Jump to content
Science Forums

Personal Topic


ralfcis

Recommended Posts

No just answer the simple question about the velocity component. I don't care how you explain it, just give me an answer and then you can go off on an alternate theory tangent. These are the same tactics relativity experts employ to avoid answering a direct question.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been asked this question in a private message.  I'll do my best to answer here.

 

1. please explain why the Lorentz transformation is required.  You seem to believe that its somehow useful. What for? What physical objects or energies or forces are affected and require the modifier of the LT?

 

 

The explanation for this is rather complex, especially if you want to contrast the Lorentzian vs. Einsteinien veiws about it.

 

1.  To begin with, the LT is not just useful, it's equations appear to be consistent with empirical fact.  The question might be why?  It does seem strange.

 

2.  As I have explained in detail in many other threads, the "purpose" it serves may vary according to theory.

 

3.  Let's start with Lorentz's theory, which is where the transformations came from (Einstein just co-opted them, he didn't invent them).  Here's the basic problem.  We "know," or think we know, that certain objects are moving.  Like the earth rotating on it's axis while revolving around the sun, for example.

 

Given this, the expectation was that here on earth, we would measure the speed of light to be different depending on which direction it was going.  But the M-M experiment showed that we could not detect this.  So what's up?  Is the earth really motionless, while the Sun orbits it and the rest of the universe revolves around it?

 

Not, likely.  That would violate virtually every aspect of physics known to man.  So, what' up?

 

Lorentz said that the earth (and other objects) really are moving, but we simply can't detect that "real motion?"  Why not?  Because, he said, the measuring instruments used (rods and clocks) get distorted with speed.  By "co-incidence" the "incorrect" measurements generated by those distorted instruments are such that we measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, even though it really isn't.

 

Lorentz had a very elaborate and sophisticated theory involving atomic changes and stuff, to explain it.  His theory was actually pretty good in many ways, but far from perfect, so it was just a "work in progress."

 

Einstein did not think the state of physics knowledge was sufficient to construct the type of "constructive" theory that Lorentz  was working on.  So he decided to invent a "principle" theory.  He always saw this as one of the deficiencies of SR, because a constructive theory, which explains "how and why" things occur as they do is far superior to a mere "principle" theory, in his view.

 

His basic "principle" was the principle of relativity, i.e., that the "laws of physics" must remain constant.  He knew this could never hold in accelerating frames, so he confined his theory to "inertial frames."  This was another serious deficiency, in his view, and he thereafter spent years trying to create a theory in which ALL motion was "relative."  He didn't succeed in accomplishing this ambition, but he did succeed in creating a great theory of gravity--GR.

 

See next post.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his 1905 paper, Einstein basically adopted Lorentz's view of the LT, i.e., that physical changes in our measuring instruments explained why we measure light to be the same in all frames.

 

But after Minkowski's geometrical "spacetime" invention became popular the explanation for SR (and the LT) changed.  Now, it was claimed, it was "time itself' (not clocks) and "space itself" (not yardsticks) which changed with motion.  The premise of distorted clocks and rods undercuts this viewpoint.  So, for decades the prevailing theory was that any distortion to clocks and rods was "just an illusion," and not real physical phenomena.

 

This view of the LT prevailed for many decades, until technology developed which basically showed that the "clock and rod distortion" aspect of the LT represented real physical phenomena, not mere illusions.  SR theorists then had to scramble to alter the then-fashionable "illusion" hypothesis and restructure the theory so as to treat the LT to be real.  But they still wanted to cling to the geometrical spacetime view because it was so mathematically elegant and convenient to use.  But again, that is an inconsistent stance.  If time and space are the things changing with speed, then there is no place for the LT as a real phenomenon.

 

In my view this is still just as inconsistent as ever.  Nonetheless, due to a plethora of sophistical and fallacious "supporting" arguments, this contradiction was somehow construed to be consistent.  At that point, any questioning of SR became de facto taboo among physicists, and most "debate" about the validity of  SR was stifled and exterminated.

 

There's a lot more to it than that, but does that answer the basic question?

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't read it until you answer the question. I honestly think you should be banned from making any kind of statement in support of an alternate theory on the physics forum. Stay in alternate theory limbo unless you have honest questions to post here where you will actually engage in honest dialog.

 

Anyway out of this discussion I see a mathematical proof for the one-way speed of light being the same as the 2 way speed of light.

 

We'll use the same numbers as the speed of separation is no longer a factor, it no longer has to be as slow as possible. 3 clocks are involved and sync'd on earth. The clocks take off at .33c in opposite directions and stop at equal distances from the earth clock. Each clock now has the same permanent time difference from the earth clock. Each spaceship clock fires a light beam to the earth clock. Of course the two light beams will take equally long to reach the earth clock. The time will take into account the time difference imposed by separating the clocks from earth. But this is equivalent to measuring the two way speed of light using a single clock which means the time differences of each space clock must cancel out. This leaves the scenario that between the earth and one space clock, the time difference between the clocks as a result of separating them just needs to be subtracted in order to arrive at the one way speed of light. Can't argue with the math.

 

Now for those who believe acceleration doesn't affect the permanent age difference because only velocity is mentioned in gamma, surely you can see the relationship between acceleration and velocity. The acceleration will yield an average velocity and different accelerations, even if they occur over the entire trip, will yield different average velocities and different age differences. Hence not all accelerations are equal so what is it about acceleration that causes age difference. Is it just the instantaneous turnaround point of acceleration. Is it this point, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of acceleration that causes the rise of the Rindler metric from the minkowski metric. Is it the fact that the two parties must be instantaneously in a 0v common frame or does any change, such as a small deceleration without an instantaneous stop, cause age difference. 

Edited by ralfcis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The clocks take off at .33c in opposite directions and stop at equal distances from the earth clock. Each clock now has the same permanent time difference from the earth clock. 

 

 

Stop right there, and review the facts rather than your own a priori presumptions.  The H-K experiment basically showed that time dilaition is direction dependent, but you continue to blythely and glibly assert that "Each clock now has the same permanent time difference from the earth clock."  You seem to think your concllusions can "prove" what your premises presuppose.

 

Nice try.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I honestly think you should be banned from posting on the physics forum. 

 

 

Surprise, surprise.  Join the club.  Everyone who doesn't agree with my opinions (regardless of whether they  even understand them) seems to think the same thing.

 

You'd think a guy like you, who has been banned from virtually every forum he's ever showed his face in, might have a different viewpoint.  I guess not.

 

Just out of curiosity, where does a thread entitled "personal topic" belong, exactly?

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no answer at all. I was banned for rule violations and every forum had its own rules. Generally the rule I broke was engaging with trolls. Trolls are allowed to say whatever they want, you can't respond. This forum has one rule, you'd better be able to back up your assertions and you just can't. I asked a very simple question and you have no way of answering it. It's time to go.

 

PS. It makes no difference to the outcome whether the clocks travel side by side or in opposite directions. I just gave you the answer to my question. Do you have any idea why this is so? Can you draw an STD to prove it? Are you even interested in finding out?

Edited by ralfcis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his 1905 paper, Einstein basically adopted Lorentz's view of the LT, i.e., that physical changes in our measuring instruments explained why we measure light to be the same in all frames.

 

But after Minkowski's geometrical "spacetime" invention became popular the explanation for SR (and the LT) changed.  Now, it was claimed, it was "time itself' (not clocks) and "space itself" (not yardsticks) which changed with motion.  The premise of distorted clocks and rods undercuts this viewpoint.  So, for decades the prevailing theory was that any distortion to clocks and rods was "just an illusion," and not real physical phenomena.

 

This view of the LT prevailed for many decades, until technology developed which basically showed that the "clock and rod distortion" aspect of the LT represented real physical phenomena, not mere illusions.  SR theorists then had to scramble to alter the then-fashionable "illusion" hypothesis and restructure the theory so as to treat the LT to be real.  But they still wanted to cling to the geometrical spacetime view because it was so mathematically elegant and convenient to use.  But again, that is an inconsistent stance.  If time and space are the things changing with speed, then there is no place for the LT as a real phenomenon.

 

In my view this is still just as inconsistent as ever.  Nonetheless, due to a plethora of sophistical and fallacious "supporting" arguments, this contradiction was somehow construed to be consistent.  At that point, any questioning of SR became de facto taboo among physicists, and most "debate" about the validity of  SR was stifled and exterminated.

 

There's a lot more to it than that, but does that answer the basic question?

Thanks, A good bit of history of the development of the LT.

 

But there are a number of assumptions made related to the actual need for any transformation in the first instance.

 

I contend that no transformation is required, and it was at best a hasty fudge by Lorentz in an effort to rescue the popular Aether belief.

I think that any proffered empirical evidence that some transformation is really occurring is nothing but a logical consequence of the series of mistakes and incorrect conclusions made by early Physicists and those mistakes continue to be cherished as dogma today. Such "evidence" would be therefore a flawed interpretation of the data.

 

So briefly, 1. there is no reason to have any type of transformation, as nothing is happening to justify it. The M& M experiment is full of incorrect conclusions and is based on faulty assumptions and is based on a belief that may or may not be completely wrong.

 

2. the M&M experiment is not measuring the speed of light and showing that its the same in all directions. That is an assumption. It was, and still is a pointless experiment, capable of telling us nothing we don't already know about light. (Which is bugger all)

 

So there is no solid Physics reason to consider the need for any transformation, just a belief system to base Relativity on.

 

What empirical evidence is there?  Please don't say Muons. Another leap of faith with that concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is no solid Physics reason to consider the need for any transformation, just a belief system to base Relativity on.

 

What empirical evidence is there?  Please don't say Muons. Another leap of faith with that concept.

 

For me, some of the most direct and easily understandable demonstrations come from experiments like H-K.  Extremely accurate and precise clocks have irrefutably been shown to change ticking rates corresponding to changes in speed.  This is not some nuclear particle in an accelerator that can only be "observed" by deduction from hypothetical constructs.  You can actually look at these macroscopic clocks.  Granted that their precision comes from conclusions about the oscillations of atoms, but these changes seem to be reliably predictable:

 

If you take any atom of cesium and ask it to resonate, it will resonate at exactly the same frequency as any other atom of cesium. Cesium-133 oscillates at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second.

 

And, given the proper (preferred) frame of reference, the LT predict the quantity of such rate changes to an extremely high degree of accuracy.

 

You don't have to be an engineer or a physicist to know that the GPS works, in practice. Consumers see this every day.  The system would not be possible with assuming the validity of the LT.

 

Marco, you conclude that:

 

... any proffered empirical evidence that some transformation is really occurring is nothing but a logical consequence of the series of mistakes and incorrect conclusions made by early Physicists and those mistakes continue to be cherished as dogma today. Such "evidence" would be therefore a flawed interpretation of the data.

 

 

but you don't specify what the "mistakes and incorrect conclusions" are, or how you have determined that they are "flawed."  Care to elaborate?

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be brief, the H-K experiments and more recent similar experiments are not so convincing as one is led to believe. Ive read papers that are critical of the conclusions of these experiments, so not everyone agrees that they are empirical evidence worthy of the claim that the time dilation effect is real. If anything, any discrepancy in the clocks is purely a function of the clocks mechanics, albeit at an atomic scale, its more likely that moving such a device will cause errors, and that fact is well documented by the makers.  Plus these clocks are NOT so perfect as we are led to believe. Sure they count in nano divisions or seconds, but the mere fact that not even when several of these apparently identical clocks are located in a stable laboratory, can they be relied on to maintain synchronicity. Move them and the errors compound. Keep in mind that the H and K set out to find proof that Einstein was right, and after fudging the results and cherry picking, they came up with a reasonable facsimile of what they wanted to find.

 

Given enough time, copious amounts of data and filtering, one can prove almost anything with such math.

 

There are a number of solid counter claims to every one of the conclusions of the "Relativity supporting" experiments , but the mere fact that one must discard all reason and logic to accept Special and General Relativity, tells me that ANY experiment that claims to support Relativity MUST have been either fudged, faked or a case of over enthusiastic scientists who jumped to faulty conclusions because of their per-existing beliefs.

 

 So this places experiments and results such as the CMB, Gravity Waves and LIGO, any experiment resulting in time dilation, length contraction or Mass increase, AND anything that uses the Lorentz transformation into the category of quack science.

 

Material is available that examines all of Relativity and each experiment, one only needs the internet and lots of time to find it all.

I must add that I don't agree with every aspect of every article, much like I can accept most of what you (Moronium) say, but not all of it.

 

I think the problem with Physics today goes way deeper than Relativity. For instance, no one has a decent understanding of light.

another example is the use of "constants" that are only guesses based on a prior belief system. Such as the gravitational constant "g".

Not only is the actual value doubtful at best, but the concept that its gravity alone that is responsible for the observable universe is surely a big leap of judgement.

 

But without "g" and the associated theories about how the universe works, we can't get the expanding universe, so there is no reason to think that the universe is 14 b y.o. of that there could be such a thing as a Black Hole, of Dark matter or Dark Energy, all fudges of Mathematicians.

 

My point is simply that there is so much of physics that is based on beliefs, not on real evidence, that much of the most talked about subjects in Physics today becomes just a lot of conjecture, and runs contrary to common sense. SR and GR and Lorentz as well as Minkowski and Planck are in in this category.

 

My dinner is ready, must eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be brief, the H-K experiments and more recent similar experiments are not so convincing as one is led to believe. Ive read papers that are critical of the conclusions of these experiments, so not everyone agrees that they are empirical evidence worthy of the claim that the time dilation effect is real. 

 

Well, I agree that the original H-K was suspect in a number of areas.  But it was done almost 50 years ago and was "the first of it's kind."  But it has since been replicated by more refined technology and methodology.  Various criticisms of it have been addressed in experiments conducted after 1971.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.There are a number of solid counter claims to every one of the conclusions of the "Relativity supporting" experiments , but the mere fact that one must discard all reason and logic to accept Special and General Relativity, tells me that ANY experiment that claims to support Relativity MUST have been either fudged, faked or a case of over enthusiastic scientists who jumped to faulty conclusions because of their per-existing beliefs.

 

 

Any one aspect of any theory can always be questioned, in isolation, and of course no particular interpretation of data can be deemed to have been "proven" in any event.

 

I certainly agree that SR is nonsensical on a number of levels, but I accept the data and the premise that "relativistic" effects are genuine.  I accept "relativity" in the broad sense, just not *special* relativity.  There are any number of theories that reject relative simultaneity, but which "explain" everything that SR purports to, and a lot that it doesn't, all while being consistent with the data, avoiding the inherent solipsism of SR, and eliminating its "paradoxes."

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that the original H-K was suspect in a number of areas.  But it was done almost 50 years ago and was "the first of it's kind."  But it has since been replicated by more refined technology and methodology.  Various criticisms of it have been addressed in experiments conducted after 1971.

 

Its just one level of BS stacked on the first. You cant get to the correct answer about SR or Lorentz or any of the other areas of Physics I mentioned, CMB, Expanding Universe etc, as at some point you will be using an earlier version of the original error.  Its all about the Philosophy of Physics or Science where things went wrong. A Philosophy that is wrong or biased will always taint the interpretation of any observations.

 

The 1971 repeat of the H&F experiment is not without its critics. As I said before, ANY experiment that tries to demonstrate MUST fail if examined by unbiased critics, because Einstein's theories are simply WRONG.  Such tests and experiments will ALWAYS succeed only when conducted by diehard Relativists.

 

The only "refinement" in modern times when it comes to these weird experiments that try to prove Relativity, is the degree of detail and absolute air of unquestionable authority that is presented by the custodians of the Einstein BS. Its some sort of conspiracy to be sure, when any person who seriously questions the theories, is expelled from the University for not falling into line with the "settled" science of Relativity.

 

The next step is when they try to stamp out "the Science Deniers" and make it illegal to NOT believe in Relativity under fear of imprisonment, fines or loss of position.  This is not an unrealistic claim, as similar things have already been done in many countries.

 

To understand Physics,and figure out whats BS and whats not, you need to go way back to before it became a tool of Propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any one aspect of any theory can always be questioned, in isolation, and of course no particular interpretation of data can be deemed to have been "proven" in any event.

 

I certainly agree that SR in nonsensical on a number of levels, but I accept the data and the premise that "relativistic" effects are genuine.  I accept "relativity" in the broad sense, just not *special* relativity.  There are any number of theories that reject relative simultaneity, but which "explain" everything that SR purports to, and a lot that it doesn't, all while avoiding the inherent solipsism of SR and eliminating its "paradoxes."

So you accept the relativistic effects, but how exactly can you justify the effect? What is the mechanism in Physics that can allow an object shrink in only one direction? (im not sure which relativistic effects you accept)  Maybe time warping?  Exactly how can that happen when time is nothing that physics can affect? (time is just a concept, a construct of mans rational mind) Events occur in a repeating pattern, cyclic, allowing us to compare the rate of the occurrence to events, but there is no "time" existing somewhere, as there is, say, radiation in space. So which relativistic effects exactly do you believe in exactly?  Im surprised you did not mention my inferred claim that Cavendish's measurement of g is rubbish. Most of cosmology uses g and this shows us that they are also full of BS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...