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

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

Ha! God Bless you, my "relativist" friend! Exactly the argument I have faced all along!

In the Voigt transform, no skewing and no foreshortening take place. The reference frames separate without Einstein's prevarications. Initially, "x" is the position of the emitter in both frames when three things are true. Both frame origins are coincident, "x" appears at the exact same place in both frames, and thirdly the emitter at "x" emits the laser pulse. His very next step is (x-vt). I have shown that (x-vt) is the new, supposed location of the emitter in the "stationary frame." This is impossible. The emitter cannot be in two places at once. (x-vt) is merely the new position in the stationary frame where the phantom of the emitter would momentarily appear after the moving frame traveled the distance "vt". In short, (x-vt) is not the position of the pulse of light, it is the position of the emitter after releasing the pulse to light at "t" (in the stationary reference frame.)

So, my Consensus Relativist friend, why is the post emission position of the emitter in the frame opposite the emitter frame important? I thought the "Theory of Special Relativity" was about the finite speed of light. The "at rest with the emitter" reference frame" (the ARWTERF) is usually depicted as the "moving frame" in most drawings of the Voigt Transform. Where in the ARWTERF is the finite speed of light considered? Before assuming what happens in a relativistically moving reference frame, as viewed from a different reference frame, shouldn't the finite speed of light be analyzed directly from the source in the source reference frame?

Then, my Consensus Relativist friend, does Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" say that a detector in motion with another detector cannot be momentarily at the same place as the other detector? No!

Does the "relativity of simultaneity" say that a third object, in motion with both aforementioned objects cannot be momentarily at the same place as the other two? No! (the third "object" being the light pulse)

My Consensus Relativist friend, your demand that the "moving frame" (which ever one you choose the be the "moving frame," since Einstein insists there is no difference which is "moving,") be skewed or foreshortened, before determining where the detectors in said reference frame will be located, is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is one of the famous Logical Fallacies. Einstein and you are not immune to said Logical Fallacy.

Thank you, Evan, for being the straight man! Do you think a "Consensus Relativist" would be convinced?

Why would this essay gain high points from the rest of the entrants, when, if my reasoning is sound, it makes those entrant's whose essays discuss anything to do with Einstein's theories moot?

I and my essay are double damned to obscurity!

Hi Curt.

It seems to me you have confused the two frames of reference in Einsteins gedanken light clock and made it more complicated than it really is. A very strong argument for Einsteins light clock is that it works in real life. For example when an atom clock looses i few microseconds after going around the world in a jet aircraft.

The thing that you have got right is that no one has ever seen a photonic particle. Only the effects of its absorption. That fact seems to be overlooked by many physiscists.

Have ze najs day!

Andreas wrote: "It seems to me you have confused the two frames of reference in Einsteins gedanken light clock and made it more complicated than it really is. A very strong argument for Einsteins light clock is that it works in real life. For example when an atom clock looses i few microseconds after going around the world in a jet aircraft.

The thing that you have got right is that no one has ever seen a photonic particle. Only the effects of its absorption. That fact seems to be overlooked by many physiscists.

Have ze najs day!"

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Andreas,

Please explain to me how not needing a fourth axis (that has to duplicate one of the existing three axes in the Cartesian coordinate system) "is more complicated?" My charts demonstrate that the zigzag and expansion compression appearance is not physical shape-shifting of matter or space, just where actual positions of detectors that have detected the pulse end up in relation to the origins of their respective coordinate systems

I'm sorry Andreas, but Einstein is not here to defend "the two frames of reference" to which you refer so I have no idea what you are thinking on this account. You have to defend for him. Reference frames are merely a system of keeping track of all the objects that are going the same speed, in the same direction. The objects within inertial reference frames are not subject to acceleration. In other words, all the objects within an inertial reference frame are at rest with each other. (the whole reference frame, and all the objects therein, move as one unit; with respect to some other reference frame.)

The emission of the light pulse is the primary event, the one indicated by "point p" in the Voigt Transform diagram. That "event" happens at the emission end of the laser. From there the light pulse moves rectilinearly away from the laser, along its extended axis. After the emission, the whole story is just about detection. Once the pulse is emitted, everything is about detection, and where the detectors are when they detect the pulse. What prevents a moving detector from being momentarily very close to the position of a "stationary with the source" detector when both detect the light pulse?

Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" is contrived because he imagined the diagonal going "photon" before determining where detectors would find the light pulse.

No detector can detect the pulse, unless the detector is in the line of the beam, and the right distance from the source at the time the pulse reaches the detector. Stationary detectors can detect the pulse as many times as it passes each one of them in bouncing back and forth.

Moving detectors, all moving as a fleet, like airplanes flying along "in formation," will only have one chance to detect the pulse, and that is when the "lucky" detectors that happen to be in the line of the pulse for a moment, also happen to be there when the pulse is there too.

For Einstein's diagonal going "photon" to defy physics and travel diagonally, in a nonphysical "reference frame," he (and you) need to explain how an infinite number of them must exist for all the reference frames full of detectors that maybe moving at who knows how many speeds, and at what ever angles to the light pulse and its emitter, simultaneously.

I show that he is mistaken.

H &K tests prove nothing:

The Hafele Keating experiment to which you refer was just a bunch of cherry picked "data." The noise in the variability of the atomic clocks far exceeded any useful readings of "time" that could be used to show the conclusions they published.

Quote from article:

"The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K, [and] give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a fairly steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests."

So, you see, the The Hafele Keating experiment does not live up to the advertising!

Looking forward to your answer, have a nice day,

Curt

Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

I think the Mirror-Light-Clock Gedanken experiment is also applicable to describe the quantum entanglement and that is indicative of the String-matter scenario in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Curt,

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference. The speed of the "moving reference frame" is measured in the "stationary reference frame." i.e, how far the origin of it has moved from one point to another, in the opposite reference frame. "Moving" and "Stationary" are interchangeable. If one reference frame is "moving" to the left at 1/2c, the opposite frame is moving to the right at 1/2 c. If there were a contraction, who would know? Each reference frame would be contracted relative the other."

Sharing my viewpoint on relativity type effects:

Einstein's special theory of relativity, in my opinion, was an example of applying a single truth, the local nature of the constant c as represented by Maxwell's speed of light equation, and misrepresenting it as having a remote nature. By mistakenly replacing the local nature with a remote nature, the physical basis for the speed of light was removed. The physical properties at any point at which the light is located is analogous to a stationary point for a fulcrum. Without that stationary point the fulcrum is not a fulcrum.

With regard to the assignment by Einstein of a remote nature for the speed of light the local physical cause for the speed of light, was eliminated causing the reason for the speed of light to become relative to the observer. It lost its 'stationary point'. I see irony in the application of special relativity properties as the basis for interpreting general relativity type effects. What I see having occurred is that that attempt to apply special relativity properties to gravity actually reinroduced the 'stationary point'. The cause for relativity type effects was returned to being a local physical condition.

Still there was an error that was not corrected by the introduction of general relativity. That error was carried over from special relativity theory. The error was that the speed of light has a remote nature. The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t). As d changes so should v change. However, if v is declared to be c even for remote observations, then as d varies so must t vary. This erroneous substitution of a variable nature for time was carried over uncorrected into general relativity theory.

Obviously the speed of light is determined by local conditions as is predicted/confirmed by Maxwell's equation. Maxwell's v=(1/(mu*epsilon)^1/2) is incompatible with the relativistic conclusion that the speed of light is constant while time varies. For stable conditions, both mu and epsilon, magnetic permeability and electric permittivity, change with position and not with time. The speed of light changes with mu and epsilon. Therefore, the speed of light changes with position. The return of the cause of the speed of light to correlate with position re-introduces the 'stationary point' in the form of the local medium.

My work suggests that: If I am an isolated observer in a massless gravity free environment, and, I hypothetically see a light signal sent from a second observer who is closing in on my position there will be no relativity type effects for either of us. If I am an observer on the surface of the Earth and an object whizzes by me horizontally to the Earth, I will observe relativity type effects for that object. I will not undergo any such effects myself.

The relativity type effects that I will observe are that the object length physically shortens and that the local speed of light immediate to and within the object will have slowed. If there was an observer traveling with the object, that observer would measure the surrounding conditions, including myself, as expanding. There would be no such expansion. The object, the observer, and the observer's measuring rod would have shortened.

James

Curtis

Clear logical and important better view of inertial frames. I can say that with some confidence as it's in almost complete agreement with my own essay. I do give the origin of the word 'photon', agree SR was actually superfluous, and also the following in particular;

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference."

"Conventional wisdom never contemplates the approaching light pulse."

"...lost in ambiguity with respect to the speed of light emitted from a source in one reference frame and detectors located in another "moving" frame."

and that the Mirror-Light-Clock Gedanken is nonsense, indeed I also analysed it similarly in last years essay. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Jackson_Essay2020BaseText.pdf Einstein's original mirrors were never angled, but I agree the logic of your version, and also consider the quantum mechanisms.

Ref H&K, I again agree, and point out there was also much propaganda by the 'gatekeepers', and the real results were subverted. see Hafele's own quote and my paper; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers/1920871/SUBJUGATION_OF_SCEPTICISM_IN_SCIENCE

The implications are quite vast, and I've been a little bemused how few people can grasp the kinetic logic. Your position is ridiculously low and a top mark is on the way. I'll also put a good word about.

Please do read my essay and comment. You may be among the few who already comprehend it's dynamics. I have a few other papers, including exploring the exciting cosmology implied, if you're interested. This year I go deeper into the quantum mechanisms, because it actually unifies the Classical and Quantum physics. There's also a little theatre just for fun.

Very best wishes

Peter

Peter:

Well glory be! I can not imagine that I am the only one on Earth to see the sophomoric logic of Einstein's fiction. From the comments so far, to my essay, I gain hope for common sense among scientists and those interested in science/physics. I shall proceed as you request, and review your entry.

Thanks for making my day,

Curt

Also, please review my new post at Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations

James quoting Curt:

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference. The speed of the "moving reference frame" is measured in the "stationary reference frame." i.e, how far the origin of it has moved from one point to another, in the opposite reference frame. "Moving" and "Stationary" are interchangeable. If one reference frame is "moving" to the left at 1/2c, the opposite frame is moving to the right at 1/2 c. If there were a contraction, who would know? Each reference frame would be contracted relative the other."

Quote James:

"Sharing my viewpoint on relativity type effects:

"Einstein's special theory of relativity, in my opinion, was an example of applying a single truth, the local nature of the constant c as represented by Maxwell's speed of light equation, and misrepresenting it as having a remote nature. By mistakenly replacing the local nature with a remote nature, the physical basis for the speed of light was removed. The physical properties at any point at which the light is located is analogous to a stationary point for a fulcrum. Without that stationary point the fulcrum is not a fulcrum."

"With regard to the assignment by Einstein of a remote nature for the speed of light the local physical cause for the speed of light, was eliminated causing the reason for the speed of light to become relative to the observer. It lost its 'stationary point'. I see irony in the application of special relativity properties as the basis for interpreting general relativity type effects. What I see having occurred is that that attempt to apply special relativity properties to gravity actually reintroduced the 'stationary point'. The cause for relativity type effects was returned to being a local physical condition."

"Still there was an error that was not corrected by the introduction of general relativity. That error was carried over from special relativity theory. The error was that the speed of light has a remote nature. The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t). As d changes so should v change. However, if v is declared to be c even for remote observations, then as d varies so must t vary. This erroneous substitution of a variable nature for time was carried over uncorrected into general relativity theory."

Curt's Comment:>>>>>>

When you write "the speed of light" are you referring to a pulse of light? Unless one catches the leading edge or trailing edge of the emitted train of light, one cannot determine where and when said portion of the light train was emitted.

"The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t)" Yes, the velocity of anything is given by the formula "v=(d/t)" It is a ratio of distance to a given unit of time. Velocity times the duration of elapsed time equals the distance traveled. If one is given a distance traveled or to be traveled, and the velocity of the moving object; the elapsed time of the trip is obtained by dividing the velocity by the distance traveled.

Quote James:

"Obviously the speed of light is determined by local conditions as is predicted/confirmed by Maxwell's equation. Maxwell's v=(1/(mu*epsilon)^1/2) is incompatible with the relativistic conclusion that the speed of light is constant while time varies. For stable conditions, both mu and epsilon, magnetic permeability and electric permittivity, change with position and not with time. The speed of light changes with mu and epsilon. Therefore, the speed of light changes with position. The return of the cause of the speed of light to correlate with position re-introduces the 'stationary point' in the form of the local medium."

Curt's Comment:>>>>>>

The far field speed of light is isotropic as measured from the source, in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. A pulse of light expanding from a strobe is a spherically expanding shell, centered upon the source. The pattern from a dipole is a cardioid; from many dipoles randomly oriented and located close together, as in a strobe; the pattern is an expanding spheroid. There is evidence that the near field speed of light is much higher than the impedance matched far field speed that we measure. As I think you suggest, more research needs to be done, if it hasn't already, upon whether the permittivity and permeability are actual properties of the aether, and not of matter. (My current opinion is that both light and matter are made of waves in the aether.)

I am not sure what "time" you are referencing, unless it is the contrived "relativistic time" slowed by Einstein's imaginary diagonal going "photon."

Quote James:

"My work suggests that: If I am an isolated observer in a massless gravity free environment, and, I hypothetically see a light signal sent from a second observer who is closing in on my position there will be no relativity type effects for either of us. If I am an observer on the surface of the Earth and an object whizzes by me horizontally to the Earth, I will observe relativity type effects for that object. I will not undergo any such effects myself."

Curt's Comment:>>>>>

The closing source will have a Doppler blue shifted spectra when viewed from your position. The effect upon a clock signal sent from the source is that the clock appears to be regulated fast, or that time seems to be passing faster in the approaching observer's reference frame. (it is not) The opposite (red shifting spectra, and time passing slower) will occur as the said source recedes from you. (The observer in relative motion with you will likewise see Doppler shift from any light you emit.) Of course, you will not experience anything just because you view a passing object.

Quote James:

"The relativity type effects that I will observe are that the object length physically shortens and that the local speed of light immediate to and within the object will have slowed. If there was an observer traveling with the object, that observer would measure the surrounding conditions, including myself, as expanding. There would be no such expansion. The object, the observer, and the observer's measuring rod would have shortened."

James"

Curt's comment: >>>>>>>

As I pointed out in my paraphrased recitation of Einstein's "Measure the Length of the Moving Train from the Platform Gedanken," the train measures shorter when the measurement is initiated from the front of the train, and measures longer when the measurement starts from the caboose . . .

"Curt's Comment:>>>>>>

When you write "the speed of light" are you referring to a pulse of light? Unless one catches the leading edge or trailing edge of the emitted train of light, one cannot determine where and when said portion of the light train was emitted."

I am referring to the speed of any single photon.

""The velocity of light is given by v=(d/t)" Yes, the velocity of anything is given by the formula "v=(d/t)" It is a ratio of distance to a given unit of time. Velocity times the duration of elapsed time equals the distance traveled. If one is given a distance traveled or to be traveled, and the velocity of the moving object; the elapsed time of the trip is obtained by dividing the velocity by the distance traveled. "

The point of mentioning such an obvious relationship has to do with emphasizing that Einstein forced an incorrect result by his incorrect choice of which two terms are variables. If the choice of variables is different, then the result is different. My choice is that the speed of light is variant, distance is variant, time is not variant.

James

James,

My intent was not to get pedantic with you, I was just writing while thinking to myself. Anyway, the GPS system works because they use "Universal Time." The pseudocode that is transmitted by each satellite in the GPS constellation essentially encodes the "universal time" that that particular pulse was transmitted from that particular satellite. The pulses expand into spheres, each centered upon its respective satellite. The "time stamps" of a given time are all transmitted synchronously from all satellites; no problem with relativity of simultaneity. Thus the user on the ground can locate the receiver by discovering the radius of each sphere as it intersects the other spheres at the receiver's location gaining a three dimensional location. (it is the difference in arrival times of a given time stamp from the various "birds" that determine each radius's length.)

My point being that you are obviously right. There is a Universal Time, and it is constant and consistent.