A Logical Analysis of Albert Einstein\'s Mirror-Light-Clock Gedankin by Robt Curtis Youngs

Dear Curtis,

I appreciate your concerns with Relativity and I liked the detailed analysis presented in your essay. But finally, do you conclude that the two founding postulates of Relativity are wrong?

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

Robert,

I really wondered where the term "photon" came from, "Albert. Einstein invented the idea of the photon." (First page, last sentence)

I am curious if you were asked to alter your essay to conform to Chicago Style references? I was asked to modify my references even though I had submitted my references to the IEEE Authors Reference Checker, and they passed, before I submitted my essay, 1294.

I note that many essays do not adhere to the Chicago Style reference notation.

Curt;

I only skimmed it so far, but am full of joy that you took the effort to formally write your theory. It looks very well done. I will study it, expect to gain much, and will comment later. Thanks very much for including me in your resource list.

Three Cheers to you!

Eric

Hi Robt,

I first just noticed you writing Gedankin instead of Gedanken. Then I was bewildered by the 'Voight-Einstein "Galilean Transform" diagram' not just because you also misspelled Voigt. When Einstein suggested to explain the photoelectric effect by photons, he at best reinvented Newton's corpuscular theory of light, etc. I am certainly not the first one to tell you such striking imperfections in what you are uttering.

You might check to what extent your "cogent ideas" agree with what I found out. I got the opportunity to use English when I was already fifty years old. That's why I had to look into my dictionary what cogent means: almost the same as convincing. Admittedly, your final questions are not yet convincing to me.

May I tell you that length contraction and time dilution were not fabricated by Einstein himself but by FitzGerald, Lorentz and others who aimed to rescue the idea of an aether after the experiment by Michelson and Morley (MMX) seemed to disprove it. Some authors argue that the MMX did not disprove the aether. I maintain that Fig. 5 of my essay for the first time cogently explains why.

Eckard

It looks to me as if you can have Voigt either way. See Wikipedia: Voigt.

Your criticism: "When Einstein suggested to explain the photoelectric effect by photons, he at best reinvented Newton's corpuscular theory of light, etc" is just what I said in your own words. Albert named them "photons." I get the sense that you are quite adversarial. Imperfections? Gnats!

I have found "gedanken" spelled either way also. I thought I had my "speller" trained to your "approved" spelling; I just can't depend upon my tail gunner!

I am proud that you "got" the opportunity to use your English! I too, am aware that cogent is a synonym for "convincing."

My questions are questions. I am looking for cogent answers as to why my method is faulty. You have not provided any convincing answers.

Your figure 5 is fine for a medium that moves the path of waves. Where is your evidence that the aether can blow the rectilinear path of light around? BTW, the method I propose works with a medium that can affect the path of radiation, if such exists.

Yes, Albert's predecessors sensed that things seem "compressed" in a "moving frame." Nether they nor Voight and Einstein saw the expansion factor revealed in my diagrams WRT the oncoming, or decreasing distance detector/emitter situation.

In his "Measuring the Moving Train from the Platform" Gedankin, (paraphrased) Albert postulates why the train should be shorter (contracted) than the same train measured at rest with the platform.: As the train approaches the platform, a technician marks the platform exactly when the front of the train reaches him, and simultaneously signals another technician at the the receding end of the platform to mark the back end of the train. Since the train keeps moving while the signal propagates to the rear, the train has moved forward by the time the rear technician makes the mark on the platform, making the measurement contracted.

Now, by measuring the train from back to front, and having the rear technician send the signal forward, the same basic experiment measures the moving train longer than at rest! So the length of the moving train depends upon whether the initial measurement is at the back or the front. His "Measure the train Gedanken" is slight of hand, IMHO.

Good luck with your essay, and I stand corrected to the Eckard Method!

You state: "Then I was bewildered by the 'Voight-Einstein 'Galilean Transform' diagram . . ."

So am I! The diagram is not "mine." It is a representative example of how consensus Physicists draw the "Galilean Transform!" Everyone seems confused as to where and to which reference frame the point "p" is to be associated. In fact at Wiki, they leave the point entirely out of the diagram! This is the whole idea as to why I incorporated it in the essay.

Incidentally, they are transforming the emitter, rather than the finite traveling radiation. The emitter must really be elastic to be both moving and at rest with the at rest coordinate system!

Thanks, your comment helps make my point.

That resource list should be very long, but the length of the essay prevented inclusion of everyone. Your experiments confirm my understanding that light has the nature of waves. If your experiments were to be replicated by a university or such, millions of dollars would undoubtedly be spent! True genius there, my friend.

Curt,

"Where is your evidence that the aether ... ?" My explanation of the experiment by Feist seems to be the only reasonable. Calling Feist a crank, as did Bruhn, is pointless. The same reasoning which I used in case of Feist's experiment turns out correct for electromagnetic waves too while Potier's calculation was based on wrong assumptions. This concerns a pillar of modern physics.

Eckard

Nowhere in my article or posts did I call anyone a crank. Please do not put words into my mouth. It is distasteful. In the "at rest with the source reference frame," radiation leaves the emitter at the recognized speed of light for the medium, (in vacuo being the fastest.) in all directions unless focused or produced as a beam, as a laser produces. The beam still diverges. This makes the radiation pattern spherical in the "at rest with the source frame of reference."

The late Brian Wallace, In his book, "The Farce of Physics," re-analyzed the returns from radar ranging of the planets done by JPL. He found that the evidence points to the return's light speed needing to be "c plus or minus the speed of the detectors; in the relativistic sense," for the returns to make sense. He, like you and your friends, believe this forces the evidence to be particulate. Microwave energy is just borderline particulate in nature, so be careful in making adamant pronouncements in that respect. My analysis shows that whether radiation is thought to be waves or particles doesn't matter, the graphs work out the same (though the positions of the "moving frame" detectors would be different.)

The MM experiment was not about "light speed." It was about whether the aether causes this spherical radiation pattern to distort. The source for the interferometer was mounted right on the interferometer, for crying out loud. Dayton Miller, along with others did find distortion in the interferometer interference pattern. His findings would distort the spherical form of the radiated pattern. It does not affect my analysis.

The physicists from ancient to the present think it is the light waves, particles, and/or "space/time," that bunch up, contract, or compress when "motion" enters the picture. It is not. It is merely the position of the detectors in the "moving reference frame" that bunch up, with respect to their own reference frame, as compared to the positions of the "at rest with the source" reference frame's detectors in their own frame. Furthermore, no one has analyzed the approaching detector's positions in the same "moving reference frame.," the positions of which actually expand; as compared to those in the "at rest with the source" reference frame.

In the "Mirror Light Clock Gedanken," the same set of "source reference frame" detectors get to detect the light pulse each time the pulse bounces back and forth between the mirrors. In any "moving reference frame," each detector only gets one fleeting chance to detect the pulse, and only if it coincides with the position of an "at rest with the source" detector that is momentarily detecting the same pulse.

If the medium's motion affects the shape of the radiated pattern of the radiation, that happens in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. It has no effect upon where the "moving frame" detectors find the pulse and the coincident "source frame detectors."

See Eric Reiter's essay posted here on FQXI, as to the wave nature of EMR . . .

Eckard, my friend, for all the criticism you laid on me, (which I take to be constructive criticism, BTW) how come you missed calling me out on the misuse of the word "antecedent" at the end of the third paragraph of my essay?

The word(s) should have been "post emission." You remember when Einstein, or was it Voigt? proposed the Galilean Transform, the two coordinate systems coincided, right when the event took place? Rather than "transform" the event (at point p) into the opposite reference frame, I placed an observer in the opposite frame from where the event took place, (the event being the firing of a light pulse.) Now, since the two coordinate systems are separating, after the event, the observer/detector and the source/laser emitter have been separating. The point in the opposite reference frame from the laser, which coincided with the laser when the two coordinate system origins coincided, just marks the place in the "moving coordinate system" where the laser and the initial observer/detector were simultaneously existing when the laser pulse came into existence. That particular observer/detector will never have another chance to see the laser pulse again. (unless the event was recorded)

All the best to you,

Curt

Curt,

We have spent a full century now, arguing over the observations given to us by an imaginary space traveler, who moves at relativist speeds, and much like a crooked politician running for re-election, will tell you virtually any far-fetched tale - truthful or not; but most often not.

Personally, I've become increasingly skeptical of all "hypothetical observations" made by imaginary observers. In his book, Science at the Crossroads, Herbert Dingle wrote the following:

"All science is based on observation, and whatever we say about the world studied in science must justify itself ultimately in terms of what we actually observe, not of what we infer that hypothetical observers would experience in circumstances impossible yet to attain. Now effectively, in all matters with which special relativity is concerned, there is only one observer - a terrestrial one - for the relative motions possible to terrestrial observers are so small as to be negligible in this connection. Hence the theory must be wholly expressible in terms of the experiences of that one observer alone."

If nothing else your essay and theory restores some much needed sanity to the topic of time dilation and twins that age at different rates. It's a good essay, and I am delighted to see a new, well thought out theory that is at odds with Einstein's incredulous, outlandish ideas. Well done!

Evans

Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

I would like to see relativists debate some of the content of your essay. I have not found any use for Einstein's, or his supporter's, visual aids. They are not needed to explain or account for relativity type effects nor for deriving the correct equations necessary for properly modeling those effects. Now, that is my opinion. I think though that your approach has more opportunity to draw serious debate. I hope it happens. Your arguments deserve to be evaluated.

James

Thank you "Evans" for your favorable comment, and confidence in my efforts. Herbert Dingle is one of my heroes. He did get caught up in Einstein's clocks and latex space assumptions. I had been working on what shape the expanding light sphere, that forms isotropically around the emitter of a light pulse in the primary "at rest with the source" reference frame, becomes in various "moving" reference frames. At some point, I realized that the light pulse can only be detected when it gets to the detector. This realization necessitates multiple detectors in every reference frame, enabling their distances from the origins of their respective frames to be plotted. This is something Dingle had overlooked with his "one observer" idea.

I have constructed how the spherically expanding wave front of the light pulse appears in various moving frames (yes they appear spherical in the moving frames too) but the inspiration for using Einstein's "Light Clock Gedankin" to demonstrate the patterns of detectors approaching and receding from the emitter, while traveling at various speeds and angles of approach, came from "Siggy_G." He insisted that the location of the pulse be determined.

I had visualized the zigzag pattern they take in the transversely moving frame, but was surprised at the pattern in the rectilinearly moving frame. I had expected the "compressed" locations of detectors to be in the approaching the emitter side of the moving frame, and the "expanded" locations to be on the receding side. I have never found mention of the expanded part of the diagram. Why would that be?

James,

Thanks for taking the time to reply! I am pleased that you see what I have discovered. Information wants to be free, but everyone deserves credit when they figure out a new idea or view point, eh?

Yes, I have had some discussion with so called "relativists." I think you would agree that I have not denied that speeds, times and distances are relative, it's just that they are not magical. So far, one of the "true Einstein believers" that I engaged, insisted that the only way to find fault with "Einstein's" STR is to use Einstein's reasoning to prove it!

Another one insisted that the well known fallacy of circular reasoning is specifically allowed in Einstein's case! Go figure!

All the best. Have you posted or published anything on this subject?

Curt,

I have four entries in each of the four essay contests here. Each one disputes relativity theory. The beginning of my approach is presented in my current essay. It is completely different. I have been working on this project since 1988. On the Internet since 2001. My website is and has been, since 2001, number one on search engines for 'New Physics Theory'. There is extensive work presented there.

Now back to your essay which is my main point in posting my message. I don't think that your essay belongs so near the bottom without successful refutation by relativists. I don't have a role to play in evaluating relativity's visual aids. As I sort of mentioned here I have found no point to them. For me relativity theory has always been clearly wrong.

I am not discounting relativity type effects. Empirical facts are the beauty. Theory is the beast. I remove theory as much as possible from the equations of physics that would otherwise accurately represent the patterns and meanings offerred to us by empirical evidence. I do not ask that you go along with my view. It is your view that is the subject of your forum and I found it interesting and worthy of serious discussion by relativists. I would like to see how well your view holds up.

James

As your diagrams clearly demonstrate, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Both sets of detectors (straight and diagonal) are essentially recording the same exact thing. If you turned your diagram into an animation it would show that the diagonal detectors are one-after-another moving into the same location, at the same time, as the stationary detectors. Nothing unusual occurs.

The confusion sets in when we ignore what the detectors are telling us, and try to predict what a moving observer will actually see; the former is actual data, the latter imaginary data.

Many years ago I read a book by Paul Davies titled 'Superforce'. I no longer have it, but, I feel certain that it was the one in which he referred to Herbert Dingle in a disdainful manner. Taking into consideration what Dingle was reported to have said and Davies' book allong with its revelations that 'nothing is unstable' or that we were possibly 'glimpsing' the superforce nonsense, my opinion of Davies dropped hard. My point is that Davies used the same artificially superiorly projected 'rational' attitude of relativists that continues to this day. Relativity theory is not rational. It is theory. It is interpretation. It includes dependence upon invented and empirically unjustifiable properties. An example is space-time.

James

Evans replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 02:50 GMT

As your diagrams clearly demonstrate, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Both sets of detectors (straight and diagonal) are essentially recording the same exact thing. If you turned your diagram into an animation it would show that the diagonal detectors are one-after-another moving into the same location, at the same time, as the stationary detectors. Nothing unusual occurs.

The confusion sets in when we ignore what the detectors are telling us, and try to predict what a moving observer will actually see; the former is actual data, the latter imaginary data.

>>>>

Yes, exactly! I had been putting off "publishing" this revelation of mine until I had learned how to use Gimp or Blender, or such animation software. I just haven't become adept with any of them. An animation would cinch the understand for many. It's just near impossible to put a three dimension dynamic situation onto a piece of paper. My essay seems to be opening people's minds, though.

Do you agree with me that once this idea sinks into your mind, Einstein's space-time becomes sophomoric? Can you go back to thinking space-time becomes skewed by moving real fast, if you ever did?

Curt,

As one reviewer noted, relativists are nowhere to be found on this thread. You appear to be drawing a strictly anti-Special Relativity audience. So how do you defend an essay that has yet to be attacked? You need a foil in order to argue the merits of your theory. With that said let me assume the role of Devil's advocate and posit this glaring flaw in your theory, from a typical relativist point of view (but not my own personal viewpoint).

The diagonal arranged detectors will not coincide with the stationary detectors, as depicted in the diagram. The light pulse will only hit the stationary detectors, and miss the diagonal detectors entirely. The diagram shown is a strictly Newtonian depiction of the situation. The diagonal detectors must be pre-arranged into an array that takes into account the Lorentz factor, which is mysteriously absent. You need to redraw the diagrams to reflect the anticipated length contraction and time dilation. Otherwise, you will only receive one set of data -- the data from the stationary array.

Evans