Time Dilation Gets a Quantum Twist

Glorious Confirmations of General Relativity

According to Jean Eisenstaedt, in 1960 general relativity was confirmed for the first time by an experiment done on earth:

Jean Eisenstaedt: "Le renouveau n'est pourtant pas loin et on peut le dater asssez précisément. C'est sans doute, en 1960, le succès de l'expérience de Robert Pound et Glen Rebka qui le marque scientifiquement. Pour la première fois, une expérience terrestre confirme la relativité générale, en vérifiant avec précision que les fréquences d'émission des atomes sont modifiées par le champ de gravitation de la terre."

In fact, the Pound-Rebka 1960 experiment confirmed Newton's emission theory of light:

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Needless to say, all previous (cosmic) confirmations of general relativity were also fraudulent:

Jay Holberg: "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

[link:alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/index.html]"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."[/link]

"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

New Scientist: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."

Stephen Hawking: "...it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

Pentcho Valev

The Mystery of the Twin Paradox

In order to prove that the twin paradox is an absurdity one has to show that special relativity implies that the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother. The problem is that:

(A) "returns younger" can ONLY be demonstrated if the travelling twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's system;

(B) "returns older" can ONLY be demonstrated if the sedentary twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the travelling twin's system:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

The scenario that both relativists and antirelativists use is deprived of the setup "the sedentary twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the travelling twin's system". Given this mutilated scenario, only "returns younger" can be derived from special relativity and those who claim to have PROVED that the paradox is an absurdity must have made a mistake.

The following scenario allows either twin's clock to be checked against two of the other twin's clocks. Two long inertial systems each carrying synchronous clocks pass one another:

..........Inertial system A moving to the right..........

..........Inertial system B moving to the left..........

The systems are so designed that, the moment they stop moving relative to one another, all clocks on both systems stop ticking. In this final static configuration clock A2 faces clock B1 and clock A1 faces clock B2:

..........A2..........A1..........

..........B1..........B2..........

Before reaching clock A2, clock B1 passed clock A1 and the difference in their readings, (A1then - B1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock B1 faces clock A2 and the difference in their readings is (A2now - B1now). Clearly clock B1 has been checked against two of Inertial system A's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:

(A2now - B1now) > (A1then - B1then) /1/

Before reaching clock B2, clock A1 passed clock B1 and the difference in their readings, (B1then - A1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock A1 faces clock B2 and the difference in their readings is (B2now - A1now). Clearly clock A1 has been checked against two of Inertial system B's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:

(B2now - A1now) > (B1then - A1then)

This inequality easily becomes:

(A1then - B1then) > (A1now - B2now)

Since clocks on Inertial system A were synchronous and stopped ticking simultaneously, A1now = A2now. For the same reason B2now = B1now. So the last inequality becomes:

(A1then - B1then) > (A2now - B1now) /2/

Inequalities /1/ and /2/ are contradictory and both are consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Reductio ad absurdum par excellence. The light postulate is false. Einstein should not have "introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether":

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

The Mystery of Einstein's Rotating Disc

Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

Einstein refers to Section XII but this Section does not contain any results explaining why the (inertial) clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run FASTER than the (non-inertial) clock placed on the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts MUTUAL time dilation for two INTERTIAL clocks: either INERTIAL clock (rather, the observer in this clock's system) sees the other INERTIAL clock running SLOW by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). The Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which (in this case the one on the edge of the disc) is not inertial. Yet in the above text Einstein suggests that, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the inertial K-clock (at the center of the disc) is running FASTER than the non-inertial K'-clock (on the edge of the disc) by a factor of gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). What makes him lie so blatantly? What does he fear?

By increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can convert clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). Now, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the (VIRTUALLY INERTIAL) observer "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of the disc (K'-observer) sees the clock at the center of the disc (K-clock) run SLOWER than clocks fixed on the periphery (K'-clocks).

We have reductio ad absurdum par excellence - the clock at the center runs both FASTER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K) and SLOWER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K'). The consequent (mutual time dilation) is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate) is false.

Pentcho Valev

The Mystery of Length Contraction and Length Elongation in Special Relativity

"The Bug-Rivet Paradox (...) In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c."

According to special relativity, in the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is squashed. Yet in the bug's frame "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" and the bug remains alive.

The bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for special relativity so Einsteinians resort to an idiotic ad hoc "requirement" - the rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length and poor bug gets squashed in both frames:

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

Yet even the idiotic length-elongation requirement does not save special relativity:

As judged by an observer in the bug's frame, the hole is longer than the shank so when the head of the rivet hits the wall, the rivet can be broken - e.g. the shank can be cut off from the head. Then the bug will be squashed by a headless shank.

As judged by an observer in the rivet's frame, the bug cannot be squashed by a headless shank because the shank hits the bottom of the hole (and kills the bug) before the head of the rivet hits the wall.

Needless to say, the two observers seeing different outcomes (bug squashed by a headless shank and bug squashed by an unbroken rivet) is fatal for special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

The Mystery of Mutual Length Contraction

As judged from the 40 m barn's frame, the 80 m pole is shorter than 40 m and accordingly the pole is gloriously trapped inside the barn. As judged from the 80 m pole's frame, the 40 m barn is shorter than 20 m but nevertheless the relativity of simultaneity allows the pole to get gloriously trapped inside the barn. Some Einsteinians believe that the 80 m pole is trapped inside the 40 m barn "IN A COMPRESSED STATE":

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Other Einsteinians agree that the long pole can be trapped inside the short barn but insist that the pole undergoes no compression or structural deformation:

Stéphane Durand: "La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche, i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche. Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas). De plus, si deux observateurs se mettent en mouvement à des vitesses différentes par rapport à la perche, ces deux observateurs vont mesurer une longueur différente de la même perche. Une situation inexplicable en termes de contraction matérielle de la perche."

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

Pentcho Valev

Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein

Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

This means that, as light falls, e.g. from the top of a tower to the ground, the speed of the wavecrests increases like the speed of bullets shot downwards (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) and accordingly the frequency measured by an observer on the ground is greater than the initial frequency measured at the top of the tower. The frequency change predicted by Newton's emission theory of light has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

If, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of material bodies, then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of special relativity:

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:

c' = c(1 gh/c^2)

Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:

c' = c(1 gh/c^2) = c v

where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1918 Refutation of Relativity

In his 1918 paper:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, by Albert Einstein

Einstein shows that, if the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. This is obviously fatal for his theory so Einstein is forced to introduce an ad hoc absurdity (there is no other way to save relativity): According to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process:

Albert Einstein: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."

It is easy to show that the turn-around acceleration has nothing to do with the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

There are even scenarios where there is no turn-around acceleration at all and yet the travelling twin proves younger at the end of the journey:

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."

Conclusion: The turn-around acceleration is irrelevant and can and should be ignored. On the other hand, it is the only salvation - without its miraculous "more than compensation", the twin paradox is an absurdity: the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. In other words, by resorting to an inefficient salvation, Einstein in fact refuted his theory.

Pentcho Valev

" ... Einstein in fact refuted his theory."

No, he refuted absolute time and absolute space. Which was the point.

Tom

Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein II

An emitter at the bottom of a tower of height h sends light upwards:

UCSD: "In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

The frequency measured at the bottom of the tower is f=c/L, where L is the wavelength. The frequency measured by a stationary observer at the top of the tower is:

f' = f(1-v/c) = f(1-gh/c^2) = (c/L)(1-v/c) = (c-v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c-v is the speed of light relative to the observer at the top of the tower. From the equivalence principle, c'=c-v is also the speed of light relative to an observer moving, in gravitation-free space, away from the emitter with speed v (v is assumed to be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored).

Somewhat paradoxically, the behaviour of light in a gravitational field topples special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax

David Morin: "A light source on top of a tower of height h emits flashes at time intervals Ts. A receiver on the ground receives the flashes at time intervals Tr. What is Tr in terms of Ts?"

If bullets are shot downwards at time intervals Ts, the receiver on the ground will receive them at time intervals Tr=Ts. Yet David Morin's calculations show that, for light, Ts>Tr. Are the calculations based on some implicit false assumption? They must be: Insofar as the speed variation in a gravitational field is concerned, the analogy between bullets and photons is straightforward:

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Note that, if David Morin is wrong and Tr=Ts, this by no means implies that the frequency of light:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

does not vary with the gravitational potential. It varies exactly as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Pentcho Valev

Gravitational Time Dilation and Doublethink

"Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity. (...) The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound-Rebka experiment."

But:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

That is, in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field (the truth) and the result of differences in the rates of clocks in regions of different gravitational potential (the lie, always one leap ahead of the truth):

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians Test Time Dilation

Einsteinians have discovered that, when fast flying muons crash into an obstacle, they disintegrate more quickly than muons which do not crash. Einsteinians claim (some even believe) that non-crashing muons undergo time dilation, an effect predicted by special relativity, and for that reason live longer than crashing muons (in Divine Albert's world crashing muons are called "muons at rest"):

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."

Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."

In a world different from Divine Albert's world, the short lifetime of muons "at rest" would be analogous to the short lifetime of a driver whose car has come to a sudden stop into a wall.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians Test Ritz's Emission Theory

Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute Ritz's emission theory but Einsteinians know that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light - what else could it be? And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Viva Divine Albert's Divine Theory! Down with Ritz's emission theory!

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Don't you consider the double star argument already compelling? Even if you prefer Robert's view considering electromagnetic waves consisting of single particles, I wonder: Does this make sure that they behave like material particles which are conveying kinetic energy? Aren't they actually rather quanta of energy themselves?

Incidentally, please don't ascribe CSL just to Einstein. He admitted having preferred emission theory for quite a while and he returned to it with his GR.

Eckard

Eckard,

"Don't you consider the double star argument already compelling?"

I don't:

"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics. (...) De Sitter's argument was criticized because of possible extinction effects. That is, during their flight to Earth, the light rays should have been absorbed and re-emitted by interstellar matter nearly at rest relative to Earth, so that the speed of light should become constant with respect to Earth. However, Kenneth Brecher published the results of a similar double-survey in 1977, and reached a similar conclusion - that any apparent irregularities in double-star orbits were too small to support the emission theory. Contrary to De Sitter, he observed the x-ray spectrum, thereby eliminating possible influences of the extinction effect."

Here is Brecher's paper:

K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?"

Brecher (originally de Sitter) expects a system with uncertain parameters to produce "peculiar effects". The system does not produce them. Conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Needless to say, a refutation of this kind can only be valid in Divine Albert's schizophrenic world. Note that it cannot be criticized - the fact that the parameters of the double star system are unknown or uncertain does not allow critics to show why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent.

Einsteinians like this way of doing science.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

How can you deny that de Sitter's argument is compelling if there are no experimental results that confirm a value k equal or at least close to one?

The maximal values of 10e-3 and 10e-9 seem to approach zero instead.

Can the idea of extinction and reemission rescue the emission theory? I don't think so for some reasons. Neither Fox nor Peter J. did provide explanations that are consistent with the reported independence from frequency. Where should the reemission be located? If it did happen close to the earth then the times of flight would already differ from each other. If it did happen close to the double star then one had to explain its relationship to the earth.

Again, I don't see the CSL necessarily a confirmation of SR if we get aware that the usual understanding of the first (not of the second) postulate is a misleading mistake. See my endnotes.

Eckard

Pentcho,

In your posts above, "The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity...", and "... in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field (the truth) and the result of differences in the rates of clocks in regions of different gravitational potential (the lie, always one leap ahead of the truth)"

And mine on the Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space blog:

"Einstein's statement, page 903, "From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location,..." and another Einstein's statement (modified) that: "...we can regard Caesium 133 atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold: Caesium 133 absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. The frequency of Caesium 133 atom situated on the surface of Earth,9 192 631 770 Hz will be somewhat less than the frequency of Caesium 133 which is situated in free space...", p.157 and the BIPM definition of a second",

I ask whether it is Einstein at fault or the priests that are occupying the shrine in Einsteiniana? This is because it is clear from Einstein's quotes that what he said is different from what is being preached. For example, where did the word "exactly" materialize from to apply to light velocity? Did Einstein say Caesium 133 clock will beat exactly same everywhere? However, the priests in Einsteiniana under the auspices of the BIPM want to achieve their design by forcing Caesium clock to always beat "exactly" at 9 192 631 770 Hz everywhere, then thinking they have perfected a magical act by fixing the second, they present us with a definition of the metre to tie our hand and freeze our reasoning. When you examine what Einstein said and what is now being done, you should agree that great injustice is being done to the man and to science, unfortunately in his name.

Akinbo

Eckard,

"How can you deny that de Sitter's argument is compelling if there are no experimental results that confirm a value k equal or at least close to one?"

On close inspection, all reliable (that is, no unknown or uncertain parameters) experiments show that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the source or observer (k=1 or c'=c+v). Examples: Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, measurements of the Doppler frequency shift.

De Sitter's experiment is not reliable - no experiment involving distant celestial objects is. For instance, neither de Sitter nor Brecher discusses the role of the gravitational field of the double star, and this role might be crucial. And there could be other crucial factors of which we know nothing.

Unreliable experiments give support to the winner - Einstein in this case. (After a century of brainwashing, even reliable experiments start giving support to the winner.) If Walther Ritz had not died in 1909, the double star observations would have been regarded as confirming his emission theory.

Pentcho Valev

"Insofar as the speed variation in a gravitational field is concerned, the analogy between bullets and photons is straightforward"

Your perverse thinking process twists perfectly reasonable and well tested explanations into a fake controversy. The facts are far more interesting than your fictions.

Fired bullets are not in free fall. Massless photons, radiating perpendicular to a gravitational plane at the identical angle as a powered projectile with mass, are already travelling at the speed of light. A hypothetical photon passing the muzzle of the gun at the same instant the bullet is fired will reach ground zero in the same interval it would have if measured from that point to the ground without the bullet comparison, at a velocity based on the constant speed of light -- while the bullet will fall at a rate equalling its initial velocity plus the acceleration of gravity according to Newton's calculus. The time interval of the photon will be vastly shorter than that for the bullet.

Now -- rotate the muzzle of the gun parallel to the gravitational plane. A photon passing the muzzle will have the same velocity as it had perpendicular to the plane. The initial velocity of the bullet, however, is not accelerated; the bullet falls at the singular rate of gravitational acceleration *regardless* of trajectory, i.e., whether the projectile is fired, or unpowered in free fall. The photon is never accelerated -- again, its interval will be much shorter toward ground zero; however, a photon parallel to the plane *never reaches* ground zero, because its escape velocity is vastly greater than the acceleration of gravitational attraction, short of the black hole limit. The photon radiates away into space with barely a slight deflection under normal gravitational influence.

Sir, this is fundamental *Galilean* physics, even more basic than the Newtonian. It is exceedingly tiresome in this forum, to listen to the same worn and soundly refuted claims by those with the least knowledge, who make the overwhelming majority of posts.