Ripping Apart Einstein

Georgina Woodward

Re, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905

2.On the relativity of lengths and times, the two operations (a) and (b).

Scenario (a)the measurement is made and then an image is formed whereby the measurement is known by the observer. Scenario (b) an image is formed by the observer and then the measurement is made. These processes (a) and (b) are non commutative. The order in which they are carried out matters. They can not be considered equivalent methods of measurement.

Georgina Woodward

(Unable to edit today).I should have written-

These processes occurring in (a) and (b) I.E. measurement and image production are non commutative. The order in which they are carried out matters. They can not be considered equivalent methods of measurement.

If they are considered equivalent methods of measurement and the results considered to be measurements of the same thing, a category error occurs.They are not measurements of the same thing. (a) gives an observed measurement of a substantial object and (b) gives a measurement of an observed image.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Robert,

Tom seems reluctant to recognize, or admit, that it is possible for error to have been admitted to a mathematical theory, that is mathematically correct and complete. Rather than continue asking that he does I have shown such error in Einstein's own paper. That demonstration is simple, unambiguous and not so easy to ignore as just the argument that category errors can occur;( out of clear context of Einstein's own work.) It would be nice if you could take a look and see what you think.

I might continue going through the paper and point out further category errors within Einstein's own argument. Though perhaps I should let this demonstration stand alone for a while to keep it simple and let people think about it.

Akinbo Ojo

Georgina,

I am so glad that you are now using your inventions, "categorization technology" and "object-image reality" to research into Special relativity and find out what is true or false about it. It is an interesting pursuit. Hopefully, at the end of your research you will probably bring out your sword and withdraw the crutches you offered the theory earlier.

You have correctly identified one category error above: (a) an object and (b) a manifestation. You may want to find out what vector and scalar quantities mean in physics. From this you will discover another category error.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo

Hi Gary,

Nice fundamental question you posed: Can someone answer the following question: "What is the velocity of light with respect to its emitter?"

May I ask a similar question that could throw more light on the question (pun intended).

"What is the velocity of sound with respect to its emitter?" and "How do you know?"

I agree with Pentcho some areas and disagree in some. For example, the introduction of colors is distracting to the question. Also, notably he believes in emission theory and I hold on to an essentially wave picture.

For a particle picture (like bullets), the speed of bullets are not constant with respect to the gun (emitter). The speed can increase if the gun is moving fast in same direction it is firing. If Pentcho's quotation of Newton is correct then this contradicts "...a postulate of Newton's emission theory of light - the speed of light is constant with respect to the emitter".

Importantly, there is an observable differerence for light received by a stationary observer when the emitter is moving towards or away. This is the well known Doppler effect which is due to a change in relative as opposed to absolute (i.e. propagation) velocity. This again may "throw light" on your next questions, But how do you know it is c? Other than simply to define the velocity of light as "c"? How can the velocity of light with respect to the emitter be measured? If it is measured, it becomes the velocity with respect to an observer. It seems to me that with respect to the emitter, the velocity of light cannot be known., in the following way: Measure the velocity of light using velocity = frequency x wavelength, instead of distance/ time taken for scenarios where the emitter is stationary, moving away and moving towards observer with a given emitter velocity, v. This way any influence of the emitter can be known and I suggest that only the relative velocity is affected by the emitter not the propagation velocity which depends on the permeability and permittivity of the medium in question and both of these are constants.

Regards,

Akinbo

*Thanks for your useful comments/ advice.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

"For a particle picture (like bullets), the speed of bullets are not constant with respect to the gun (emitter). The speed can increase if the gun is moving fast in same direction it is firing. If Pentcho's quotation of Newton is correct then this contradicts "...a postulate of Newton's emission theory of light - the speed of light is constant with respect to the emitter"."

This is not true - please think again. If the gun is initially stationary but then starts moving, the speed of the bullets RELATIVE TO THE GUN remains unchanged. It only changes RELATIVE TO THE STATIONARY OBSERVER (TARGET).

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Sorry Pentcho, I think there is a mistake I made there.

The speed of ordinary projectiles is constant with respect to the emitter IS correct, so if the emitter is initially stationary it emits projectiles travelling at a given velocity relative to the emitter. If that is always the case when the emitter is now moving with a velocity, v and not stationary the speed of the projectiles will be added to that velocity, v (and that is what I mistakenly implied by speed of the bullets can increase).

But neither observer or emitter can change the permeability or permittivity of any medium and so cannot influence the propagation velocity of light.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

"But neither observer or emitter can change the permeability or permittivity of any medium and so cannot influence the propagation velocity of light."

This does not prevent the speed of light from being variable relative to the observer:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

The only way to make the speed of light constant relative to the observer is to disfigure space and time (combining them into spacetime). Einstein found it profitable to do so but killed physics thereby.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

The speed of light cannot be variable if the observer is stationary and below deck in our moving ship (Earth). The speed of light is uninfluenced by our ship's motion.

"Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship, and have with you there some flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals. Have a large bowl of water with some fish in it; hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with equal speed to all sides of the cabin. . . . When you have observed all these things carefully (though doubtless when the ship is standing still everything must happen in this way), have the ship proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the least change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them whether the ship was moving or standing still". - Galileo

Optical experiments conducted from within our ship CANNOT be used to tell if our earth was moving or standing still as also found by Michelson and Morley.

However, if rather than be stationary within the ship, the observer was moving within it, he can use optical experiments conducted within the ship to know his own intra-ship motion as found by Sagnac in 1913, which finding is now the basis for the GPS technology.

Following from Galileo's statement above, if you wish to experiment and instead of Shutting yourself as Galileo advised, you admit light from outside the ship, you would be able to tell from the observed optical effects how the ship (earth) was moving as is found with CMB dipole anisotropy, Pulsar timing measurements, Lunar laser ranging measurements, etc. All these measurements have to correct for the ship's motion in the obtained data, as the detected speed of light is variable due to motion of the ship towards or away from the direction of the light. It is therefore not strictly true that "...ALL experiments 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", as stated on p.27/28 by Einstein in his The Meaning of Relativity, which forms the basis for Special relativity. As mentioned above there are optical phenomena that ARE influenced by the velocity of the earth.

The same applies for why sound experiments cannot be used to discern if the earth was moving or still.

Regards,

Akinbo

Georgina Woodward

Akinbo, thank you for your comments, I appreciate your recognition of the category error that I indicated.

The difference between our approaches is that I would rather the theory was dismantled carefully and salvaged rather than bringing in a wrecking ball and destroying what is salvageable, leaving nothing in its place. I think it does relate to nature but not as originally conceived in Einstein's mind. ( I may change my mind later but that is how I feel about it at present and have for rather a long time.)

[deleted]

Robert,

"'the mathematics that makes a closed logical judgement is empty of philosophical content.' I agree. My point is that it is also empty of physical content."

That goes without saying. All that's left is the correspondence between theory and result. Where the theory corresponds one for one with the result, it is true.

The theory doesn't say anything about what is outside the result. This is the problem with Georgina's view, taking things that the result doesn't resolve, and attributing it to a fault in the theory. The theory however, is complete, and it can only be dislodged by a new theory that tests as well as the old one -- BUT -- the test must be successful.

Merely proposing a theory isn't good enough, and doesn't interest me.

Tom

Robert McEachern

Georgina and Tom,

In regard to comparing special relativistic theory with measurements made in different frames of reference, it is helpful to bear in mind that the situation is just like trying to compare purchase prices of a given object, that were made with different currencies. The price of the object when measured in dollars, will not be the same as when measured in euros or yen, even though they are all measuring the same object. That is what it means to be in a different frame of reference.

In order to compare the measurements (prices) made using different currencies (different frames of reference), all the measurements must be processed through a "currency exchange", that converts them all to a single frame of reference. It does not matter which frame (currency) is chosen. The Lorentz transformation is the currency exchange.

All the so-called paradoxes arise, from failing to convert to a common currency. Moving clocks do not run slow, anymore than clocks purchased in one currency cost more than when purchased in a different currency (neglecting banking fees), just because the numerical price measurement of one is lower than the other.

Rob McEachern

John Cox

Gary,

"The measured Light is not the emitted light. That is the fallacy of SR."

Beg pardon? Your question as to how we can know the velocity of light from the velocity of the emitter was spot on. We can know the velocity of light that we measure, which always turns out to be 'c'. It doesn't matter if we could know a priori what the velocity of the emitter is.

The ad hominem attacks against a reputedly mischievous, long-haired, leaping gnome, typically argue that the questions he raised are 'proof' of SR being a fallacy. What Einstein despaired of was that in conclusion of SR, there is the outstanding question that given the axiom of all motion is relative, how can it physically be that light velocity taken as a universal absolute value results in that universal relative motion displaying an absolute vector? That's the neat part, not the 'flaw'. Why is that? what can it tell us? And why say, 'see! it's wrong!'

We can know the velocity of a detector from the difference in frequency, we can know the velocity of the emitter from the Doppler shift of emission or absorption lines. Because independent of either, the velocity of the physical form of energy we call 'light' is a universal constant absolute velocity.

Let's take the persistent Hydrogen line, the emission line of incandescing hydrogen which is that beautiful 'electric' blue in a methane gas flame cone. Countless observations have been made of interstellar gas clouds emitting a wide range of EMR, and the rotational aspects and the nebulous direction and velocity is calculable from spectroscopic analysis of 'Doppler' effect. Where a gas cloud is generally receding from our point of observation, that line becomes more greenish, the wavelength gets 'stretched out' (Wow!). Where a cloud is generally approaching us that line becomes more indigo-ish, the wavelength gets 'scrunched up'. How do the hydrogen atoms 'know' which way they are going and how fast, for the emitted light to do that! (That's a great question, Al.) If we accept all motion as relative, it suggests that motion is registered by the volume of the energy of the atomic mass in relation to its own physical shape, not as a first order effect in relation to others.

A vector is simply a direction and magnitude. We can determine an emitter vector and a detector vector from taking light velocity as the absolute value in protracting measure. Many people just don't like 'the idea' of length contraction or time dilation. jrc

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

The speed of any waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the 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."

Pentcho Valev

Georgina Woodward

John ,

you seem to have missed the point. It wasn't about measuring rods. The point I was making was very clear and unambiguous, though actually reading what I have written is necessary to grasp it.

Producing an image from the measurement of an object is not equivalent to a measurement of an image. The order in which the processes of measuring and image production are carries out matters.

Like should be compared with like. It is only a thought experiment however in an any experiment the method used should be equivalent for each test in order to be fair. It isn't in this case. The results is that two different things belonging to different categories of reality are measured. Differentiating Image reality from Object reality is important because it overcomes the paradoxes inherent in the work.

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

You say, "The speed of any waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer" and buttress this with the Doppler effect. I agree to this on a superficial level. At a deeper level, there is something more. The actual speed of any wave ONLY depends on the medium, (the type of medium and its state of motion), and not really that of the observer or source's motion.

To illustrate this crucial point, given a source and observer stationary to each other, you measure a speed and obtain a value. According to your definition, this value will not change so far the observer and source remain stationary to each other, BUT this is FALSE. How?

If the medium between source and observer moves despite their being stationary, e.g. for air, if the wind blows towards the observer or for light, if the water flows towards the observer, the speed of the wave is increased and a Doppler effect occurs.

This has been confirmed experimentally by Fizeau for light travelling in water stationary in a tube in one case, and flowing inside a tube in another case.

So yes, the velocity of a wave can be varied by the motion of the observer, but that is IF the observer moves RELATIVE to the medium. If the observer is moving BUT is not moving relative to the medium but remains stationary to the medium (e.g. the way the earth moves but the air medium remains stationary to it, the velocity of the wave will not vary. This I think is key and fundamental to the dispute in Einsteiniana.

Akinbo

John Cox

Akinbo,

Just looking in, perhaps you would clarify.

I had thought you did not hold with the aether theory, but your recent posts comparing sound transmission which is a mechanical response sustained by the energy inherent to the medium, and light which is a projection of energy that is absorbed by a medium, is rather confusing. jrc

Akinbo Ojo

Hello John,

The name "aether" has acquired somehow become a taboo, and despite some of the reasoning behind its existence being logical, the mere mention of it today means whatever you write will not be read by many beyond the title page.

But to answer your question as I understand it. The aether was proposed as a substance that filled the whole of space. That is aether is content, space is container. In my own proposition, space itself is the content and it has properties and characteristics, some of which permit waves like electromagnetic (and possibly gravitational) waves to use it for propagation.

What specifically do you have against the aether?

Akinbo

John Cox

Akinbo,

"space itself is the content and it has properties and characteristics"

similar to the idea of spacetime, but I gather yours treats time and space separately in measure.

My objection to the aether is that it is generally meant as you stated, and while I haven't followed up the mention in an Asimov anthology, its properties necessary to transmit light whether as a wave or 'corpuscle', had been calculated to be thinner than the rarest gas yet have a rigidity greater than steel. That didn't bother physicists at the time, though, because that was what they had to work with. Other things, are not so different today, eh? jrc

Akinbo Ojo

JRC,

Before going round the corner for a glass of beer, I invite you to do same and ponder whether the appellation, "thinner than the rarest gas yet have a rigidity greater than steel" is not befitting of space :)

I can discuss this befitting title later.

Goodnight or Good morning as the case may be.

Akinbo

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo,

You promised: Criticism welcome. Did you overlook my admittedly late response?

Tom did perhaps deliberately ignore it because the mere Lorentz transformation is not complete.

Eckard

John Cox

Georgina,

In another thread you began with the Title of the 1905 paper, you elaborate some on your theory of realities and sum by saying that AE makes a number of category errors which are 'non-commutable.'

I think what you are taking literally in the gedanken, was, and is often still used as an 'artful ploy' in description of 'what-if' scenarios. Yes, if you superimpose one rod on another in a moving reference frame, the one you bring to bear as a proper measure should also conform to the moving frame and thus there would be no difference what so ever. That obviously implies a categorical error, like putting a bunch of apples in an orange crate and taking them to a cider press expecting to get a high pulp breakfast juice. And it does make for some difficult reading whether used by Einstein or anybody else. But in the typical debating style of the day, it was quite common for there to be an 'assumed' quality that an element brought into description of reality, to be at the same time immune from reality. Maxwell's Demon would be a good example, before it was burdened with the second job responsibility of 'thermodynamic operator' at no raise in pay (typical union busting bloodsuckers!). As an historical note the meaning of 'demon' has no judgmental connotation. And its worth the time to wiki references on the little guy. jrc

Gary Simpson

Georgina & John,

Thanks for the input. I started a new topic to make this easy to find.

Georgina,

I think we have the same general idea, but honestly, I have a little trouble understanding your methodology. I'm sure that is simply a limitation on my part.

John,

My objection to SR is very simple and very specific. Perhaps you can clarify this for me. It appears to me that SR violates Newton's Third Law. By this, I mean that it does not conserve momentum.

Photons have momentum. When the photon is reflected from the mirror, the velocity of the mirror apparatus must change to conserve momentum. The momentum accounting is correct when the reflected photon is finally absorbed. But during the interval between reflection and absorption, momentum is not balanced unless the apparatus changes velocity.

For the MM experiment, the mass of the apparatus is the mass of the earth. So, the momentum of a photon produces an infinitesimal velocity change. But what of an event where the object is the size of an atom or molecule?

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Georgina Woodward

Hi Gary,

I don't know what you have found difficult. Perhaps if you asked why I have said something in a particular way I could clarify. I am using an explanatory framework that consists of two facets of reality; foundational Object reality containing substantial objects and EM potential data, and emergent Image reality, which is the output of 'sensory' data processing (contained within Object reality and yet distinct from it.)

I've attached a couple of diagrams that summarize the framework. The first shows the different 'levels' of reality. (Updated in my essay.) The second is an older diagram that shows the emergent Image reality is within foundational Object reality. There is a newer diagram that more clearly identifies the reality interface, included in my essay, which I will attach separately.Attachment #1: 7_RICP3D_high_def_essay_version..pdf Attachment #2: 5_Corrected_NEW_RICP_DIAG.pdf

Georgina Woodward

Gary, here is the third diagram emphasizing the reality interface. I think together the 3 diagrams show clearly what the framework is and does.Attachment #1: Essential_structure_of_reality_inc_Psy.pdf

John Cox

Gary,

There seems to be some system problems so I'll try this again.

All parameters of SR; time, length, mass and energy are routine in high energy researches. Momentum transfer is fundamental in particle accelerators. So if the conservation laws were in any way violated by SR, we probably would have heard by now. I know that's a non-answer, and your question(s) is a very interesting one. I think, however, that it goes more to the dual characteristics of wave and particle form associated with electromagnetic radiation. And that is of course subject to either a classical or Quantum approach.

EMR exhibits both a hyperbolic function and a parabolic function. The sinusoidal curve of the wave form is a hyperbolic function, and Minkowski identified the skew of SR transforms with hyperbolic function. Yet the absorption in the photoelectric effect results in a ballistic curve which is a parabolic function. And ain't that a fine can of worms!

So, yeah, what is the difference between refraction, reflection or absorption? And how can a massless particle or wave of energy carry momentum? The energy is there.

Personally, for myself, I have found myself in general agreement with Constantinos Ragazas, though it took me a while to understand so. Briefly, when the photon (sic) encounters matter, it slows from light velocity to relative rest at a time dependent exponential rate. That 'stacking up' of energy as it slows accumulates to become manifest as momentum. So conservation holds, the energy content of the photon equals its inertia.

Inclusive of that event are the peculiar properties of the near field and transition zone, the implication of how those measurable properties at even macroscopic distances might be definitive of field volumes, and how those might differentiate refraction, reflection and absorption. And this all flies in the face of QM and the photon being in superposition until observed.

I'm afraid that the best I can offer. For what its worth, jrc

Gary Simpson

John,

My thanks for the reply. I am always happy to learn something so it is of value to me.

All of the experimental proof to date for SR was gathered in the reference frame of the earth. Therefore, dividing the momentum of the photon by the mass of the earth results in an infinitesimal change in velocity. The effect that I believe exists can only be falsified by a small apparatus that is far removed from large masses. A satellite might work or a space probe.

Can I assume that you recognize the problem that I state? If the velocity of the reference frame is changed by the interaction between the photon and the mirror, it follows that either the return trip time or the velocity of light has a problem. Also, treating the apparatus as an immoveable object could easily result in an effect that falsely appears to be a reactionless force.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

John Cox

Gary,

No problem, I'm no expert myself, just another 'pilgrim'. I see what you are driving at, but don't know where you might go to see if you're reinventing the wheel or not. Uncle Sam is a jealous Prince, so unless you have some sort of credentials that are recognizable at the front desk, they shuttle people to the 'public interest' filter and check for kooks and spooks. There is always DARPA and if you slip a concise outline of your specific theoretical proposal under the door, they'll either ignore you or point you somewhere at assured clear distance for you to start. You don't want to go in that door. It swings one way only. NASA has a friendlier face but you get the same sort of 'sorting'. It's nothing personal, just the necessary prudence. I wouldn't go direct to inquiries about satellite experiments, that's a long waiting list and there are now small private launches that carry parcel experiment packages into low earth orbit which is not what you'd need. You might try to contact a real person through a particular office with public outreach and considering the very low grav inquiries you posit, try:http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/home.cfm . That might put you in touch with existing research that could give you a clear answer, or direction. Data would probably be pretty sensitive. Give them your math background and topological interest, that's 4D navigation you know, with your proposal of research. They probably get many so hunt around for an appropriate door. If they like your stuff, they can get a bit freaky if they think they're leaking, so be patient and pleasant. Other then that there is the Competing Ideas Institutes who'll tell you what they think everyone should think. So you see why I'm content to be a pilgrim. jrc

[deleted]

Gary,

In addition, I'm not speculating on the nature of effect you suspect would be evident in low grav @ velocity, but if there are similar ideas at large in the public domain, which would also lack hard data from existing deep space probes, corroborative work in the purely theoretical realm might be found at Eric Weisstein's world of science. He made himself a career as a 'math and science encyclopediast' first with CRC and since with Steven Wolfram's outfit. Try http://scienceworld.wolfram.com

Goodluck, jrc

Akinbo Ojo

Gary, John C

If light is a wave propagating in a medium, then there is nothing like momentum transfer at the mirror during reflection.

JRC, I requested for a link to where Asimov made that statement, "...thinner than the rarest gas yet have a rigidity greater than steel".

Gary, I responded to your question above: "What is the velocity of light with respect to its emitter?"

Akinbo

Georgina Woodward

Robert,

with respect, I think you are not making an accurate analogy when you compare measure in different reference frames to having different exchange rates for the same thing. The point I tried to get across by referring to the paper itself is that, like is not compared with like because different non equivalent methods are used, which are measuring different things not the same thing differently.

Producing an image from the measurement of an object is not equivalent to a measurement of an image. The order in which the processes of measuring and image production are carries out matters.

Georgina Woodward

Thomas,

You wrote "The theory doesn't say anything about what is outside the result. This is the problem with Georgina's view, taking things that the result doesn't resolve, and attributing it to a fault in the theory."

If you take a look at what I actually wrote, you will see that I'm not "taking things that the result doesn't resolve, and attributing it to a fault in the theory." Tom. I have identified where there is a category error due to use of two non equivalent methods. Producing an image from the measurement of an object is not equivalent to a measurement of an image. The order in which the processes of measuring and image production are carried out matters.

« Previous Page Next Page »