Professor El Naschie's 'breakthough' is a little unbelieveable: Einstein's equation is easily derived from F=ma and you don't get a factor of 1/22.
El Naschie recently lost a law suit against the journal Nature, criticised by the judge for having little consideration of the norms of sicentific pubishing, or respect of the ethics that underpin it, so he's in the scientific long grass now. There's even a blog watch of his activities.
Professor Caslav Brukner:
I will refer not to the whole of your article, but only to "time dilation" or "relativistic time" We first should know what it is time
I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why it can't be shorter. Mainly theoretical physicists are the most interested in "the nature of time" and they like to believe the subject is inherent to physicists and you will see it's no so.
I will follow with an advice of somebody than most physicists in the world respect, Albert Einstein. "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly to be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.
Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection. But even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions" "Ideas and Opinions" Einstein, pg.283 y 284, ISBN Nº 440-04150-150.
I think this should be read slow, understanding each and every word of his thought about mind functioning, some times is as important as mathematics formulas.
To make possible to comprehend this article, first you should believe possible that "The problem of time" can be solve. Second let the mind freer to the understanding of new things, for this, we should say that
"time" has no definition, no empiric meaning, also can't be sense by any of our senses or by any man designed artifact, nobody can make a description or recognize "time". To make clearer this article we should keep in mind the last three lines through all the reading.
If was any other word with those characteristics we immediately would say "time does not exist".
why we don't say that, because since pre-Socratic Heraclito ,and after Socrates Plato and Aristoteles 2600 or 2300 years ago we are measuring what we call "time" and as physicist Sean Carroll said being quote by Lee Smolin "There is no question that time exists--we use it everyday," If we give this, as a reason of "time" existence. How he can be sure that exist, if he don't know what it is? The Carroll reason is, that he think he use it every day. Certainly for use, he meant measuring the so called "time". How he knows that what he is measuring is "time" and no something else? like movement ?
Everybody knows movement, it has definition, empiric meaning. Everything with physical existence moves, from a galaxy to a subatomic particle. Movement origin is very much older and certain that "time". If the big-bang, happen, there was movement, life is possible because movement, our brain metabolism, which moves, is our mind that consider all movement we know of, that surround us. How we are not going to measure movement? We did it since the beginning of written history, but thinking that we were measuring "time".
People think that with the clock movement we measure "time" and with it, comparatively we measure every other movement, change and transformation. A clock, to be one should have a "constant", "uniform" movement, if it is not so it's not a clock.
The physical prove that we measure movement with movement consist that with a clock "constant" movement we measure fractions of "constant" earth rotation movement represented by clock dial numbers, as the hour, these are the reasons that this are "movements units" and no "time units"
New duration definition: It is the period of change and transformation that movement allows and men limit.
Then the so called "time" is movement .When we think we are measuring "time" we are not conscious, that in fact we are measuring movement, as we always did, we do and we are going to keep doing it. Knowing this does not change any physic law. We have to remember that classic physics, relativity and quantum mechanics were created, developed and physicist keep working with them with out the need to know of "The nature of time", but knowing that "time" it is not a mysterious thing, but movement, a quality or property of everything with physical existence, we know that we can related it to anything of physical existence.
Not only is needed to quantized general relativity to the goal of the "the theory of everything" but we also can understand conclusions of general relativity like "that velocity and gravity slows time" in GPS (imagine an analogical clock) the satellite one slows respect it's similar on land why? because the satellite clock inertia, because it's speed slows clock parts movement, slowing it's functioning respect the one on land, what slows it is not "time", but it's functioning
Gravity slows the clock in the valley respect it's similar on top of the mountain, because the first one is affected for more gravity than the other, gravity slows clock parts functioning it is not the "time" than slows.
Since Heraclito to Einstein passing through Newton men always ask themselves, What it is time? to reach reality, they should ask themselves What we are measuring? And quite easily they would find out that was movement. All the other things that can be made knowing this it would make this to long.
Time probably is a remnant word which represented a very important concept for men that mankind forgot it's meaning as Einstein pre-scientific concepts. "Time dilation" as in GPS is what everybody thought was the satellite clock time slowing respect to it's similar on land, We can prove now that what really happen is that the satellite clock is functioning slower (not time) because its inertia at 27.000 Km.h, respect to it's similar on land. "Time dilation" can happen because of gravity action on clock parts making the clock in the valley slower respect to the one on top of the mountain . What becomes slower is not "time" but movement clock movements.
Héctor Daniel Gianni
E-mail: hectorgianni38@hotmail.com
Hector
As you say, time is not the timing devices, these just 'tell' the time. The reference is actually a conceptual constant rate of change. In other words, within the realms of practicality, all timing devices are synchronised to this (the same point applies to distance). The purpose of timing being to calibrate rates of change. Alteration is what is occurring physically, which apart from substance (ie what altered), and order (ie in what sequence it did so), happens at a rate.
Einstein (or more precisely Poincaré) did not understand this, which gave him the 'ability' to argue for a timing differential in physical existence, having conflated physical existence with the photon based representation of it which we receive. There, obviously, being a time delay between these two actual physical occurrences. So, he shifted a timing differential which occurs at the end of the physical process to the start. The light he refers to is not observational light, it is a time and distance measuring device, which as a reference, must be constant. This is why, in attempting to explain the core idea of relativity he always uses examples in which there is lightening, or a ray of light, etc, because this disgiuses the fact hat there is no light for observers to see with.
All this is immediately obvious in 1905 section 1, part 1
Paul
Paul:
Thank you for your answer, my language is Spanish, but I will try to be as clear as possible. What I am saying in my article is much, much radical than you thought; in fact I am replacing "time" by movement.
Gravity, inertia, rationality tell us that always existed we just put them a name. Time did not, time was a man creation is not something with physical existence is just a word, as I called a "remnant word", that probably represented an important concept for man and mankind forgot it's meaning, Einstein to space and time call them pre-scientific concepts.
Our senses tell us about gravity and inertia continuously since we born. Scientists talk about time, because they have not other way to refer to it. When Einstein was asked about time, "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." Of course he was right, because is the only thing we knew about it, that's why has not definition, or empiric meaning it is not sensed by any of our senses, nobody can describe or recognize it. is not a scientific fact. If Einstein continue his thought to, what are we measuring? He would realize that with a "constant" movement (the clock) we are measuring "fractions" as the hour, of the "constant" earth rotation movement. We are measuring movement with movement, and not that with the clock movement we thought were measuring "time".
"Time" is movement. With this what we are changing will run out a mysterious word "time" and we replaced it by movement, a quality or property of every thing with physical existence, what this really mean? that it can be related to every physical force or event. (I read 1905) movement is different in every point in space because not only would be affected by gravity, also by inertia and this forces will depend on which part of space we considered movement. I understand that Einstein or any other physicist understood why velocity and gravity slow "time" , if they knew that "time" is movement, easily could be understood that inertia because clock velocity and gravity can affect movement.
If we know that "time" is movement "time dilation" is "movement extension", much better is "movement slowing". With my best whishes
Héctor Gianni
Hector
I have not read your article, and have not got time today, but will do. Presumably it is referenced above? So I will just respond to your post now.
It is not movement, that is just a specific form of change. The physical occurrence is alteration, or change, (ie from one physically existent state to the next), irrespective of what that involves, ie why the state altered and how. Time is the duration unit of the measuring system timing, which calibrates rates of change against a conceptual constant rate of change.
There is no such phenomenon as 'time dilation', because time is physically non-existent. It is a reference system to establish when, and/or for what duration, something physically occurred. There is no such phenomenon as space, as in 'a spatial position where nothing exists'. Or perhaps to be more precise, we have not proved it so, and as we can only detect something which is different from something else, not nothing, we could not track this nothing as a reference anyway. It may be that when a differential in force incurred causes a change in momentum, it also causes a change in dimension (this being their original thought-particularly Lorentz), but that will not make any difference to the misconception of time which is the crux of the problem. The timing differential is between physical occurrence and receipt of light.
In simple language. The physical existence we are able to investigate (we can dream up all sorts of possibilities, but that is not science) exists in one definitive physically existent state, at a time. We know there is something, and that it alters, which means it is existential sequence. Physical existence is only spatial. Change is a feature of the difference between one physical existence and another, not of any such physical state.
Paul
Since one of the principles of GR is the equivalence of acceleration and Gravity, I wonder if the experiment can be constructed to operated inside a centrifuge. The outer slit (high gee part) would be the slow clock and the slit near the center of rotation would be the " normal" clock. Instead of light use a 300 MHz rf beam generated with a traveling-wave tube amplifier where the slits can be 1 meter apart
Cheers Bert Murray
www.lhdev.com
Bert - that is indeed sensible and we had similar ideas.
Caslav
Attached is a paper where double slit was performed using microwaves in the 10 Ghz range (3 cm wavelength). Is 3 cm enough of a separation adequate to detect time dilation?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1137v2.pdf
Cheers, Bert
Dr Brukner,
Is your analysis related in some way to the one by Paul Dirac in his Lectures on Quantum Mechanics? A quick example is this partial quote from page 66 of the currently paperback version: "... it doesn't seem possible to fulfill the conditions which are necessary for building up a relativistic quantum field theory on curved surfaces." His arguments are based on a use of Hamiltonian methods that I strongly suspect are equivalent to the assuming the existence of a flat space, thus leading to the overall incompatibility. Are Dirac's arguments related to yours, or am I misunderstanding the intent of your analysis?
Cheers,
Terry Bollinger
Fundamental time which is a numerical order of change has only a mathematical existence. Emergent time which is aduration of change enters existence when measurement by the observer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.113
Einsteinians Will Measure Gravitational Time Dilation Again
"Gravitational time dilation", devised by Einstein in 1911, is one of the greatest hoaxes in today's science. Consider light falling (or climbing up) in a gravitational field:
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."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."
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 picture is more than clear - in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of any material body, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and this variation has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Yet some Einsteinians find it safe to ignore all this and teach the blatant lie that the speed of light remains constant in a gravitational field:
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."
Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."
Where does the courage of Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Richard Epp and Stephen Hawking come from? The blatant lie (the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field) can be taught relatively safely if the teacher has assumed that a clock on the ground runs slower than a clock at the top of a tower ("gravitational time dilation"). With this assumption, light emitted by the top will be measured to have a higher frequency on the ground not because its speed has increased, as predicted by the emission theory, but because the unit of time on the ground is dilated and encompasses more wavecrests, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
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."
[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]
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
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":
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:
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