Classic Article: Black Holes, Paradox Regained

Pentcho, Tom,

The essence of SR is encrypted within what Einstein himself called the seeming contradiction between his two postulates. I prefer seeing SR more obviously and originally anchored within Einstein's silly Poincaré synchronization.

Tom wrote: "an observer in a moving frame of reference is entitled to say that the at-rest observer's clock runs more slowly." If an observer is entitled to say something then he is a person, and as such he may define his own immediate surrounding (A) as moving relative to something (B) at rest. In principle, he may either attribute A to his car and B to the street or the other way round. The question how fast two identical stop clocks at these locations do run can be objectively decided with a joint measurement performed by persons who are not bound to the subjective attribution of rest either to car or street - provided these persons agreed on a reasonable symmetrical one-way synchronization.

I agree with Georgina on that Tom/Einstein made a "category error"-

Two-way synchronization has problems:

- It is asymmetrical while light propagates isotropically.

- I was ad hoc fabricated as to formally justify Lorentz' attempt to rescue the aether hypothesis after Michelson in 1881/1887 didn't confirm a assumed aether; it is therefore not trustworthy.

- It cannot be reasonably applied to any model of how light propagates, no matter whether as a corpuscle or as a wave.

- It led to many so far unresolved paradoxes.

++++

Eckard,

I agree with Tom that "the theory is contained entirely within the postulates". That is, Einstein's 1905 postulates predetermine the conclusions of SR, no matter what Einstein or anybody else has said.

Of course I still insist that one of the postulates is false and the theory should be discarded.

Pentcho Valev

Penthco,

I also agree that the way in which SR works is because of the way in which it is formulated. I thought it would be helpful to mention that there is no problem with reciprocal observed delay as that is what occurs as a mere consequence of non instantaneous signal transmission even without any reference to SR. There is no need to ask which clock is the slow one, they can both be seen to be slower. Reciprocal delay doesn't suddenly become counter-intuitive when put into SR unless one is thinking that what is observed is the clock itself (category error). Perhaps I should have also mentioned that each observer can consider them-self stationary and the other to be moving.A person in a moving car sees the pedestrian whizzing past, the pedestrian sees the person in the car whizzing past. That's also every day experience and not counter-intuitive.

Hi All,

Tom, must you think using only mathematics?

And Georgina, on "...That is what was puzzling Akinbo", not really. The question was posed by one more respected than myself, but mathematical people like Tom either refuse to answer or get the straight forward question muddled up in so many twists and turns. I than Tom for at least volunteering an answer, although painfully as he himself says. Eckard's post contains common sense, which is more superior to mathematical sense and I repost: "...If an observer is entitled to say something then he is a person, and as such he may define his own immediate surrounding (A) as moving relative to something (B) at rest. In principle, he may either attribute A to his car and B to the street or the other way round. The question how fast two identical stop clocks at these locations do run can be objectively decided with a joint measurement performed by persons who are not bound to the subjective attribution of rest either to car or street..."

How can one "relative" clock measure another "relative" clock? Does that make any sense?

Anyway, I recommend Prof. Herbert Dingle's book, specially for Tom and JRC, and for any who have not read it: Science at the Crossroads, you may go straight to pages 7 and 27.

Regards,

Akinbo

Tom,

On your challenge...

"I'll issue you the same challenge as Pentcho. Try explaining refraction without a constant finite speed of light -- then extrapolate that result from Newtonian physics to relativity at the speed of light limit".

The whole world knows that if there is a constant finite speed of light, there can be no refraction. It is change of speed that causes refraction for all waves, sound waves included. Unless, you wish as a disciple want to play Judas, this is what the 'messiah' said and I quote:

"... A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." - p.89, Relativity: the special and general theory.

Are you going to play the role of Judas Iscariot?

Regards,

Akinbo

*Please don't feel pain when you explain your view. In any case the pains inflicted are reciprocal, frustrating but enjoyable in a sense.

Akinbo,

Yes I see now you have re-posted the original question.(I was addressing your later comments to Tom.)

I would have said the -output from the received signal seen- by each observer is relative and can be compared to the time on his own near clock. It is not the clock substantial objects that are relative. Each near clock is showing what Einstein called Proper time.

Akinbo. P.S. I left a reply explaining why there can not be a return to Newtonian time on "New Podcast: Shifty Neutrinos Win Big, a Cosmic Test for Time, Existential Risk, & "Thunderbirds" Meets Quantum Physics"

Akinbo,

"Tom, must you think using only mathematics?"

I could, but then I would be just as confused and wrong as the rest of you.

It's important to understand that special relativity is a mathematically compete theory. You don't add or subtract anything from it without destroying it. Even Pentcho understands this.

Akinbo,

"The whole world knows that if there is a constant finite speed of light, there can be no refraction."

The whole world knows the opposite. The finite speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The light ray curvature in the presence of a strong gravity field, moreover, is curvilinear, a linear representation of constant curvature.

"... A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." - p.89, Relativity: the special and general theory.]

You must not have the same edition as my 1961 printing. I can't locate the reference -- you can be sure, however, that this applies to general relativity. Please don't get into the Pentcho Valev habit of spurious quotation and citation.

I have no idea what you mean by the Judas thing -- it doesn't belong in this discussion.

It's painful anytime to explain physics to an otherwise learned person -- knowing that you are capable of filling in the gaps in your education for yourself.

Akinbo,

Now I understand the source of your confusion, in Dingle's long-discredited argument:

"According to the special theory of relativity, two similar docks, A and B, which are in uniform relative motion and in which no other differences exist of which the theory takes any account, work at different rates. The situation is therefore entirely symmetrical, from which it follows that if A works faster than B, B must work faster than A. Since this is impossible, the theory must be false." (p.27)

This is NOT what special relativity says. Two clocks sharing uniform motion are synchronized at the origin. This means that they work at the SAME rate. If one or the other leaves this frame of reference, the moving clock runs slower than its partner. When brought back to relative rest, there is no doubt about the asymmetry, because the moving clock will have lost time.

When not at relative rest, each observer is entitled to say that the other's clock is slow, because of their state of relative motion. But when at rest in uniform motion, there is a definite asymmetry.

Akinbo, you really need to steep yourself in the mainstream literature before you go off half-cocked. You even managed to quote Einstein out of context, so it's obvious you have not studied the literature.

Akinbo,

"What makes light bend when it moves from air to water? Change in speed right?"

What makes the change in speed? Change in medium, right?

The link doesn't work. But as I said, I have the book. I have read it more than once. That passage is more than likely referring to curvilinear constant motion.

I don't regard Einstein as Jesus, so I don't get the joke.

Okay. Just to post the link again... if it works, http, not https

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924011804774

Okay, got it.

It is just as I said. Under the heading "A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity." Read it again.

Better yet -- read the whole book. It is a masterwork of critical thinking.