Ripping Apart Einstein

Simple Refutation of Special Relativity II

As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored), the speed of the light pulses relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v (in violation of special relativity) and, as a result, the frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses.

As the observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v, the speed of the light pulses relative to him shifts from c to c'=c-v (in violation of special relativity) and, as a result, the frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c-v)/d.

The falsehood of Einstein's relativity is obvious to everybody nowadays - there is almost no one left on Einsteiniana's sinking ship. The only reason why the end of Einsteiniana is still not officially declared is because Einsteiniana's high priests fear an embarrassing question:

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev

Thanks Peter for providing us a link to these interesting papers. You are certainly a devoted seeker after the truth, spending much time and energy to dig things out, even if we have areas of disagreement. I will enjoy the papers and comment later. Before this...

In the preamble I see "Is space time continuous or is it made up of very fine (10-35 meters on the "Planck scale") but discrete grains"; "Physicists have been wondering about the nature of space time for years. We've been asking ourselves whether it is continuous at all scales, as we perceive it in our daily experience, or whether at very small sizes it presents an irregular grain that we, in our direct experience, are unable to perceive", explains Liberati; "In a certain sense physicists have been trying to do something similar with space time: to find something that acts as a microscope to find out whether at very small length scales there is indeed some irregularity.."

QUESTION OR MATTERS ARISING:

What is the measure or S.I. unit of space time? Is it in length? Or is it metre-seconds? In view of the historical intrigues that we have been subjected to in Einsteiniana, it is wise to be wary of any magic ab initio, changing a geometric entity like space, which everybody can physically appreciate and measure into something that is more of a mathematical concept before confronting the issue of its graininess or not. Let mathematicians mind mathematics, while theoretical and experimental physicists and natural philosophers mind physics. These are my opening comments, till I go through the paper. The topic appears to merit a separate blog on its own!

Regards,

Akinbo

The 2013 paper fits into the guess of grained spacetime. I nonetheless begun looking in it and found on p. 4 something that is remarkable from my perspective: replacing the abstract notions of "time" and "space" with the physical notions of

"duration" (of a physical phenomenon as measured by a clock) and distance (e.g. of

a physical object as measured by a suitable rod).

Although I don't consider Einstein a reliable authority, I would like to remind of how he defined time: what the clock measures.

Neither negative duration nor negative distance can be measured.

Eckard

Eckard, et al.

The consequence is enlightening. You and six pals float at rest in space, detecting photons from a source 1 light year (lyr) away.

Your pal Vince then heads off towards the source at v. According to current theory (including yours Eckard) he then somehow magically changes the speed of all the 'yet to arrive' photons, whether already emitted or not but only those destined to interact with HIS lens, not yours or the others! So they then DON'T take one lyr to arrive! Or perhaps he warps the bit of space between him and the source, but only for him!? And of course he also has to contract in length. Now all those who believe that think those who think otherwise simply 'don't understand' or think the king has no clothes so are asylum inmates.

The simple option is that those photons Vince doesn't interact with carry on as they were, so at RELATIVE c+v, (but not detectable). The ones he 'detects' (an interactive 'sampling' process) are immediately modulated to c wrt his personal local rest frame ('discrete field') then measured (DFM).

Nothing else is needed. so Occam agrees with me, as does the above paper; identifying that the current description of LI is "both right and wrong," so c can be real and local, and is NOT also required to be 'apparent' elsewhere.

So I suggest it's not ME in the asylum. And when the mists clear the wall will be found encircling those who believe in the old mythical doctrines, magic, time travel, shrinking objects and invisible clothes.

This last gate is open, there may still be time to escape!

Can anyone find ANY fault or credible reason to doubt the simple DFM option?

Peter,

Did you mean the following? Seven objects are located one lyr apart from an emitter. One of them, called Vince, starts moving with a velocity v wrt the group toward the source.

As usual it was not at all enlightening what you wrote. I had to learn that a pal is a friend. To me "float at rest in space" sounds self-contradicting. I guess Vince is just a name. I didn't find the expression "to head off".

Let me comment on this picture. Vince's velocity doesn't directly matter at all. If Vince's position is not yet different from the position of the group then its distance from the source is still one lyr. If Vince is e.g. only 0.5 lyr away from the source then waves from the emitter may arrive at Vince 0.5 years earlier than at the group. Incidentally, I don't see the light destined to interact. Where is the problem unless we intend understanding warped spacetime?

Vince can of course not alter the propagation of light. In that I share your "simple opinion". However I identify your addendum "As RELATIVE c+v,(but not detectable) as at least not sufficiently explained but perhaps simply unfounded and as indicating your emission-theoretic guess.

Eckard

Eckard,

Not emission theory. And the scenario meets all observations and findings WITHOUT having to invoke influence into the future. The emitter may indeed also be moving, but was at a point in space 1 lyr away when emitting the photons/wave or whatever you prefer, which then takes 1 lyr to reach you. Lets be realistic and call it a wavefront light pulse constituted by many 'photons.'

Vince's velocity DOES of course matter because the whole problem is ALL about relative velocities. (You seem to have conveniently forgotten that fact for your own proposition).

Let us then consider that your friend Vince is the only one in motion, moving at v towards the source, but is LEVEL with you when the wavefront arrives. Now you and your 7 friends all do the calculation and find that the photons are propagating at c wrt yourselves.

But when Vince also detects the photons, and also does the calculation and finds them moving at c wrt HIM then you would call him a fool and have no logical explanation (nor does SR!)

In fact only one LOGICAL explanation can exist. It is that the photone which YOU detected were indeed doing relative c+v wrt Vince. Which means that the photons HE detected were also approaching him at relative c+v. It is then the calculation which assumes the wrong mathematical formula, because it ignores the fact that the photons we 'measure' have ALREADY interacted with our detectors, which we know from optical science to be true anyway!

The datum for defining c simply changes to the new inertial system rest frame.

I suggest that is logically irrefutable. (DFM). Happy a good new years eve.

Peter

Peter,

I try my best guessing what are just marginal mistakes of you, what you meant and in what you are horribly wrong.

For instance, the discrepancy between "you and your 7 friends" and "You and six pals" is marginal.

I guess when you wrote "Vince ... is LEVEL with you when the wavefront arrives" you meant he is at the same position when the photons arrive at Vince, me, and the remaining five friends. Being no Englishman I would more easily understand "at the same level as you" but "LEVEL with you does perhaps mean the same.

You then wrote: "all do the calculation and find that the photons are propagating at c wrt yourselves." I suspect, you are unable to specify what calculation you are referring to and on what it could be based.

Then you are reasoning: Vince has to add his own speed v to the speed c of the photons. I consider this appealing to laymen but belonging to the model of bullets instead of waves, in other words to emission theory.

I am sorry, there is perhaps no EE who will support this experimentally and theoretically refuted view.

Eckard

Eckard,

Are you suggesting that humans have the metaphysical power to affect light signals that haven't arrived? So the speed of Vince wrt the photons arriving at YOU is not relative c+v!? If so it would seem that 'denial' is as powerful outside mainstream as it is within it. It doesn't require bullets or ballistic/emission theory, but it does require simple logic. That's what seems to be missing in current science.

The very simple 'Occam' scenario I've painted for you resolves all the questions that need to be resolved, which then means it's the best candidate. You have identified not fault, but are engrossed in your far more complex and illogical solution. If you CAN falsify it please do so. But if the approach you've taken is typical of all science then it seems the simple truth may remain subjugated forever. However I can't believe that all EE's would show the same apparently selective distain for simple electrodynamics and logic. If a signal propagates from A to B in time t it has as assignable 'speed' dt. Your idea has to invokes time travel to do so!

If you have seven friends at rest relatively but one then moves, I'm not a mathematics professor but my calculator tells me there may be 6 left. Perhaps your continual focus on such entirely unimportant distractions is what's causing the blindness. Are you actually serious about science? Do you not think physics is about the physical? and do you believe in logic?

Happy new year

Peter

Peter,

Your main mistake is common among opponents of SR and CSL like Pentcho who are considering photons moving in a ballistic manner like bullets.

A colleague of mine taught physics to students across our university. He told me that students of EE tend to easily accept SR because we teachers of EEs had already taught them to calculate light behaving as an em wave, not as a body that can be accelerated.

The speed c of any wave does neither immediately depend on a velocity v_e of its emitter nor on a speed v_r of its receiver but it refers to the medium. The expression c+v is therefore misleading. Waves cannot propagate faster wrt medium than with the specific speed c. This is valid for acoustic waves in air as well as for em waves in space. While you may calculate the value c+v when considering (in particular from the perspective of ground) the sound propagating within a fast flying cabin, you must not infer that a signal can be transferred with a speed in excess of c. Please accept this without further quarrel.

Michelson's null result has been the next hurdle of understanding since 1881: We have also to accept that in empty space there is no stationary light-carrying medium wrt which an object could move at a velocity v_m. An application of the expression c+v_m is therefore not justified. You are repeatedly claiming that a photon/wave is emitted with a speed v wrt the emitting body. I don't see this correct.

The speed of light belongs to its far field component. The near field component does not propagate, and in empty space this speed (as I pinpointed the perhaps only reasonable definition of it) is c, depending not on the speeds of the emitting as well as the receiving body but on their belonging positions instead.

I only mentioned your trifles because they may make reading of what you wrote more troublesome, in particular for those like me.

Eckard

OMG: "The falsehood of Einstein's relativity is obvious to everybody nowadays - there is almost no one left on Einsteiniana's sinking ship."

Silly me, I thought only QM has its share of "challengers" because QM is much harder compared with special relativity.

Still, the argument has sheer brilliance in its simplicity:

"An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d.

From the formula f=c/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer/receiver is c. From the formula f'=(c+v)/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the moving observer/receiver is c'=c+v."

I am completely speechless on this one.

Wilhemus,

"a photon that is approaching you is still invisible, so not measurable....".

Well, the future cannot be observed in advance. There is no negative elapsed time as there is also no negative distance.

However, in what do you agree with Peter and why?

Eckard

Eckard,

Poor understanding is rife. I'll try to explain better. 1. I agree "Waves cannot propagate faster wrt medium than with the specific speed c."

Also that; "The speed of light belongs to its far field component." So only in the NEAR field is c wrt the emitter. I do NOT therefore invoke ballistics. Quite the opposite, I use waves. Read my essays!

But there is a very new and very subtle point here; ALL matter, including detectors, have 'near fields', (at rest with the body). So the speed of approaching light is always c in the FAR field. But it is c in ALL fields. So when it arrives it changes to c in the near filed (just like sound).

You keep insisting space has no 'medium'. If you had the first idea about astronomy or astrophysics you'd know how hopelessly wrong that assumption is. I'm not referring to 'ether', only to the diffuse mass particles we ACTUALLY FIND there! Being diffuse only means that refraction takes longer and further. But space is obviously far bigger than you've imagined Eckard, vastly bigger than is needed for the job!

Take all the particles of a 1cm thick lens and scatter them in space. Do you imagine they won't do the same job? That job is precisely what they DO do. And coupling affects speed just as much as angle, even where n=1. Think carefully about that. That is what Willhelmus meant.

So all light in passing planes can do c+v wrt you, but always propagates at c, so can NEVER reach you at c+v as it always changes speed when changing field (thus discrete fields) to propagate at local c.

No need to apologise for wrongly accusing me of making the mistake of using 'bullets'. Poor understanding is rife.

Peter

Florin,

An easy mistake to make. A far more subtle truth hides from all simplistic analysis, agreeing with Einstein's final 1952 definition (and Postulates) which varied somewhat from the earlier descriptions.

The 'discrete field' model describes an underlying (quantum scale) mechanism which can produce the effects described in SR (and thus GR). Firstly v can be large as the Lorentz Factor is a valid approximation of the power curve implicit in the model approaching gamma (link available).

Now if you read my latest essay 2nd place score, here; you'll see the reason why using "frequency" rather than the scalar "wavelength" (L) has tended to 'screen' what's really going on. i.e. In astronomy we've learnt that using the 'frequency' formulations for Doppler shift produces anomalous results. Telemetry and redshift then use L/L. The difference is critical, but theorists still habitually use f.

The reason is as identified in the nominated 'Paper of the Year' and analysis that the simple specification of CSL is "both true and false at the same time" as it needs more precise definition, here;

Liberati 2013. and Analysis of Space-Time irregularities.Jnl Stat.Phys.2013.

It also complies with QED, But of course as Feynman predicted the solution would be, it's entirely unfamiliar so will certainly "first look wrong", as it did to me. it's then liable to unscientific 'a priori' rejection. Human nature really. It has however not only passed all falsification but seems to resolve all the anomalies it's been used on (see the essays). I estimated it may be ~2020 before physicist would be ready (2010 Essay; 2020 Vision').

It also precisely recovers the hierarchical structure of truth function logic ('proposition' = 'inertial system') and (finally!) recovers Snell's Law of refraction at Maxwell's near/far field transitions. If you get your head round the dynamical evolution let me know. Fundamentally All propagation is at c, but 'apparent' c+v does not require disqualification as all 'matter' can move'. Superluminal jets (found up to 46c apparent) are then no longer a problem for Relativity.

Happy New year

Peter

Florin, I can't determine if you are being facetious or if you really are that innocent of relativity.

Florin,

The problem is that you, like the vast majority of people, have confused "group velocity" for "phase velocity". Einstein simply DEFINED the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant. He said nothing about group velocity being constant.

Group velocity is the velocity at which the envelope of a signal propagates, such as might be measured by timing the arrival of a leading edge of a pulse.

Phase velocity, on the other hand, is the velocity of a signal with a constant envelop - in other words, an infinitely long signal that has no leading or trailing edge. Since the envelop is constant, no measurement of it will provide any indication of a non-zero velocity, whatsoever.

So how do you then DIRECTLY measure the velocity of an infinitely long, ideal sinusoid, that never interacts with anything, (because it is in a vacuum)? The answer is that you can't. You can only measure a changing phase. But that could be caused by EITHER a non-zero velocity, or a change in its frequency, or any combination of the two. So which is it? There is no way to tell. Not even in principle. So just pick one or the other as being CONSTANT, and attribute the phase shift has being entirely caused by the other.

Einstein simply observed that the math transformation would be simpler, if you picked the velocity to be constant, rather than the frequency. Hence, we have Doppler frequency shifts and constant phase velocity, rather than constant frequency and Doppler velocity shifts.

Rob McEachern

Variable Speed of Light Topples Einstein

You walk along the fence. Relative to you, the posts have speed c (not the speed of light of course) and the frequency you measure is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the posts.

Now you start running along the fence and your speed increases by v. Relative to you, the speed of the posts shifts from c to c'=c+v. This shift in the speed of the posts relative to you causes the frequency you measure to shift from f=c/d to f'=c'/d=(c+v)/d.

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000km) towards you (the observer/receiver). Relative to you, the pulses have speed c and the frequency you measure is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses.

Now you start running towards the light source and your speed increases by v (v is small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored). Relative to you, the speed of the pulses shifts from c to c'=c+v. This shift in the speed causes the frequency you measure to shift from f=c/d to f'=c'/d=(c+v)/d:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

If you had started running away from the light source, then, relative to you, the speed of the pulses would have shifted from c to c'=c-v and the frequency you measured from f=c/d to f'=c'/d=(c-v)/d:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

Clearly one can only explain the shift from f=c/d to f'=(c±v)/d in terms of the shift from c to c'=c±v. However the equation c'=c±v is fatal for special relativity so Einsteinians usually avoid the topic:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

Tom, I was not kidding, I do consider the argument brilliant, and I think it deserves a clear counter-argument. Also I did scratched my head to find it. Here it is:

Consider this:

"An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d"

It states: "let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored". The Lorenz factor gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v*v/c*c) so 1/gamma = sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) = sqrt((1-v/c)(1+v/c)). In the quoted argument, the factor 1/gamma due to time dilation is ignored probably as being consider second order in v/c. However, even in relativity there is a Doppler shift of the order of v/c so this is not enough to distinguish between Lorentz and Galilean transformations, and one needs to go to second order v/c terms. In Galilean transformations there are none, but not in relativity.

Bottom line, when v 0 is the same as c/v->infinity or c->infinity and "infinity + v = infinity". The point here is that we are not talking about adding small velocities v1+v2, but talking about adding a small velocity with an "infinite" velocity.

Long story short: for small v, the relativistic effects are second order in v/c, and c->infinity. Therefore the c+v=c because c = infinity. Also I did like the argument against special relativity: it is clear, concise, and it deserves a to the point refutation without appealing to higher authority, experiments, or geometric arguments.

" ... it deserves a to the point refutation without appealing to higher authority, experiments, or geometric arguments."

Does it deserve to be subjected to division by zero?

One more thing:

I think the confusion stems from demanding uniform convergence when only point-convergence exists. The limit from Lorenz to Galileo has one kind of convergence when ALL velocities are small (second order in v/c) and another kind of convergence when combining small with large velocities (first order in v/c). Functional analysis has tons of examples when uniform convergence is not true, but the weaker form of convergence holds.