Ripping Apart Einstein

Thomas Ray

" ... two different frames cannot be simultaneously valid."

This is your blind spot, Eckard. If observer frames are equally valid, they are simultaneously valid, because neither space nor time are, independently, physically real.

Eckard Blumschein

No Tom, rather my fovea. Maybe "not simultaneously valid" was misleading. I didn't mean it temporally but logically: If one frame has been chosen then this precludes to choose a different one as the frame of reference.

This reasoning is very basic. It does not depend on its application on physics. Imagine a triangle ABC with two equal sides AB and BC and a rectangle at B between the two equal sides. We may choose to attribute the points A and B of side AB to a straight line without other points of reference and accordingly choose AB as the unit of reference. Likewise we could choose the longer line AC as the unit of reference. However, as soon as either AB or AC has been chosen, the length of the other one is not even rational.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"I didn't mean it temporally but logically: If one frame has been chosen then this precludes to choose a different one as the frame of reference."

Eckard, your statement is correct though your conclusion is wrong. The logic of relativity rests on the reality of spacetime and the constancy of the speed of light. One cannot treat either space or time as independently real -- because all physics is local, the observer's local frame contains all its causal influences; one cannot choose a nonlocal reference frame without violating the principle of local causality.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

An acoustic fovea provides hugely increased acuity. Let's check what makes SR different from relativity in its original meaning. As I quoted in my last essay: "The real issue leading to SR and the LT come in when we introduce a second observer and wish to convert from the standard Cartesian coordinates of the first observer to those of the second. The Galilean transformation is still valid as a transformation used by a single observer. Saying that the Galilean transformation doesn't hold for relativity is what confuses people ...".

I maintain: "Einstein denied the objectively confirmed causal coherence of the world by considering reality equal to its subjective perception." His fallacy must not be suspected in the postulate of constant c as persistently does Pentcho but in the tacit interpretation of the first postulate as claiming the possibility to choose the common point of reference twice.

Of course, analysis of the history reveals that this seemingly ingenious fallacy of Einstein was merely a formal adaptation to the unnecessary speculative effort by Lorentz and Fitzgerald to explain Michelson's Potsdam/Cleveland null result without abandoning the hypothesis of a light-carrying aether.

Although spacetime was already fabricated in 1904 by Poincaré, Minkowski gave credit to Einstein's SR of 1905 when he risked his excitement related dead by proclaiming ict as fourth coordinate. In any case, spacetime was derived from LT and SR, not the other way round.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"Saying that the Galilean transformation doesn't hold for relativity is what confuses people ...".

The Galilean transformation does hold for special relativity up the limit of the speed of light. Relativity is an extension of Galilean and Newtonian physics to extreme distances and speeds.

"I maintain: 'Einstein denied the objectively confirmed causal coherence of the world by considering reality equal to its subjective perception.' His fallacy must not be suspected in the postulate of constant c as persistently does Pentcho but in the tacit interpretation of the first postulate as claiming the possibility to choose the common point of reference twice."

There is no common point of reference, no privileged observer frame. That's your error.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

"The Galilean transformation does hold for special relativity up the limit of the speed of light." - If so then it we don't need SR because c is limited.

"Relativity is an extension of Galilean and Newtonian physics to extreme distances and speeds." - Relativity is a Galilean theory. I know that SR declares it to be just approximately true.

"'Einstein denied the objectively confirmed causal coherence of the world by considering reality equal to its subjective perception.'" - That's obvious in the chosen non-symmetrical return path ABA assumed when redefining synchronization.

"There is no common point of reference, no privileged observer frame. That's your error." - My argument is that common consideration always requires to agree on a common reference. The first principle reads in English:

'The laws by which the states of two physical systems [A and B] in steady translatory motion [with velocity v] to each other change are independent from the decision to which of the belonging coordinate systems they refer to.'

This would be correct if state wasn't tacitly interpreted in terms of temporal and spatial distance belonging e.g. to A. Traditionally, time has been considered common to anything including A and B. I explained in two Figs. why Einstein preferred a different so called Poincaré synchronization. Choosing e.g. A as reference prefers it although it was not naturally privileged. This made the relationship between A and B asymmetrical.

While I cannot confirm an error by me, I admit that Einstein's first postulate is not obviously wrong. The devil is in his "conventional" synchronization that blurs the strict distinction between past and future and is therefore unacceptable to me.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

How Einstein Ruined Science

The logic inherent in the following scenario can be called the paradigm of sanity - any deviation from it is a symptom of mental disorder:

The observer walks along the fence. Relative to him, the posts have speed c, and the frequency he measures is f=c/L, where L is the distance between the posts. Now the observer starts running along the fence and his speed increases by v. Relative to him, the speed of the posts shifts from c to c'=c+v. This shift in the speed of the posts (relative to the obsevrer) causes the frequency he measures to shift from f=c/L to f'=c'/L.

Sane scientists all over the world have always used, mainly implicitly (due to relativistic threats), the shift-in-speed-causes-shift-in-frequency paradigm when interpreting the Doppler effect (moving observer):

Stationary observer

Moving observer

"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."

"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."

Einstein was not insane so he was well aware that abandoning the shift-in-speed-causes-shift-in-frequency paradigm meant, in fact, abandoning sanity. On the other hand, the paradigm was fatal for the budding theory. His conscience wrestled with his personal ambition for some time but in the end he found it suitable to throw science into insanity:

John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

Pentcho Valev

Fatal Acceleration in Einstein's Special Relativity

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, by A. Einstein, June 30, 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 by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

The moving clock experiences acceleration at the start of its journey from A to B so Einstein's conclusion ("the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other") is invalid - it is not a consequence of the postulates of special relativity. Einsteinians will have to remove the acceleration phase from the scenario and consider clocks that are inertial all along.

If Einstein's conclusion cannot be made in an acceleration-free scenario, then... what then, Einsteinians?

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Steve, I believe Einstein and Minkowski know more about Lorentz invariance than those of us blogging here. Let me shake your faith in it a little although you may be unshakeable. Starting with two rephrased quotes from the master himself, with amendments meant for clarification. You can view the original...

[link:www.archive.org/details/cu31924011804774]"... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, IS OF LIMITED VALIDITY... We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; ITS RESULTS, INCLUDING HOW THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS INTERPRETED USING LORENTZ INVARIANCE MATHEMATICS holds only WHERE THERE IS NO GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE"[/link], p.89 and

[link:www.gutenberg.org/files/36276/36276-pdf.pdf]"But ALL experiments THAT WE KNOW OF AS AT 1905 have shown that electromagnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the earth as the body of reference, ARE NOT influenced by the translational velocity of the earth. IF THIS REMAINS SO IN THE FUTURE, UP TILL 2014 AND BEYOND, and THERE REMAINS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MOTION OF THE EARTH HAS ANY INFLUENCE ON Cosmic Microwave background, Pulsar light observation, Lunar Laser Ranging, GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS), then surely the validity of the principle of special relativity can hardly be doubted. As I cannot live long enough to witness these optical phenomena, I will be relying on others like Steve, Tom, Peter, any 'gray aliens' who may be alive at the future date to make the decision on the validity or not of Lorentz invariance"[/link], p.27

Finally, I don't need to mention that the Minkowski rabbit used to create Lorentz invariance is by its own rules and as Einstein pointed out in the first quote only meant to be brought out of a FLAT space-time hat, where there is no gravity. But what do we get, it was brought out of a gravitational hat, violating its own rules and the audience overlooked this and applauded! Even among mathematicians there must be honor, not only among thieves. A mathematical tool EXCLUSIVELY meant for flat space-time CANNOT and MUST NOT be used to do magic and give the answer to an experiment conducted under gravitational influence (curved space-time as it is called). That will be cheating to say the least. And as usually happens other evidence soon come to light showing that a 'crime' has been committed. The common alibi, as Tom said sometime back during our conversation is, "Never mind. This violation of its rules should be overlooked since the Earth's gravity is 'weak', and the curvature is 'minimal'". But as I have stated elsewhere since this gravity or curvature is measurable, then its contribution must be deducted from the obtained results, but this is never done. I have actually done this calculation, i.e. deducted this departure from flatness and obtained a better result. This same minimal curvature that should be 'overlooked' is later brought out in Act 1, Scene 2 to explain fantastic new predictions like gravitational redshift of Pound and Rebka and the audience clapped again!

This just making conversation and not meant to convert you or make you a doubting Thomas.

All the best,

Akinbo

*To be fair. Einstein later showed 'remorse' as a man of conscience and for doing this he was isolated by others as Lee Smolin commented somewhere on this site but can't get it now because running out of electricity..

Steve Agnew

Actually, you have good resilience. It is important to stick to your principles as long as you possibly can...maybe even until the end...
The universe is all about prediction. The better we predict action, the better we survive and thrive. No model will ever be perfect. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
All we look for are better predictions of action, not perfection of some high-minded ideal. Anyway, that is what I look for.
I liked your questions about permanent magnets because they made me really think about QED and magnetism. My internet searches ended up all confused when it came to a frequency of light for a permanent magnet.
I believe my answer to you was correct, but it is clear that many highly informed people seem to be incapable of stating the nature of our physical reality.
Go figure...

Akinbo Ojo

Steve et al,
Steve because of your strong attraction to E = mc2, otherwise called the mass-energy relation, I have looked at it again hoping that I can be converted to Lorentz invariance. I read the Stanford entry, I checked Wikipedia, where I also read the energy-momentum relation and linked Einstein's original paper, DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
While there may be some truth that mass can be lost with the release of energy and possibly vice-versa the derivation does not rule out that the phenomenon cannot be explained by means other than by Lorentz invariance. There are also many 'rabbits' like invariant mass and relativistic mass among others.
I will read again, still hoping I can be converted to your doctrine. While waiting to find time to do this,
1.can a massless thing have momentum? In what I have read so far, the relation between relativistic mass and rest mass is given and when rest (also called 'invariant') mass is zero, if the velocity is c, the relativistic mass must also be zero.
2. If this is the case, how does this correspond with Einstein's question? To be direct, without using mathematical tricks, etc, If the photon has no Inertia, can it have an Energy content in the way Einstein framed his question?.
3. In the normal Newtonian principle of conservation of linear momentum which arises from the Second and Third Laws of Motion,
m1u1 + m2u2 = (m1+m2)V,
where a bullet or electron is fired at a target in which it becomes embedded, both now having velocity, V. Assuming mass, m1 and initial velocity u1 is that of the electron, can this equation work? What I mean is, m1 is the electron's mass when it is travelling at very high velocity near light speed, when it comes to rest in the target, this mass is no longer applicable so how can this Newtonian equation hold? Note that a "Law" is superior to a "Theory of.."
Regards,
Akinbo

Thomas Ray

"1.can a massless thing have momentum?"
Yes. Particles emitted at the speed of light have momentum. Momentum would make no sense otherwise, would it?
"In what I have read so far, the relation between relativistic mass and rest mass is given and when rest (also called 'invariant') mass is zero, if the velocity is c, the relativistic mass must also be zero."
Study the real literature, Akinbo, not just crank bloggers. A particle with rest mass and zero momentum has negative energy, as described by the unreduced form of Einstein's famous equation: E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2, where p is momentum.
"2. If this is the case, how does this correspond with Einstein's question? To be direct, without using mathematical tricks, etc, If the photon has no Inertia, can it have an Energy content in the way Einstein framed his question?."
Mathematics isn't trying to "trick you." Inertia and momentum aren't the same thing. Maybe this non-mathematical explanation will help.
An aside: why do FQXi members never step in to correct this nonsense? They're supposed to be the experts.

Akinbo Ojo

"A particle with rest mass..."
Does a photon have a rest mass?
"...as described by the unreduced form of Einstein's famous equation: E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where p is momentum"
Dimensional analysis shows that p in that equation will be mass x velocity. If you like p = mc.
"Inertia and momentum aren't the same thing". You are correct, they are not. Although I never said they were.
"An aside: why do FQXi members never step in to correct this nonsense? They're SUPPOSED to be the experts."
Nice idea. Perhaps for fear that standing in the dock and being cross-examined may reveal what is supposed to be hidden. I understand their reluctance. You don't want to stake your grants, etc because Tom said so.
"Maybe this non-mathematical explanation will help."
Very helpful indeed. In particular, momentum is a conserved quantity and this is predicated on mass also being a conserved quantity, hence the use of 'invariant' mass in relativity discussions.
I saw this and thought it useful and help you too. Let's help one another :). Although the paper is not free to read:
[link:scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/9/10.1119/1.3160671]This paper explores the evolution of Einstein's understanding of mass and energy. Early on, Einstein embraced the idea of a speed-dependent mass but changed his mind in 1906 and thereafter carefully avoided that notion entirely. He shunned, and explicitly rejected, what later came to be known as "relativistic mass." Nonetheless many textbooks and articles credit him with the relation E=mc2, where E is the total energy,m is the relativistic mass, and c is the vacuum speed of light. Einstein never derived this relation, at least not with that understanding of the meaning of its terms. He consistently related the "rest energy" of a system to its invariant inertial mass.[/link]
Please digest and if you can afford the paper tell us what is inside. Is it true that Einstein changed his mind in 1906?
I also saw this on Wikipedia, although as you have mentioned elsewhere and I agree that source is not to be fully trusted but only for guidance and references contained (see under 'Relativistic mass':
[link:website address]This mass, i.e. relativistic mass is the ratio of momentum to velocity, and it is also the relativistic energy divided by c2 (it is not Lorentz-invariant, in contrast to mo).[/link]
This will disappoint those clinging tenaciously to Lorentz invariance principle.
relativistic mass, mrel is related to rest mass, mo by
mrel = mo{в€љ(1- v2/c2)-1}
It follows from mathematics that when mo = 0, mrel = 0
It also follows that if "The equation E = mrelc2 holds for moving objects", E = 0.
So Tom, if I have to beg of you to answer directly, does a photon have inertia?. Yes or No, will do before I ask a follow up question.
Regards,
Akinbo

John Cox

Tom,
E^2=m^2c^4=p^2c^2, where p is momentum.
Doesn't the, m^2 apply to the inertial product of two masses? A rest mass would then be a lone value of E^2=mc^4, and relate to density which is only implied by Lorentz. Taking Lorentz literally, at 'c' the length and time contraction extinguish and the mass becomes infinite, actually infinite mass at infinite density. If we allow a degree of freedom where density of energy varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity, the parameters of inductance and reactance (or permeability and permittivity) would fall off inversely with velocity and we still would have the effective 'c' limit to acceleration but not infinite mass because the E^2=mc^4 inertial density relative to the specified rest mass would be reduced by a factor of 'c' while the lowest density bound would not react to the acceleration. We would still have to input an infinite application of energy to maintain velocity at 'c' due to the reduced inductance-reactance and the translational limit of 'c' in the application. The inductance-reactance curve would then be expected to be parabolic rather than hyperbolic, just as a projectile falling from an airplane moving at a constant velocity. Real physical length contraction of an accelerated rest mass would limit at a 'c' proportion instead of infinity.
Negative energy? There is no such thing as 'cold'. Cold is the absence of heat. In a co-ordinate free regime, wouldn't a rest mass have to be measured against its own parameters, not some other? jrc

John Cox

WHOOAA!!
If forum participants want to chastise others as being naïve... don't fault FQXi members for adhering to the legal constraints on their sponsorship. This is an OPEN forum, not a referred peer review. John R. Cox

John Cox

note: transcription typo on opening line @ 17:19 - jrc

Thomas Ray

What legal constraints, John R? And since when does clarifying indisputable scientific facts that are inconsistent with baseless and naive speculations, mean 'chastisement?'

Thomas Ray

"does a photon have inertia?"
No.

Thomas Ray

"Doesn't the, m^2 apply to the inertial product of two masses?"
No. Think about it.
"Negative energy? There is no such thing as 'cold'. Cold is the absence of heat. In a co-ordinate free regime, wouldn't a rest mass have to be measured against its own parameters, not some other?"
No. At rest relative to what?

Thomas Ray

I find it kind of interesting that some think that FQXi members are restrained from participation in forum discussions because of their grant-masters. If I found that to be true, I would not contribute one more post to this forum, for I would have no respect for the membership as scientists.

John Cox

Tom,
Conflict of interest may not be your strong suit. So as a matter of law, why does it matter in an open forum provided by a chartered foundation which solicits tax exempt funds from the public, to be a free exchange of ideas, if someone is ignorant? Does science have the right to impose on the law to decide what an individual must think? jrc

Thomas Ray

With respect, John R, that just sounds crazy to me. We aren't talking about religion here -- if science is not the subject, I've been in the wrong forum for a long time.

John Cox

Akinbo,
If you wish to question Lorentz and Relativity, try www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/index1.html
Dr. Pavel Kroupa at the University of Bonn is head of the Stellar Populations and Dynamics Research Group which works with MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which instead of requiring some new kind of matter (dark matter) to account for rotation velocities in galaxies as GR does, proposes a non-linear adjustment of Newton's second law at lower accelerations which accomplishes the same correction to observations. While it is not currently widely accepted by astrophysicists and cosmologists, it's definitely NOT religion. If Tom thinks there are no legal constraints on members (he designated in bold) from 'correcting this nonsense' he disagrees with, if FQXi ever gives him a grant, I know a Canadian Barrister/Solicitor he'd make very happy. :-> jrc

Akinbo Ojo

JRC,
Thanks for the link. I visited and was interesting. In your statement, "Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which instead of requiring some new kind of matter (dark matter) to account for rotation velocities in galaxies as GR does,..." may not need involving GR. Given the Newtonian relationship between orbital velocity, radius of orbit and mass within the orbit, viz.
v2 = GM/r
whenever the v is higher than the observed M at an orbital radius, r, Newton's law says we should start looking for a higher, M. It was in this way that Leverrier discovered some of the outer planets.
That is the primary evidence for dark matter. There are now other evidence from astronomical refraction of light (also called gravitational lensing) and requirements for a 'clumping agent' to fit our cosmological model. In my research I think the requirement for matter which does not shine (called dark matter) is overwhelming. If I may go further to say, dark matter is even right there in abundance in your living room as you read this.
My grouse therefore with the research by Dr Pavel Kroupa and others is why search for dark matter presence or absence so far away in other galaxies using expensive telescopes when dark matter is in their laboratory and can be deduced from simpler experiments?
To put it simply, if you are told that some form of matter is so abundant with a ratio 9:1 over baryonic matter in our galaxy; that our Solar system going by its rotation curve is in the very middle of the galactic zone where it is most abundant; that the dark matter particles can interact gravitationally with normal matter and so can be gravitationally captured and bound by the gravity of celestial bodies; that the dark matter particles were present in our galaxy when our planet was congealing and forming out of the galactic gas clouds; that the dark matter can transmit light waves, just like other matter; can you not think of some light experiment to rule out or confirm this dark matter possibility in your laboratory, instead of staring at other galaxies?
In the words of Dr Kroupa, "Because tidal dwarf galaxies cannot have much dark matter (they are too small to capture it, even if it were to exist", he has to modify Newtonian gravity. This he called the "fourth failure of Newton". If the Earth and solar planets can capture dark matter, check here and here, how then can it be claimed that a dwarf galaxy cannot capture and retain dark matter? Newton has not failed. It is Dr Kroupa who has.
Tom,
To the question, "does a photon have inertia?" You said, No. Keeping Einstein's question in mind, does a photon have energy content? I presume your answer would be Yes. If that is the case, Einstein shouldn't then have asked the question in the first place, 'Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?' since there is no compulsory relationship between energy content and inertia. That is, according to your view, a particle can have energy content without necessarily having inertia. As I pointed out earlier, the paper I linked claimed that Einstein changed his mind a year later in 1906 because of the absurdities associated with that line of thinking. I don't know if you were able to get access to the paper? I will search the web if I can get a free version.
Lyle wayne Moss,
I understand your frustration. Keep hope alive. Perhaps, before 2020 according to Peter J, we should reach some closure.
Regards,
Akinbo

John Cox

Akinbo,
I am not equipped to get into discussions of celestial mechanics and comparisons but do find it interesting to watch. As to dark matter my only conjecture is that is possibly the effect of gravitational field concentration kind of like continuous compound interest, but with the caveat that the flat hat curve observed in lensing in super cluster cores is related to a scale transcendent proportion of mass in terms of energy density which will remain at that constant value because that proportion is all the denser the mass prescribes, the galaxy cluster doesn't need to be more gravitationally compact. That doesn't say it very well, but it's not my focus.
It is irrelevant if nobody responds to comments in a forum such as this, it is only relevant if someone does. What is important is free exchange, key word 'free', no charge, no citation necessary. That is why members are quite free to comment as individuals, not arbitors. Suggesting they don't because they 'don't want to stake your grant' is not only poor taste it's erroneous. Any arbitration makes for a referred peer review, that blurs the line between advice and consent, that goes to rights of intellectual property... and there goes the funding of the foundation itself not just any grantees. Ask yourself, what is the tangible potential that a corporate board might argue to satisfy its shareholders in making a substantial gift, warm and fuzzy PR? How do you suppose Perimeter Institute fits into the picture? See how this works? :-| jrc

Thomas Ray

Akinbo, you (and Peter J does this as well), keep throwing up Einstein references to me as if I am not intimately familiar with Einstein's work. In any case, Einstein's scientific papers are freely available online, if one knows how to look for them.
If you don't know how to read the papers, try looking up some of the voluminous amounts of commentary available by both known and unknown authors. The link is to the unsigned work of Kevin Brown, a modest individual who writes for the pure love of the subject, among others who contribute because they care more about the pool of scientific knowledge than their own inflated opinions.
Best,
Tom

Steve Agnew

It looks like you might have struck a chord...
"This just making conversation and not meant to convert you or make you a doubting Thomas."
I like doubting...it fits my contrary character.
I also like Lorentz invarince...actually, what I truly like is mass-energy equivalence, MEE. Why? Because is helps me to predict the action of objects. I also like QM...for the same reason. Right now, they are not completely integrated and that is too bad.
For example, it could be that the large matter accretions in galaxy centers will be easy to understand if MEE and QM were getting along better.

Steve Agnew

Just to mention once again, the mass-energy equivalence expression is the underpinning of Lorentz invariance. However, it is not yet complete and there is another term. Instead of just
E^2 = m^2 c^4 p^2 c^2
the more correct version is
E^2 = m^2 c^4 p^2 c^2 - [2c(r - ro) dmo/dt / alpha]^2
This latter term shows up in the decaying universe and results in momentum tranfers around ro in any group of objects with matter decay, dmo/dt. So this term transfers star momentum from inner to outer stars in an object and is beyond gravity, replacing dark matter for galaxies.
There is also a very small matter decay rate for all matter and that has consequences for the rest mass of light. Also, this is the term that ends up making a black hole into the boson star/eternally collapsing object.

Akinbo Ojo

Thanks Tom for the links. The online resource to Einstein's work did not open. If you don't mind repost. Many of his works are written in German so it is good to have access to English translations.
I don't mean to irritate by citing Einstein. But when someone says his statement that so and so will be so, IF such and such condition is present, and it is later found that such and such condition is not present can the statement so and so still be valid?
In many instances in life, the messenger is usually confused with message. Religion is an example. Science seems to be following suit. When the message is that 'this is a religion of peace', is it not contradictory for beheading and kidnapping to be part of the message? That is why, one may need to cite the bible or koran to confront some of these interpretations, not that the bible and koran are not within reach of everybody.
May reply more later....
All the best,
Akinbo

Thomas Ray

Akinbo, I apologize. I see that the Einstein link I posted is dead. Try this one.

Thomas Ray

Argh. I thought that site was a collection of papers, but it looks more like museum stuff. Maybe this will be better. I'll look some more when I have time.

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo,
While your quote p. 27 refers to a version of His 1921 lessons in English, it is rather confusing to me that it contains a comment that stems perhaps from you: "then surely the validity of the principle of special relativity can hardly be doubted." I disagree with this guess. Can you please explain?
Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Thanks Eckard, for your observation. The statement was not my inclusion. I tried entering the gutenberg archive but it gives an Error message. However, I see another version, [link:is.muni.cz/www/2603/_Albert_Einstein__Brian_Greene__The_meaning_of_rel_BookZZ.org_.pdf]"But all experiments have shown that electro-magnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the earth as the body of reference, are not influenced by the translational velocity of the earth. The most important of these experiments are those of Michelson and Morley, which I shall assume are known. The validity of the principle of special relativity also with respect to electromagnetic phenomena can therefore hardly be doubted"[/link], page 15.

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo,
Einstein can definitely not have written what you "quoted" before (UP TILL 2014) and after (cosmic microwave .... Steve, Tom. Peter ...) His claim. Who or what fooled us?
Eckard

« Previous Page Next Page »