reference is changed to maintain the calibrated speed.

So you have still not addressed my point that light vis a vis earth calibrated speeds must vary depending on how the two are compared.

"And Michelson's - as I maintain wrong - expectation eventually led to SR"

As explained, again, above, presuming what expectation you are talking about (ie light/earth speed), that was not wrong. Whether they came to it for the wrong reasons is another matter. Neither did it lead, in any sense of that word, to SR. Because SR is a theoretical circumstance where there is no gravitation and everything is fixed shape and moving relatively constantly. Neither did it 'lead' to relativity. What 'lead', in the sense of created the mental environment which resulted in the construction of this particular perspective was a certain presumption which was fulfilled by invoking errors. The flaw in relativity is in those errors. As I keep on saying, and have explained elsewhere, the problem in relativity is not the constancy of observational light. It obviously cannot be, because it is more or less constant, so such a simplification cannot invoke a fundamental flaw.

Paul

Eckard,

If your assumption of "where the perpendicularly reflected light returns to the beam splitter" is the only difference between your interpretation and Michelson's one, then you should draw the following conclusions from your analysis:

1. The principle of relativity is false.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer does not depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate is correct).

3. The speed of light relative to the observer does depend on the speed of the observer (special relativity is wrong).

Pentcho Valev