Can We See Reality From Here? by Thomas Howard Ray

Hi Eckard,

I don't understand why you can't read my essay. Maybe try this: link Perhaps opening it in another window will make a difference. Or I could email it to you as an attachment. Let me know.

Have you read Einstein's own book _The Meaning of Relativity?_ If you tell me what you specifically object to in that volume, I would be prepared to address it. It isn't a matter of anyone being stupid, rather a matter of following through on general premises with a mathematical model and physical results. Relativity is mathematically complete.

Best,

Tom

Another thought. Are you running the latest version of Adobe Reader?

Dear Tom,

It does perhaps not matter that we cannot refer to the same literature because Einstein's "The Meaning of Relativity" is not immediately available to me. I have at hands David Bohm's "The Special Theory of Relativity" and Einstein's 1905 "original" paper in German.

The moot point in Einstein's special theory of relativity is lacking symmetry or in other words unjustified "synchronization". Van Flandern called it desynchronization. The above mentioned paper is a bit difficult to elucidate because it does not reveal its roots in work by Poincaré, Lorentz, and others who tried to interpret asymmetrical experiments that related to a hypothetical medium carrying electromagnetic waves. With c for the speed of light and v for the speed of motion between a sender/receiver of light and a reflecting mirror at distance L they calculated a return time T_r.

T_r = L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) = 2L/(c^2-v^2),

T_r is paradoxically the same for increasing as well as decreasing distance. A fair calculation would either yield T_i = L/(c+v) in case of increasing distance or T_d= L/(c-v) in case of decreasing distance. This would be still symmetrically correct with sender/receiver and mirror exchanged. There was no twin paradox.

Before investigating what's wrong here I will comment on premature conclusions. One may neither conclude from negative outcome of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment that light is not carried by some ether nor that light is emitted as suggested by Ritz at a velocity added to the velocity of its source. Also, the Fizeau experiment cannot be used to find out the speed of the Earth relative to the ether because its result is independent of this speed.

I am arguing that lacking appropriateness and understanding of models never justifies abandoning the most fundamental principles of logic and causality. The reason for me to exemplary deal with the old controversies was to find out basic mistakes.

Lorentz's local time goes back to his speculation that electrons are moving on ellipses around the nucleus which are shorted by the ratio sqrt(1-v^2-c^2) in the direction of motion relative to the ether. FitzGerald had earlier suggested the same. While such length contraction has never been measured, it relates to the barn paradox.

To be continued. Thank you so far.

Regards,

Eckard

This is Stefan Marinov's fundamental article:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946#addPost

This is the best summary of the results of the Marinov experiment ...

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-05.PDF

Tom

Van Flandern's last article here:

http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf

1)Speed of gravity = speed of light.(regardless of their values)

It is eternal Law because

I am sure Planck mass(energy) eternal relevant.

I am not sure about Planck length and Planck time.

I will try why:

Perhaps h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.

I think that the speed of light and speed of gravity the same independently the are luminal or superluminal.

In the formula Planck length G/c^3 no linear link.

In the formula Planck time G/c^5 no linear link.

2)Speed of light not constant(see Marinov works)

Yuri

Dear Tom,

I appreciate your readiness to take issue concerning SR. As promised I will continue to explain the reasons why SR is not convincing to me. I will do so in detail at my thread 833 because my arguments are related to my essay.

1T: "When we speak of distances between mass points increasing or decreasing, we describe a symmetry between positive and negative acceleration."

1E: Relativity of motion with constant velocity does not need acceleration. Einstein's 1905 paper did not at all mention acceleration.

2T: The twin paradox is not a paradox, true, but for different reasons than you describe.

2E: Only proponents of SR declare the twin paradox not a paradox.

3T: "The case is asymmetric, in that the traveling twin has to negatively accelerate to return to his point of origin, a condition that does not apply to the stay at home twin."

3E: While Bohm in his chapter XXX 'The "Paradox" of the twins' takes acceleration into account, he nonetheless avoids your argument. There is a simple counterargument: The growing difference in age depends on how long the journey is. The effects of accelerations don't.

4T: "Van Flandern's analysis, as I understand it, has the speed of gravity exceed the speed of light by many orders of magnitude, which I find incompatible both with a fully relativistic theory and a quantum theory. I would be satisfied to find the speed of gravity to be infinite (Mach's principle) but not limited in any other terms than the exchange of signals among bodies. This leads us to a field theory, knowing that the influence of both gravity and EM fields is infinite, in accordance with the inverse square law.

4E:It is not my business to deal with gravity. Many arguments of Van Flandern seem to show that the putatively overwhelming body of evidence for SR is in so far invalid as there are alternative, often simpler and more plausible interpretations. Having found the origin of Lorentz factor in a speculative application of an old mechanical model of atoms, I wonder why not even Van Flandern abandoned it, the more because he was fully aware that there is no length contraction and time dilution in reality.

Before my final judgment I will read Richard Haskell 2003 Special Relativity and Maxwell's Equations.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Just in case...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0682

Regards

Yuri