Ripping Apart Einstein

Eckard,

'OMG' is Oh my God! I agree with many of your points, but I try to simplify and be precise. The only confusion is due to the different and unfamiliar 'assumptions' I must specify.

Within the Michelson etc. findings is still 'allowed' the entrained inertial systems ('ionospheres') which Lodge wrongly ruled out with his 'inertial frame error'. There is then indeed no "preferred" frame because ALL frames are (equally) 'preferred'! All 'speed' has a LOCAL background as it's datum, which itself is in motion at some speed (max c) within it's own LOCAL background, which itself is in motion at some speed (max c) within it's own LOCAL background, etc etc ad infinitum; from single particles through all mass 'systems' (inc. lenses) right up to universes.

If you read my post above to Rob very carefully you may rationalise the implications.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

"I am not yet familiar with extinction but will familiarize myself with it. But what does it change in the battle between Galilean and Lorentz transformation? I doubt little"

I've shown the mechanism giving the asymptotic Lorentz limit to the Galilean transformation. There's no need for 'battle', and extinction is at it's heart. I suggest science is about finding unity not fighting wars!!

Consider a block of glass (a 'discrete field' = DFM) moving fast in space, or perhaps a Shuttle windscreen on 're-entry' into increasing electron density. Radio and light waves pass through just fine as the old wavelength is 'extinguished' and becomes the new Doppler shifted one (with each electron interaction).

But as plasma density at the nose increases (wavelength reduces towards gamma) the waves struggle increasingly to penetrate. This change is on a 'Power Curve', increasing 'non-linearly' as 'optical breakdown mode' approaches (Google it) not penetrating at all at Gamma. That non-linear curve is simply described mathematically by the 'Lorentz Factor'.

The extinction is obviously of the old speed, frequency and vector (wavefunction 'collapse') so also implements refraction. In more diffuse media the extinction may be over many light years, giving the gentle 'space-time' curve found, along with 'birefringence' during the process (both old and new 'axis' are detectable). (i.e. Google 'atmospheric birefringence'. or;

PRL; Cosmic Rotation.

Now quite a few jigsaw puzzle pieces came together there, and once you rationalise them you should see where many more also fit. But one step at a time! Extinction is just the old signal becoming the new local one, at local c in the new discrete field.

Best wishes

Peter

" ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."

Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light.

"Are you facetious?"

No. Einstein was only 16 when he realized this fact, with his reflected image thought experiment.

Stop opening new threads. Nothing you say is that important.

Thanks Peter,

I thought 'extinction' would be some exotic phenomenon but if all it is is that the old speed and frequency change on encountering a new matter medium (or one of differing density) to a new speed and frequency that is all in keeping with Galilean relativity. In the new medium (like under the deck in Galileo's ship) the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is what some may call Lorentz transformation but is actually provided for in Galilean relativity. I don't at the moment have sympathy for 'wavefunction collapse'. Above deck c' = c+v, below deck c' = c, since relative velocity, v of observer to light = 0, even though the ship is moving. If I get you correctly, 'extinction' is what happens at the boundary?

Akinbo

Me: " ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."

Thomas Howard Ray: "Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light."

Your reply is totally irrelevant to my statement, Thomas Howard Ray. If you are not facetious... I don't know what to say.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo;

"'extinction' is what happens at the boundary?" Yes. Thickness of boundary may be from nm to megaparsec scale.

Our atmosphere is a boundary zone (thus M&M's non zero result). The Top guy in atmospheric refraction is A T Young; USN Model Basis. and also; Young, A.T., Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction Astron.J. 127, 3622-3637(2004).

The 'Lorentz transformation' is properly just the NON-LINEARITY of the Galilean transformation when approaching the limit c at min wavelength Gamma. It is a good approximation. It's also found as the power curve in the LHC approaching c.

You must consider a glass deck-hatch in Galileo's ship to physically allow the light in and implement the (JM) rotation of optical axis and speed change we call 'refraction' (including the independent 'kinetic' element of it).

Wavefunction collapse is poorly understood, but it is none the less one 'quantum' description of refraction. If you discard just one member from the ontological construction, then like the Eiffel tower it will be coherence that collapses, returning it all to the tangled mess we have now! Nature's not a 'pick-n-mix' sweet shop.

Is it al coming together yet?

Peter

You don't know what to say, Mr. Valev, because you don't know the fundamentals of special relativity, which is why you also find my explanation irrelevant.

Tom,

Pentcho has inadvertently bolstered your argument that scale invariance of least action is a proof of the continuous nature of time. If you'll notice, for his schema to work, time and space would have to vary in operational scale in any given velocity event that he propounds as a c+v, or c-v equation. To ascribe a covariance in any event would require arbitrarily assigning a metric of interval to each.

It brings a tear to my glass eye. jrc

You're right, John R, though I doubt Pentcho has thought about it that deeply.

My grandmother also had a glass eye. :-)

Tom,

I'll bet she did. She clearly saw to impressing you with argumentative integrity, and probably engaged you in activities exercising counting and sorting tasks. Did you know (?) that, many people whom experience dyslexia 'finger count' when they work any math. It took a while to see in your diverse posts, but there is a very holographic quality in your thinking and in general any discrete process you discuss has the whole picture of hierarchy in the axiomatic structure of any of your arguments.

Happy New Year, by the way, jrc

Once more the analysis of the Albert Einstein Institute showing that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the light source is c=3d/t and relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = c + v = 4d/t

where t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", d is the distance between subsequent pulses and v=c/3 is the speed of the receiver relative to the light source. Clearly special relativity is violated.

The relativistic corrections cannot save special relativity - for v=c/3 gamma is 1.05 which makes c' even slightly greater than c+v.

Pentcho Valev

That's perceptive of you, John R. Yes, I did once count on my fingers -- an odder thing I remember after my auto accident, though, was that I was quite old, maybe 11 or 12, before I understood that "minus" means the same thing as "take away." I know this sounds silly -- it's true, though, if one were to ask me, e.g., "what is 7 minus 2?" I would have no idea what they were talking about. I knew that "7 take away 2" is 5, and I could solve the written problem 7 - 2 = ?.

It makes me uncomfortable to talk about personal things in a public forum. However, I think this somewhat relates to the topic. Right brain functions (the area of my head injury at age 3 or 4) are said to be the domain of creative thinking and left brain functions the domain of analytical thinking.

The complete functioning is reciprocal -- just like the reciprocal physcial relations in the mathematically complete theory of special relativity.

Best,

Tom

No, Tom, you're right, the intent was not toward person but goes to the process of maping. Thank-you jrc

"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u. Observed period T' = (lambda)/(v+u). Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) (negative sign means observer moving AWAY)"

Clearly the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift:

f' = f(1±u/v)

is based on the assumption:

"Speed observed = v+u" (v is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary source)

This assumption is FATAL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY and yet it is the only reasonable one. If Einsteinians believe it is false, they should state that explicitly, e.g. in the following way:

False: Speed observed = v+u

True: Speed observed = v

Then honest Einsteinians should advance some other assumption, justify it as best they can, and deduce the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) from it. Until this is done, the assumption:

"Speed observed = v+u"

remains the only reasonable one, confirmed experimentally countless times (insofar as the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) has been confirmed experimentally countless times).

Pentcho Valev

Both special and general relativity are refuted by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

A light source at the bottom of a tower of height h emits light upwards. As the light reaches a stationary receiver at the top of a tower, its speed relative to that receiver is:

A) c' = c(1-gh/c^2) (Newton's emission theory)

B) c' = c(1-2gh/c^2) (Einstein's general relativity)

C) c' = c (Richard Epp, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox)

The following analysis clearly shows that A is correct while B and C are false predictions:

"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 the stationary receiver at the top of the tower is:

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

where c'=c(1-gh/c^2) is the speed of the light relative to that receiver. From the equivalence principle, c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v is also the speed of light relative to an observer/receiver moving, in gravitation-free space, away from the light source with speed v. Clearly both general and special relativity are false.

Pentcho Valev

Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity

Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the other clock's retardation can be demonstrated.

This is the whole secret behind the so-called twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is, in the scenario taught by Einsteinians, point-like (consists of a twin and/or a clock and nothing else).

As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen moving from point A to point B is the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart:

A clock on the ground is stationary and a train moves towards it. When the clock at the front end of the train passes the stationary clock, an observer on the ground sets the stationary clock to read the same as the front end clock. Finally, while the train and the stationary clock are still in contact, the train stops and the train's clocks simultaneously (as judged from the train's system) stop ticking. That is, at 5 o'clock (train time) all clocks on the train stop both moving and ticking.

Two important observations:

1. Immediately after the stopping of the train, clocks on the train read 5 o'clock while the clock on the ground reads less - say, 4 o'clock (according to special relativity of course). That is, the clock on the ground has been running slow.

2. As the clock at the front end of the train stops, it has just finished the outward leg of the journey described in the usual relativistic scenario. However, since the new scenario has allowed the clock on the ground to move from point A to point B in the train system, the conclusion is different: the travelling clock (at the front end of the train) shows more time elapsed than the stationary clock on the ground (the travelling twin has grown older than his sedentary brother).

Already at this stage the absurdity is obvious so there is no need to finish the story by considering the inward leg of the journey.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

I agree in the absurdities of Einstein's relativity. Atomic clocks are known to tick faster in a lower gravitational field, at a higher altitude for example. But pendulum clocks will tick or swing more slowly in a lower gravitational field. Therefore the concept of 'time' can't be separated from the type of clock used. Why has this simple refutation of his theory been overlooked?

Alan

Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity II

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."

Here lies the secret to the twin paradox: In the scenario sanctioned by Einsteinians, the travelling twin's clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin's system and accordingly CAN be checked against two clocks belonging to that system. In contrast, the sedentary twin's clock is NOT allowed to move from point A to point B is the travelling twin's system and accordingly CANNOT be checked against two clocks belonging to that system. Time dilation is asymmetrical (not mutual) in this scenario and Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", and "That's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah".

Scenarios that do allow the sedentary twin's clock to move from point A to point B in the travelling twin's system are easy to imagine. Any of them would be fatal for Einstein's relativity. Needless to say, people that could teach such scenarios are successfully marginalized:

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

The original hoax:

Albert Einstein 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B... (...) It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide."

The scenario craftily precludes the travel of the clock at B in the moving system of the clock initially at A. As a result, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the retardation of the clock initially at A can be demonstrated.

Let there be a large number of clocks moving in the closed polygonal line, one after the other. The single stationary clock (at B) is placed at the middle of one of the sides of the polygon and its reading is compared with the readings of the moving clocks which pass it at short intervals.

In this scenario, according to special relativity, the stationary clock runs SLOWER than the moving clocks, in contradiction with Einstein's assertion above. For instance, if both the stationary clock and a moving clock read zero as they meet, and if the next moving clock reads 5 as it reaches the stationary clock, and if the two moving clocks are synchronized, the stationary clock will read, say, 4 as it meets the second moving clock.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is absurd, not paradoxical.

Pentcho Valev