Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof That It's SR?

[SeanF]

Your problem is that you've already decided you do understand it and that it's flawed. And because of that, you won't listen to anybody else.

I’ve listened to a lot of people, a lot of physics professors and professional physicists who’ve pointed out some of these paradoxes to me. That’s why the statements that contain these paradoxes are not used in real physics. They’re only used in some cases of theoretical physics and in some physics classes. As I’ve shown you already, cosmologists are finally admitting that “c” is not a limiting speed for masses on a large astronomical scale. But you still maintain that it is a “limiting speed”.

You mean like Ned Wright, whose website you linked to says, "This doesn't violate SR's prohibition on traveling faster than c"?


And I’ve explained to you the reason for the discrepancy between GR and SR about this. In the Kinematical part of SR, Einstein didn’t consider masses traveling through fields that would put up a resistance to their motion. This is how his SR theory was different from the Lorentz theory. Two years later Einstein had to admit that the geometrical shape of a relatively moving body does not really change. I pointed that out and you yelled at me for pointing it out, and you said we should discuss the 1905 paper only, and I should not mention anything he said in the 1907 paper. So you seem to be unreasonable about this, and you don’t want to accept his own retractions in later papers. You’ve never read his 1907 paper, but I have.

You said that there was an inherent paradox in the 1905 paper. That's why I wanted to simply discuss the 1905 paper. And the geometrical shape of objects doesn't change, but that doesn't mean Lorentz Contraction doesn't happen. It just means you don't understand it. (And I never YELL!) :)


You are trying to argue in defense of just one of his papers that he later admitted contained some errors.

Why should I reject what Einstein himself said later, and accept what you say now, which is not what he said later? Why should I believe you rather than Einstein?

Because, as you have amply demonstrated time and time again, you are not capable of understanding Einstein, and as such you tend to misinterpret what he wrote.

[Sam5]

Sean,

No, we’ve been through all of that. What you are talking about is "seeing" everything only from the pont of view of the K frame.

What I think would help you would be for you to read more Einstein papers and learn what he said later, after 1905. You need to study his own “ether” theory of 1920. You need to study his 1911 paper where he says the relative speed of light slows down. You need to study his 1907 paper where he says the geometrical shape of a relatively moving body doesn’t really “shrivel up.”

You need to read more real Einstein papers and less urban legend relativity websites.

[SeanF]

Sean,

No, we’ve been through all of that. What you are talking about is "seeing" everything only from the pont of view of the K frame.

I say, "From the K frame it looks like this, but from the k frame it looks like this," and you say I'm only looking at it from the K frame?

[daver]

Two years later Einstein had to admit that the geometrical shape of a relatively moving body does not really change.

Work through the numbers, please. Say Bill has a room in his space ship one light second wide and one light high. How long does it take for a light pulse to travel from one wall to the other and back again when the ship is stationary? How long does it take for a pulse to travel from the floor to the ceiling and back when the ship is stationary? Now, how long does it take for the two trips when the ship is moving at .6 c?

[freddo]

Sam5 feels the need to pigeonhole tests like these (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9969) as part of the 'relativity cult.'

Give up guys, it's page 20 and we're back discussing page 3.

I know I'm done.

[Tensor]

Give up guys, it's page 20 and we're back discussing page 3.

I know I'm done.

I don't know whether to congratulate you for sticking to it for this long, or be smug about my peceptiveness on giving up 5 pages ago.

:roll: :wink:

[Sam5]

I say

We've been over all of this before, and I don't have time to keep going over it.

[freddo]

Tensor,

heh, according to you it was more than 5 pages... Look at page 8!! :wink:

[Sam5]

Sam5 feels the need to pigeonhole tests like these (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9969)

Please don’t tell untrue things. I’ve never commented on that “test”. Why do you feel the need to pigeonhole Sam5?

[freddo]

Very well then. What do you think? Why do you feel the need to refer to it as a "test?"

[SeanF]

I say

We've been over all of this before, and I don't have time to keep going over it.

What, are you needed in surgery?

[Sam5]

Very well then. What do you think? Why do you feel the need to refer to it as a "test?"


Huh?? Because you called it a “test” in your post, so before I read it, I thought it was some kind of “test”. I finally read it and it turns out to be a “study”, not a “test”.

The writer is not completely clear about some things. The first few paragraphs seem to be saying that the results of the study means the speed of light now is the same as it was 500,000 years ago, since the galaxies mentioned are about 1/2 billion light years away. So their light we see now is about 500,000 years old when it arrives at the earth. It is rare to be able to see stuff at that distance moving “sideways”, and I think it is the sideways motion of the stuff, and light produced by its interaction, that they are talking about. Normally, all we can see are radial light beams that are either redshifted or blueshifted, so we can’t tell what their speeds were when they started out 500,000 years ago.

I can’t quite figure out this statement: “The black holes in both galaxies spew intense gamma ray photons at Earth that can be seen colliding with infrared photons and annihilating one another.” Does this mean they “collide at the earth” or do they “collide at the galaxies and then 500,000 years later we see the light from those collisions”? I think it means they collide at the galaxies and then we seen the light 500,000 years later.

Maybe Spiff can answer that question. I don’t know too much about this subject.

But then a few paragraphs down the article changes to the theme “Einstein was right”, and then it starts telling about quantum mechanics and a Lorentz theory and some other stuff, so it sort of drifts away from the main subject.

Some astronomers think maybe the speed of light was either faster or slower in the distant past. If so, I don’t think this wouldn’t “violate” anything. It would just mean the speed of light has changed over time. Like the way the earth is supposed to be changing the strength of its magnetic field over time, and sometimes has field reverses. Whatever happens, happens. Einstein could predict just so much, given the information he had available to him between about 1900 and 1955.

The information he had about the galaxies back in 1915 was that they were all “static” and not moving, so he developed his GR theory based on that assumption, and to keep them “static”, mathematically and with gravitational considerations, he added the “cosmological constant”. When he learned that they probably aren’t really “static”, he merely removed the “constant”. We can easily put it back, if we eventually find out they aren’t really moving away from us.

My opinions about the “relative speed of light”, relative to the earth, doesn’t have anything to do with this NASA study. I’m actually assuming that the speed of light inside galaxies (as measured locally at and by an atomic clock resting on the surface of an astronomical body) has not changed since the universe began.

[Sam5]

I say

We've been over all of this before, and I don't have time to keep going over it.

What, are you needed in surgery?

Lol, no, I have to prepare the Christmas program for the other inmates.

[Tensor]

Tensor,

heh, according to you it was more than 5 pages... Look at page 8!! :wink:


#-o You're right. Dang it. I must have had one of those itches you mentioned last night. :wink:

[Celestial Mechanic]

There are aren't any Sam5 howlers on page 1--but that's because he didn't jump in until page 2! :wink:
What is your answer to my “blueshift” question?
daver answered it for me. One note: the temperature of -39 C is due to the transverse redshift, an effect that does not occur in the classical Doppler shift. Thanx and a tip of the Hatlo Hat daver! =D>

[Diamond]

You should know that trolling is a capital offence on these boards. I will not answer any of questions whem you answer none of ours

Threatening to have me banned is a poor substitute for an answer to my question. If you don’t know, you could just say, “I don’t know”.

I've answered dozens of your questions, but you either don't agree with my answers or you don't seem to understand them.

You have answered NONE of my questions and even when I quote your citations back at you that refute your contentions, you ignore and carry on.

I do know the answer, but I'm not continuing with a worthless crank like you.

[Jobe]

Its times like this I wish JSPrinceton were around, ad hominems and all.

[SeanF]

Okie-dokie, I'm going to try one more thing. If Sam5 decides to look through and respond to this post, I'll discuss it with him. If he ignores it (or decides it's too complicated), I'm done.

Tom and Dick are sitting motionless relative to each other. They can measure their distance apart as exactly three light-years.

Harry and Sally are also sitting motionless relative to each other. They also can measure their distance apart as exactly three light-years.

However, Tom & Dick (we'll call this system TD) and Harry & Sally (HS) are approaching each other at 0.6c.

So, it looks something like this:

T---D -> <- H---S
(Diagram is not to scale)

So, we're going to end up with four "passing events":

Dick passes Harry (DxH)
Dick passes Sally (DxS)
Tom passes Harry (TxH)
Tom passes Sally (TxS)

DxH will be the first event to occur, and TxS will be the last.

Now, exactly at DxH, Dick does two things. First, he sets his incredibly-accurate atomic clock to zero (tD=0). He also transmits a signal indicating this to Tom.

Harry does the same things exactly at DxH. He sets his own incredibly-accurate atomic clock to zero (tH=0) and also transmits a signal indicating this to Sally.

When Tom receives Dick's signal, he sets his clock to 3 (tT=3), because he knows that Dick is three light-years away and thus must have sent it three years ago.

Same for Sally. Upon reception of Harry's signal, she sets her clock to 3 (tS=3) for the same reason.

Now, pick either TD or HS and assume that system is "stationary." From this reference frame, the two "stationary" observers will be three light-years apart and motionless. The two "moving" observers will be only 2.4 light-years apart (Lorentz contraction) and moving at 0.6c. The two "moving" observers' clocks will also be running at 80% of the "stationary" observers' clocks.

From this reference frame, calculate what times will be on Dick & Sally's clocks at DxS. Calculate what times will be on Tom & Harry's clocks at TxH. Calculate what times will be on Tom & Sally's clocks at TxS.

Now pick the other reference frame as "stationary." Now, these other two observers are motionless and three light-years apart while the first two are 2.4 light-years apart and moving at 0.6c. The time dilation effect is also reversed - the clocks that were "slow" before are normal now, and the clocks that were normal before are "slow" now.

From this reference frame, calculate what times will be on Dick & Sally's clocks at DxS. Calculate what times will be on Tom & Harry's clocks at TxH. Calculate what times will be on Tom & Sally's clocks at TxS.

You will find (if you do the math correctly), that there is perfect agreement at each passing as to what times will be displayed on the two passing clocks, even though the "fast" and "slow" clocks switched (as did the Lorentz contraction of distance).

There. Is. No. Paradox. Period.

[Diamond]

Okie-dokie, I'm going to try one more thing. If Sam5 decides to look through and respond to this post, I'll discuss it with him. If he ignores it (or decides it's too complicated), I'm done.

<excluded middle>

There. Is. No. Paradox. Period.

My bet is on the strong smell of red herring surprise. [-(

[Kaptain K]

There. Is. No. Paradox. Period.
Exclamation Point!

[Spaceman Spiff]

Physicists have it all completely wrong,

Spiff, please don’t exaggerate. You know what I’m talking about, and it is very specific to a couple of topics. It does not in any way include “all” topics. You have to exaggerate and call it “all” to cover up the fact that I am right about these few specific observations and examples I've given.


I didn't exaggerate. I already told you what I meant:

"It is a common misconception that the findings of science exist in a vacuum, without connection to other theories and bodies of evidence or without impact on any other field of science. To the contrary, interconnectedness of evidence and theory and to separate fields of scientific inquiry is the hallmark of good science and an indication that we are on the right track -- regardless of the incompleteness of our understanding. "

For example:
Special relativity, as postulated and described by Albert, was effectively incorporated into quantum mechanic by Dirac and others in order that we can accurately describe how atoms behave as well as interact with light. This supertheory is called Quantum Electrodynamics. The laser and tunneling diode are just two of a nearly infinite variety of modern devices that owe at least part of their existence to the ability of QED to predict the nature of atoms and their interaction with light.

You think that you can invent from scratch your own theory of relativity, and that by doing so will have little or no impact upon what else we know about the world. You think that biologists and chemists can use different laws of nature from physicists. If you understood that the fundamental underpinnings of biology and chemistry are determined by physics, you wouldn't make that mistake.

What has become obvious by your own postings is that the physics you've learned is from bulletin boards and semi-random internet sites. That's not a putdown, but I would argue that it's a mistake. You've also demonstrated with your postings (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=180977#180977) that you don't understand the first thing about the pendulum or Earth's gravitational field upon it. Or if you really did, you wouldn't confuse this phenomenon with those actually associated with the effects of SR and GR. Nor would you presume to "lecture" upon a topic that is taught to freshmen physics students (especially considering some of the members of your audience), and then say that it is a demonstration of the falseness of SR/GR. The solution to your pendulum "problem" is stated so eloquently here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=181025#181025), though I am surprised Diamond had the patience to bother posting it.

[daver]

Two years later Einstein had to admit that the geometrical shape of a relatively moving body does not really change.

Work through the numbers, please. Say Bill has a room in his space ship one light second wide and one light high. How long does it take for a light pulse to travel from one wall to the other and back again when the ship is stationary? How long does it take for a pulse to travel from the floor to the ceiling and back when the ship is stationary? Now, how long does it take for the two trips when the ship is moving at .6 c?

Sam5, could you work through the preceeding problem? I'm curious what answer you get.

[daver]

Thanx and a tip of the Hatlo Hat daver! =D>
blush. Happy to oblige.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The writer is not completely clear about some things. The first few paragraphs seem to be saying that the results of the study means the speed of light now is the same as it was 500,000 years ago, since the galaxies mentioned are about 1/2 billion light years away. So their light we see now is about 500,000 years old when it arrives at the earth. It is rare to be able to see stuff at that distance moving “sideways”, and I think it is the sideways motion of the stuff, and light produced by its interaction, that they are talking about. Normally, all we can see are radial light beams that are either redshifted or blueshifted, so we can’t tell what their speeds were when they started out 500,000 years ago.

I can’t quite figure out this statement: “The black holes in both galaxies spew intense gamma ray photons at Earth that can be seen colliding with infrared photons and annihilating one another.” Does this mean they “collide at the earth” or do they “collide at the galaxies and then 500,000 years later we see the light from those collisions”? I think it means they collide at the galaxies and then we seen the light 500,000 years later.

Maybe Spiff can answer that question. I don’t know too much about this subject.

Ok, here goes.

I went to the article (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lightspeed_031217.html)and found it pretty vacuous of hard information. And it's to be published in something called the Astroparticle Physics Journal. If I find something more detailed; l'll let you know. However, here is what I was able to discern from this space.com article.

First off, 1/2 billion light years corresponds to 500 million lys or 500,000,000 lyrs (not 500,000).

Second, these are gamma ray photons that are apparently colliding with infrared photons there at the quasar --- though what data they have to determine these collisions is not shared with joe public in this article. And per my first point above, we are seeing these galaxies (and so the light they emit) as they were 500 million = 500,000,000 years ago.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The writer is not completely clear about some things. The first few paragraphs seem to be saying that the results of the study means the speed of light now is the same as it was 500,000 years ago, since the galaxies mentioned are about 1/2 billion light years away. So their light we see now is about 500,000 years old when it arrives at the earth. It is rare to be able to see stuff at that distance moving “sideways”, and I think it is the sideways motion of the stuff, and light produced by its interaction, that they are talking about. Normally, all we can see are radial light beams that are either redshifted or blueshifted, so we can’t tell what their speeds were when they started out 500,000 years ago.

I can’t quite figure out this statement: “The black holes in both galaxies spew intense gamma ray photons at Earth that can be seen colliding with infrared photons and annihilating one another.” Does this mean they “collide at the earth” or do they “collide at the galaxies and then 500,000 years later we see the light from those collisions”? I think it means they collide at the galaxies and then we seen the light 500,000 years later.

Maybe Spiff can answer that question. I don’t know too much about this subject.

Ok, here goes.

I went to the article (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lightspeed_031217.html)and found it pretty vacuous of hard information. And it's to be published in something called the Astroparticle Physics Journal. If I find something more detailed; l'll let you know. However, here is what I was able to discern from this space.com article.

First off, 1/2 billion light years corresponds to 500 million lys or 500,000,000 lyrs (not 500,000).

Second, these are gamma ray photons that are apparently colliding with infrared photons there at the quasar --- though what data they have to determine these collisions is not shared with joe public in this article. And per my first point above, we are seeing these galaxies (and so the light they emit) as they were 500 million = 500,000,000 years ago.

Ok, I found the real McCoy. The science paper can be found here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302049). The gamma rays are produced in the quasar's relativstic jet, whereby relativistically moving electrons boost the energies of the synchrotron photons generated by electrons accelerating in the magnetic field of the jet (think of the Crab nebula multiplied by a really big number) to TeV energies via inverse Compton scattering. The latter happens when an electron with lots of kinetic energy (it's moving relativistically) shares some of its kinetic energy with the scattering photon, boosting the latter's energy at the expense of the electron's kinetic energy. The whole effect that generates these gamma ray photons is called Synchrotron Self-Compton.

The absorption of some of these TeV photons occurs primarily in intergalactic space through a real nifty mechanism. I quote:

TeV gamma-rays can be absorbed and produce electron-positron pairs on interaction with photons of the intergalactic background light
The intergalactic infrared background provides the opacity mechanism for these TeV gamma-ray photons.

[Sam5]

First off, 1/2 billion light years corresponds to 500 million lys or 500,000,000 lyrs (not 500,000).

Thanks, Spiff. I tend to be numerically dyslexic (or something), so I’m prone to leaving off zeros in large number.

I think this might have started when I first began to use a small electronic calculator for large numbers. I got into the habit of just leaving off some of the zeros.

[Sam5]

Sam5, could you work through the preceeding problem? I'm curious what answer you get.

It would depend on the orientation of the c-regulator. If the regulator is moving with the room, the numbers would be the same in both cases. If it’s not moving with the room, the numbers would be different. This points out the requirement in nature for a local speed-regulating “ether” for light.

If the room is 186,000 miles wide and tall, it will take light 1 second to go from wall to wall or floor to ceiling, if the ether is moving with the room. If the ether is stationary while the room is moving at .6c through it, then the travel times would be different, and you can work out the basic times with the Doppler effect equations.

This is like light moving in a smaller room on earth. Since the local c-regulator is moving with the earth at the earth’s surface, the travel times will be the same in each direction. If the light is moving near the surface of a planet in a distant galaxy, the travel times will be locally the same in that room in that galaxy. But if you were moving the distant galaxy’s room through the earth’s ether, at the earth-relative speed of the distant galaxy (.6c) relative to our earth, then the times would be different.

The planet of the distant galaxy regulates the local speed of light to approximately c near the surface of that planet, and the earth regulates the local speed of light to approximately c near the surface of the earth. But when the galaxy is moving relative to the earth, the earth-relative speeds of the galaxy-planet light beams will be different than the earth-relative speeds of the earth light beams, since the earth’s and the galaxy planet’s c-regulators are moving relatively. My basic assumption is that the c-regulators are the local fields of the two planets, and those separate and individual groups of fields (electric, magnetic, and gravitational) travel through space with the planets that generate them.

Einstein almost turned up this exact same hypothesis in his 1920 paper:

“Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H. Weyl,; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”


The only thing he missed was, “The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

But of course, the individual field groups travel through space with the individual astronomical bodies that generate them. In his statements, Einstein was describing something like the 19th Century “ether” that was “fixed” with a “fixed” non-expanding universe. I think the 21st Century “ether” will be recognized as the local fields of astronomical bodies that travel through space with them. When he wrote this paper in 1920, he did not know of the rapid motion of the distant galaxies. He knew only of a “fixed” universe filled with “fixed” stars, through which a few planets and some of the stars were moving at low speeds.

[daver]

It would depend on the orientation of the c-regulator.
OK. Please work it out with the room at rest relative to the c-regulator and with the room moving at .6 c relative to the c-regulator.

[Sam5]

For example: Special relativity, as postulated and described by Albert, was effectively incorporated into quantum mechanic by Dirac and others in order that we can accurately describe how atoms behave as well as interact with light. This supertheory is called Quantum Electrodynamics. The laser and tunneling diode are just two of a nearly infinite variety of modern devices that owe at least part of their existence to the ability of QED to predict the nature of atoms and their interaction with light.

Spiff,

The Kinematical part of SR is not quite the same as the Electrodynamical part of SR. In the Electrodynamical part, Einstein has the atoms of one frame moving through the c-regulator (the fields) of the other frame. I have consistently pointed out to you that my complaint with SR is mainly with the Kinematical part and not the entire paper or entire theory, but you consistently continue to think and claim my complaint is with “all of relativity”.

I got some of my ideas about the errors of the Kinematical part by studying the Electrodynamical part and by studying Einstein’s later papers, such as his important 1911 “gravitational redshift” paper.

If you don’t understand the basic differences between the Kinematical part and the Electrodynamical part of the 1905 paper, or the differences between the Kinematical part of it and the Electrodynamical part of the 1911 paper, then that’s your problem, not mine.

It is quite clear from thousands of observations and experiments that “relative motion” alone causes no “force” and no “changing force” to be placed upon atoms. But motion of the atoms through fields does cause a “force” or a “changing force” to be placed upon atoms. And so does changing an atom’s position from resting within a gravitational field at one gravitational potential, and then moving it’s position to resting at a place where the gravitational potential is either greater or less than while it was at the previous position. This is one of the basic principles of General Relativity and the reason for the slowdown of atomic clocks in greater gravitational fields. If you don’t understand the basic difference between this real physics phenomenon and the illusional phenomena of the Kinematical part of the SR theory, then that is not my problem either.



You think that you can invent from scratch your own theory of relativity,

I haven’t invented from scratch anything at all. I have merely retired some of the incorrect Kinematical portions of SR theory, and I’ve accepted the correct Electrodynamical portions and I’ve also accepted the correct portions of GR theory.

You clearly don’t understand the differences, and you clearly don’t understand any of what I’ve been talking about. And I wish you would stop harassing me. I don’t bother you on the threads where you post your ideas, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t harass me on this thread.

If Einstein were alive today, he would understand exactly what I’m talking about. But he left us in 1955, several decades before astronomers discovered 1z and 2z galaxies.

If he were around today, studying the apparent movement of the high-z galaxies, I think he would say, “Ha! The limit of “c” applies to the travel of masses through fields, while this limit does not apply to the relative motion of masses that are not moving through fields!”

[Musashi]

I am sure Einstein appreciates you assuming what he would say and believe.

[Sam5]

I am sure Einstein appreciates you assuming what he would say and believe.


One incorrect assumption a lot of people make today is that Einstein would never amend his theories to account for new observational and experimental discoveries. But this is incorrect. He did amend the SR theory when he began to consider gravitational fields, and he amended his first GR theory when he learned of the expansion of the universe. There is no reason to think that had he lived until now he’d still be harping on some of his 98 year old ideas, even in light of the new discoveries made during the past 48 years.

I think you probably don’t realize that he amended his original 1905 theory and his 1915 “hypersphere” theory of non-expanding space. The mass media writers usually aren’t aware of this, and for some reason some of the physics professors don’t like to call attention to his idea changes.

For example, although he called his “cosmological constant” a mistake in 1932, some physics professors today claim that it wasn’t really a “mistake”. So, they are saying that Einstein made a “mistake” when he called his “mistake” a “mistake”, and I find this to be a very odd attitude among some of the professors. After studying a lot of his own papers, I would prefer to take his word about this, rather than taking the word of those professors.

[Musashi]

Not my point at all.

[Sam5]

Not my point at all.

Well, what was your point?

[Musashi]

I would like you to keep guessing, you may stumble upon it.

[Sam5]

I would like you to keep guessing, you may stumble upon it.

I don't have time to spend trying to guess your points.

[Musashi]

Oh. I thought you enjoyed being cryptic and making everyone else spend time trying to guess your points... I guess it only works one way.

[Sam5]

Oh. I thought you enjoyed being cryptic and making everyone else spend time trying to guess your points... I guess it only works one way.


I don’t think I would describe my ideas as “cryptic”. They might be difficult for some people to understand, but they aren’t “cryptic”.

[Musashi]

I didn't say your ideas were cryptic, I said your points were cryptic.

[daver]

It would depend on the orientation of the c-regulator.
OK. Please work it out with the room at rest relative to the c-regulator and with the room moving at .6 c relative to the c-regulator.
Sorry to keep bugging you Sam5, but I'm still curious as to your answers to the question.

[Sam5]

Sorry to keep bugging you Sam5, but I'm still curious as to your answers to the question.


If I tell you my opinion about this, that might make some of the guys mad and they will troll me, and that tends to irritate me, so I’d rather not say anything about it.

[Musashi]

Did I say cryptic? I meant evasive.

[Sam5]

I didn't say your ideas were cryptic, I said your points were cryptic.

My points are no more cryptic than my ideas.

[Sam5]

Did I say cryptic? I meant evasive.


“Evasive”? Where have I been evasive?

[Musashi]

Sam5:


If I tell you my opinion about this, that might make some of the guys mad and they will troll me, and that tends to irritate me, so I’d rather not say anything about it.

That's one example.

[daver]

Sorry to keep bugging you Sam5, but I'm still curious as to your answers to the question.


If I tell you my opinion about this, that might make some of the guys mad and they will troll me, and that tends to irritate me, so I?d rather not say anything about it.

Actually, I don't see how it could be any worse; to me, your not providing the answers seems more likely to evoke derision than providing them.

[Sam5]

That's one example.



I don’t know what you are talking about. I’ve already expressed my opinion about this topic several times, and you can find my comments in the archives of this thread. You just want to gripe at me when I say something and then gripe at me when I don’t say it again. Why don’t you go harass someone else for a while and leave me alone.

Instead of griping at me, why don't you answer daver's question?

[freddo]

Mu can't answer as he doesn't have the c-regulator knowledge you have.

Your previous two answers to daver's questions were handwaving.

[freddo]

If the regulator is moving with the room, the numbers would be the same in both cases. If it’s not moving with the room, the numbers would be different.

Daver asks for the numbers two both of these situations.

[Sam5]

Actually, I don't see how it could be any worse; to me, your not providing the answers seems more likely to evoke derision than providing them.

I’ve already provided the answer to that basic question several times. And every time I did, my answers evoked derision. Now, if I don’t answer it again, my not answering it evokes derision. I think some of you guys just like to deride.

[Musashi]

How come every time someone asks you to answer a question you respond by deflecting the question to someone else or saying that you don't want to talk about it? I'll stop griping at you, since it is obviously taking up time you could otherwise be using to actually respond honestly to people.

[Sam5]

Daver asks for the numbers two both of these situations.

He can find my numbers in the archives, in my dissucssions with Sean. If he can't find my numbers, then you can give him your numbers.

[Sam5]

How come every time someone asks you to answer a question you respond by deflecting the question to someone else or saying that you don't want to talk about it?

You know that’s not true, if you’ve been paying attention. I’ve answered dozens and dozens of questions on this thread. If you want the answers, then go back through the archives.


I'll stop griping at you,

Naa, you enjoy it too much.

[freddo]

I don't have the c-regulator knowledge you do Sam5.

Why don't you post a link to the relevant answer. Thanks.

[Musashi]

Naa, you enjoy it too much.

Don't tempt me ;)

[daver]

Actually, I don't see how it could be any worse; to me, your not providing the answers seems more likely to evoke derision than providing them.

I?ve already provided the answer to that basic question several times. And every time I did, my answers evoked derision. Now, if I don?t answer it again, my not answering it evokes derision. I think some of you guys just like to deride.

Sam5, we have 23 pages of posts; that's a lot of verbiage, most of which you admit is repetitious. If you've already posted the answer, it's not going to lower anybody's opinion of you to repost it.

[freddo]

Good point. The fact that there are still people here after 23 pages should help you realise we are still listening.


[edit: OT - daver, what character set are you using when quoting? Every time you quote one of these : ' I get a "?"]

[Sam5]

Actually, I don't see how it could be any worse; to me, your not providing the answers seems more likely to evoke derision than providing them.

I?ve already provided the answer to that basic question several times. And every time I did, my answers evoked derision. Now, if I don?t answer it again, my not answering it evokes derision. I think some of you guys just like to deride.

Sam5, we have 23 pages of posts; that's a lot of verbiage, most of which you admit is repetitious. If you've already posted the answer, it's not going to lower anybody's opinion of you to repost it.

Hey, you can’t fool me. :D You just want to insult me some more if I post the answer again. In fact, you enjoy insulting me if I do or if I don’t post the answer again. So what’s the use? I didn’t come here just so you could get your kicks insulting me. If you want to insult someone, why don’t you go on some of the “chemtrail” message boards and insult the conspiracy crackpots? Uhh, you could tell them you’re with the Government’s new OFFICE of CHEMTRAIL INFORMATION SUPPRESSION, or something like that. I think you’d get a kick out of their reaction.

[Musashi]

Ah, heck, now I don't even remember Daver's question...

[freddo]

Then how can you answer it Mu?

[daver]

[edit: OT - daver, what character set are you using when quoting? Every time you quote one of these : ' I get a "?"]

Yeah, I've noticed that, too. I haven't changed my font; it should be picking up the default.

[Musashi]

If you don't want to talk about Daver's question, can we go back to talking about frozen embryos? That was fascinating.

[freddo]

you can’t fool me

That's the answer - Sam5 is using a non standard font - my inverted commas are straight up and down, his are not. It's not you daver.

[daver]

Hey, you can?t fool me.
Whatever. I'm still curious about your answer. I'll try describing the setup again, since it's been a few pages now since I originally posted the question.

Bill is in one corner of a big room in a space ship at rest relative to the local c-regulator. The room is 1 light second on a side. The ceiling of the room and one of the far walls is mirrored. Bill times how long it takes a pulse of light to travel to the far wall and back, and how long it takes to travel to the ceiling and back.

Part 2, same setup, same room, same Bill, but now the space ship is travelling at .6 c relative to the local c-regulator (assume that the direction of travel is up, towards the ceiling). Same experiment--how long does it take the light to travel to the wall and back, and to the ceiling and back.

[daver]

you can?t fool me

That's the answer - Sam5 is using a non standard font - my inverted commas are straight up and down, his are not. It's not you daver.
That's a relief :D

[Sam5]

freddo, daver,

I type all my posts to a Word document, then I copy and paste the document to a post window. That way I can save all my posts to a series of Word documents and I can run my posts through a spell checker before I post them. I usually use the “Times New Roman” font in my Word documents.

[freddo]

Thanks for the answer Sam5, it was merely a curiosity which you've now shed light on.

Back to daver's question?

[Sam5]

Hey, you can?t fool me.
Whatever. I'm still curious about your answer. I'll try describing the setup again, since it's been a few pages now since I originally posted the question.

Bill is in one corner of a big room in a space ship at rest relative to the local c-regulator. The room is 1 light second on a side. The ceiling of the room and one of the far walls is mirrored. Bill times how long it takes a pulse of light to travel to the far wall and back, and how long it takes to travel to the ceiling and back.

Part 2, same setup, same room, same Bill, but now the space ship is travelling at .6 c relative to the local c-regulator (assume that the direction of travel is up, towards the ceiling). Same experiment--how long does it take the light to travel to the wall and back, and to the ceiling and back.


This is just my opinion, and of course, I could be wrong:

1) 186,000 miles in1 second at c each way

2a) Hmm, the direction of travel is up, but the light is moving wall to wall? I think the travel time would be the same, but the light would appear to move in a diagonal line each way, as seen from inside the room. The light would not be “bent” but would move straight across from wall to wall, hitting a lower spot on the opposite wall, and the path would appear to be diagonal, while viewing it from inside the room, since the walls would be moving “up” relative to the c-regulator. But when viewing it while being fixed within the c-regulator, the fixed observer would not see the light traveling in a diagonal line, although he would see the light hit a lower spot on the wall.

This is something like the dropping of a rock from the window of a moving train. Anyone traveling with the train would see the rock drop straight down (disregarding wind resistance) but anyone stationary with the earth would see the rock move in a curved path [since the rock is accelerating toward the earth]. The distance the rock moves straight down, relative to the train passenger, would be about... hmm, maybe 15 feet. But to the ground observer it would be about, oh, roughly about 80 or so feet, depending on how fast the train is going. So which is it, 15 or 80 feet? It’s both! That’s Relativity!

2b) The light would travel from the floor to the ceiling at...hmm, at c – v and from the ceiling to the floor at c + v. The “c-regulator” is not the walls or the floor or ceiling. It’s the stuff the photons travel through, which I think are the “fields” of space.

Measurement of the exact speed would depend on which of two atomic clocks is used. It’s possible that a clock traveling with the moving room (moving through the c-regulator) would slow down, when compared to a different atomic clock that is fixed relative to the c-regulator. I’m not positive about this, but I think the two rates would be different.

Ok, now all of you can make fun of me.

By the way, what would each of your answers be?


Edited by Sam5: In example 2a, Sean pointed out that I should have said the light would appear to move in a “diagonal line”, not a “curved path”. In the dropping the rock off the train example, the rock accelerates and that’s why the ground observer sees it move in a “curved path”. But in the 2a example, if the room is not accelerating, the path of the light would appear to be a diagonal one, not a curved one. Sorry.

[SeanF]

I think the travel time would be the same, but the light would appear to move in a curved path each way . . .

:o

[Sam5]

I think the travel time would be the same, but the light would appear to move in a curved path each way . . .

:o

Ha! Yes, you are right! It’s not a curved path, it is a diagonal path. :oops: I was thinking about the acceleration example rather than the steady-speed example. The path of the light will be curved if the room is accelerating but straight and diagonal if the room is just moving but not accelerating.

As in this example: Disregarding all wind resistance, two kids are pitching a baseball to each other. One kid is on one side of a railroad track, and the other is on the other side. Then a train comes by and they try to pitch the ball through the train’s windows. The kids will see the ball go in a straight line, while the train observers will see the ball move across the car in a diagonal line. The ball will enter one window, appear to the train observers to take a diagonal path across the train car, and go out a window that is a little further to the rear of the train.

If the train is accelerating then the ball would appear to take a curved path.

Sorry for the error, and thanks for pointing it out

[Sam5]

:o

Ha! That brings up some interesting differences, if the room were moving in deep space as opposed to moving near the surface of the earth. If it’s near the earth, moving upward, then I think the light path would be curved slightly downward, since the light would be accelerating toward the earth. But if the room is moving a long way away from an astronomical body, then I think the path would be diagonal.

Hmm, and I think.... hmm, I think the earth-based observer would see the light move in a curved path, since the light is moving left to right and right to left with the earth below, so... hmm, what would the guy in the room see?? More curvature, or just the same curvature that the earth guy sees? I think it would be the same curvature.

Ok, the two guys in deep space. No curvature, since there is no astronomical body nearby? The one in the room would just see a diagonal line, and the guy fixed with the c-regulator would see a straight line.

Hey, we need to work together on this.

[Sam5]

:o


“According to General Relativity, the wavelength of light (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation) passing through a gravitational field will be shifted towards redder regions of the spectrum. To understand this gravitational redshift, think of a baseball hit high into the air, slowing as it climbs. Einstein's theory says that as a photon fights its way out of a gravitational field, it loses energy and its color reddens. Gravitational redshifts have been observed in diverse settings.”

link (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:7q676Sh5j0UJ:www.stkate.edu/physics/phys100/Chapt10.html+harvard+experiment+light+speed+redshi ft+tower&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

I don’t think that’s what Einstein actually said. I think he said that atoms in a gravitational field actually emit light of a lower frequency. The light doesn’t “redshift” as it “fights its way out of a gravitational field”. It starts out redshifted in the first place, according to his 1911 paper. I think the baseball analogy is not correct. The light doesn’t slow down as it gets higher and higher, it speeds up. 1) It starts out redshifted in the first place, and 2) it starts out slow, then speeds up the further away it gets from the surface of the massive body. Isn’t that the way it works??

[freddo]

2) it starts out slow, then speeds up the further away it gets from the surface of the massive body. Isn’t that the way it works??

Not as far as I know... It's not like it's accelerating itself and gravity is holding it back. Instead it starts off at a particular velocity, and gravity reduces this as the light is emitted. What you are misattributing is the fact that this effect is less pronounced over distance.

That's a basic answer - perhaps someone can go further.

[Sam5]

2) it starts out slow, then speeds up the further away it gets from the surface of the massive body. Isn’t that the way it works??

Not as far as I know... It's not like it's accelerating itself and gravity is holding it back. Instead it starts off at a particular velocity, and gravity reduces this as the light is emitted. What you are misattributing is the fact that this effect is less pronounced over distance.

That's a basic answer - perhaps someone can go further.


I don’t think gravity is “holding it back”. If it travels slower in a stronger gravitational field, then it would travel increasingly faster as it gets further away from the surface of the earth. It’s not like the light is “struggling” to get out of the gravity, as some reports say. It’s just moving at the speed the local gravitational potential regulates it to move at. The stronger the gravity, the lower the speed it is regulated to move at.

The gravitational potential decides the speed of the light. The potential is stronger at the surface, and not a strong a little above the surface. So the upward speed increases, relative to the earth, the further up it goes. Isn’t that the way it works? I think he says in the 1911 paper that light is emitted at a lower frequency at the sun. So it isn’t redshifted by its “struggle” to get out of the gravity. It actually is emitted at a lower frequency. It starts out slow then speed up. But the redshift is produced by the fact that it is being emitted at a lower frequency. The slower to faster speed wouldn’t redshift it. It would merely delay the travel time slightly. What redshifts it at the sun would be the lower frequency being emitted by the atoms at the surface of the sun.

The impression given in some reports about light “struggling” to get out of a black hole has the light starting out at c and then slowing down (like the baseball thrown up in the air) and curving back down. But the 1911 theory actually has the light being emitted at a lower frequency. Within a black hole, the light wouldn’t even be emitted at all, seems to me, since its emission is infinitely redshifted to zero emission. What do you think about that? That’s why the black hole, the dark star, is dark, because it emits no light. White light isn't inside it, strugging to get out. I would think there just is no light inside it.

[kilopi]

But the 1911 theory actually has the light being emitted at a lower frequency.
Why the dependence upon the 1911 papers? Why not use the 1915 (and later) versions, since they supplanted his previous efforts?

[SeanF]

Okie-dokie, I'm going to try one more thing. If Sam5 decides to look through and respond to this post, I'll discuss it with him. If he ignores it (or decides it's too complicated), I'm done.

<excluded middle>

There. Is. No. Paradox. Period.

My bet is on the strong smell of red herring surprise. [-(

And I guess his choice was to just ignore it (of course, he could've decided to ignore it because it was too complicated). Oh, well.

[daver]

Measurement of the exact speed would depend on which of two atomic clocks is used. It?s possible that a clock traveling with the moving room (moving through the c-regulator) would slow down, when compared to a different atomic clock that is fixed relative to the c-regulator. I?m not positive about this, but I think the two rates would be different.

Are you saying that you don't know if time dilation exists under these circumstances?

You've got a start on answering the question I posed, but haven't gone all the way through the problem. The "stationary" (as I understand your position, there would be no need for quotes around stationary) observer sees the light bouncing from wall to wall follow a diagonal path. I asked how much time the observer on the space ship sees for each of the round trip light pulses, and you haven't calculated that yet.


Ok, now all of you can make fun of me.

I have no intention of making fun of you for answering a question I asked. I might point out some interesting implications in the answers.


By the way, what would each of your answers be?

Bill sees no difference in the amount of time it takes for a light pulse to make a round trip, regardless of how fast he's going (the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames). An outside observer would see the light take a longer time.

[Musashi]

I would say the same as Daver. If I believed in a c-regulator, I would still say they take the same amount of time. Instead of the light smlowing down or speeding up, the observer would see it red shift or blue shift.

[Sam5]

[quote=Sam5]Measurement of the exact speed would depend on which of two atomic clocks is used. It?s possible that a clock traveling with the moving room (moving through the c-regulator) would slow down, when compared to a different atomic clock that is fixed relative to the c-regulator. I?m not positive about this, but I think the two rates would be different.



Are you saying that you don't know if time dilation exists under these circumstances?

I’m not sure what happens to an atomic clock that moves through a gravitational field in deep space. I don’t know if it slows down, speeds up, or ticks at a normal rate. And don't call it "time dilation". Call it an atomic clock rate change.

I’m still trying to figure out some of the details. He answered a lot of these questions, but many of his comments were very cryptic, labyrinthine, and convoluted. The guy didn’t always come right out and say what was on his mind in a simple straightforward manner. For example, his “U” clocks in the 1911 theory. It took years for me to read and re-read that one long paragraph in the 1911 theory before I understood what he was talking about. And what I finally discovered was that , the truth is, he doesn’t even need the “U” clocks. The “U” clocks are atomic clocks! And they do exactly what the vibrating atoms on the earth and the sun do. I don’t even know why he put them in the theory.

Now look at this... remember when I said that not all clocks “slow down” when placed in a higher gravitational potential? And in fact some clocks, like pendulum clocks, “speed up”. And some guys on this thread hooted at me because they told me it is “time” that “slows down” and the clocks have to do what “time” tells them to do? Well, look at this what he said in the 1911 paper: “For if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free-system K’, employing clocks U of identical constitution, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitation potential.”

Ha!

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Only “atomic clocks” slow down “relativistically” in a larger gravitational potential. So even he acknowledged what I’ve been saying about atomic clocks, as opposed to other kinds of clocks. When he said, ”we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitation potential,” that means we must not use “atomic clocks”, and we must not use any kinds of clocks that are affected by changing gravitational potential.

But this stuff is difficult to find and difficult to understand in his papers, because he doesn’t always make everything absolutely clear.



The "stationary" (as I understand your position, there would be no need for quotes around stationary) observer sees the light bouncing from wall to wall follow a diagonal path

Yes there would be, since we are dealing with two different “frames”. One frame is the one the ether is in, and the other is the one the room is in. The room can be stationary with the ether, as in the first part of your thought experiment, but it is moving relative to the ether in the second part. And if we add a third observer, us, then we need to know whether we are stationary with the room or with the ether.


Bill sees no difference in the amount of time it takes for a light pulse to make a round trip, regardless of how fast he's going (the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames). An outside observer would see the light take a longer time.

Please quote some sources of actual scientific experiment and observation to support your erroneous conclusions.

[Sam5]

And I guess his choice was to just ignore it (of course, he could've decided to ignore it because it was too complicated). Oh, well.

Shame on you. I haven’t had time to even read it yet. I was in town shopping and getting my feet fixed at a doctor’s office.

[Sam5]

I would say the same as Daver. If I believed in a c-regulator, I would still say they take the same amount of time. Instead of the light smlowing down or speeding up, the observer would see it red shift or blue shift.


It depends on what the two atomic clocks do, the one in the room and the one fixed with the ether.

In Einstein’s train experiment in chapter 9 of his book, he said the embankment observer would see the train moving toward the beam from B at c + v. That is because the train is moving through the earth’s ether. In the room experiment, the same thing would happen. The light moving from the ceiling toward the floor would travel at c + v.

Everybody’s got to have a c-regulator or else light wouldn’t know how fast or slow to travel at different places in space.

[daver]

I?m not sure what happens to an atomic clock that moves through a gravitational field in deep space. I don?t know if it slows down, speeds up, or ticks at a normal rate. And don't call it "time dilation". Call it an atomic clock rate change.

Let's try to keep this as simple as possible--we're playing way out in deep space, far away from any complicating gravitational fields. I believe your contention is that there is under these circumstances one unique reference frame that sees the same speed of light in all directions. Put Bill in this reference frame, have him calculate the times, then have him accelerate to .6 c relative to this reference frame and repeat his experiments. How much time does he observe for a light beam to cross the room and back, and how much to bounce up to the ceiling and back.

[daver]

Please quote some sources of actual scientific experiment and observation to support your erroneous conclusions.
I'll hold off on this for a bit until you work through the answers to the previous question.

[Sam5]

Please quote some sources of actual scientific experiment and observation to support your erroneous conclusions.


I'll hold off on this for a bit..

Yes, I figured you would.

[daver]

Please quote some sources of actual scientific experiment and observation to support your erroneous conclusions.


I'll hold off on this for a bit..

Yes, I figured you would.
Sam5, if you'd do a tiny bit of algebra and post your answers to my question I'll get to this.

[SeanF]

And I guess his choice was to just ignore it (of course, he could've decided to ignore it because it was too complicated). Oh, well.

Shame on you. I haven’t had time to even read it yet. I was in town shopping and getting my feet fixed at a doctor’s office.

[-X A simple, "Interesting. Give me some time to work through it and I'll get back to you," would've sufficed. Instead, I get over 30 hours of you responding to other, later posts.

That, combined with your previous admission to ignoring me when I got too complicated for you, makes my assumption you were ignoring this post not at all unwarranted.

Save your shame for yourself.

[Sam5]

Sean,


What page is your "Okie-dokie" post on? I can't find it.

[Sam5]

[-X A simple, "Interesting. Give me some time to work through it and I'll get back to you," would've sufficed. Instead, I get over 30 hours of you responding to other, later posts.

Well! I’m just going to have to shape up, huh?! I can’t find your “Okie-dokie” post. Tell me what page it is on.


That, combined with your previous admission to ignoring me

Nag, nag, nag. [-X

[SeanF]

It's on page 21, right here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9731&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=517).

[Sam5]

Okie-dokie, I'm going to try one more thing. If Sam5 decides to look through and respond to this post, I'll discuss it with him. If he ignores it (or decides it's too complicated), I'm done.

Tom and Dick are sitting motionless relative to each other.

Oh no! Not another one of these!


You will find (if you do the math correctly), that there is perfect agreement at each passing as to what times will be displayed on the two passing clocks, even though the "fast" and "slow" clocks switched (as did the Lorentz contraction of distance).

Lol, I notice you conveniently left out your “proper math” and all the clock times, and you just said “they will all agree”. And I’ll bet all your friends will agree with you! Lol.

[daver]

Lol, I notice you conveniently left out your ?proper math? and all the clock times, and you just said ?they will all agree?. And I?ll bet all your friends will agree with you! Lol.
You're starting to sound a bit paranoid, Sam5. If we agree, it's because we get the same results when we do the calculations.

Do you have any intention of doing the math in the example I've been trying to get you to work through?

[Sam5]

Lol, I notice you conveniently left out your ?proper math? and all the clock times, and you just said ?they will all agree?. And I?ll bet all your friends will agree with you! Lol.
You're starting to sound a bit paranoid, Sam5. If we agree, it's because we get the same results when we do the calculations.

Oh! Great! :D So you’ve both done the calculations! So what are they???

[Musashi]

After a brief reprise and hope that Sam would be forthright and forthcoming with discussion, he has gone right back to his old ways... Who woulda guessed?

[daver]

I'm off for a couple of weeks; I expect when I come back this thread will either have been locked or grown to be larger than the movie quotes thread, in which case I have no intention of slogging through the intermediate posts. Could someone keep note of whether Sam5 ever calculates the various time delays from the point of view of a viewer in the moving space ship?

[Sam5]

After a brief reprise and hope that Sam would be forthright and forthcoming with discussion, he has gone right back to his old ways... Who woulda guessed?

Why do you so often feel so compelled to post such insulting remarks, rather than simply discussing the physics issues involved with this topic?

The board’s rules say I’m supposed to “ignore trolls”. But when I do that, I get four or five guys trolling me with insults.

[Sam5]

I'm off for a couple of weeks; I expect when I come back this thread will either have been locked or grown to be larger than the movie quotes thread,

No, I’m not going to continue with this, since it’s apparently useless and most of what I get back are rude insults.


Could someone keep note of whether Sam5 ever calculates the various time delays from the point of view of a viewer in the moving space ship?

I’m still waiting for you to give me the calculation numbers of Sean’s thought experiment. You said if you agreed with him, it would be because you both calculated the same numbers, so do you agree with him, and what are your numbers?

[SeanF]

Lol, I notice you conveniently left out your “proper math” and all the clock times, and you just said “they will all agree”. And I’ll bet all your friends will agree with you! Lol.

?

A:
3 light-years / 0.6c = 5 years
3 light-years / c = 3 years
5 years - 3 years = 2 years
3 years + 2 years = 5 years

B:
3 light-years * sqr(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 2.4 light-years
0.6c+1.0c=1.6c
2.4 light-years / 1.6c = 1.5 years
2.4 light-years / 0.6c = 4 years
4 years - 1.5 years = 2.5 years
2.5 years * sqr(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 2 years
3 years + 2 years = 5 years

C:
3 light-years * sqr(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 2.4 light-years
2.4 light-years / 0.6c = 4 years

D:
3 light-years / 0.6c = 5 years
5 years * sqr(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 4 years

E:
3 light-years * sqr(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 2.4 light-years
3 light-years + 2.4 light-years = 5.4 light-years
5.4 light-years / 0.6c = 9 years
3 light-years / c = 3 years
9 years - 3 years = 6 years
3 years + 6 years = 9 years

F:
3 light-years * sqr(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 2.4 light-years
3 light-years + 2.4 light-years = 5.4 light-years
5.4 light-years / 0.6c = 9 years
0.6c+1.0c=1.6c
2.4 light-years / 1.6c = 1.5 years
9 years - 1.5 years = 7.5 years
7.5 years * sqr(1 - 0.6c^2/c^2) = 6 years
3 years + 6 years = 9 years


If Tom and Dick are stationary:
A is used to calculate the time on Tom's clock when Tom passes Harry
B is used to calculate the time on Sally's clock when Dick passes Sally
C is used to calculate the time on Dick's clock when Dick passes Sally
D is used to calculate the time on Harry's clock when Tom passes Harry
E is used to calculate the time on Tom's clock when Tom passes Sally
F is used to calculate the time on Sally's clock when Tom passes Sally

If Harry and Sally are stationary:
A is used to calculate the time on Sally's clock when Dick passes Sally
B is used to calculate the time on Tom's clock when Tom passes Harry
C is used to calculate the time on Harry's clock when Tom passes Harry
D is used to calculate the time on Dick's clock when Dick passes Sally
E is used to calculate the time on Sally's clock when Tom passes Sally
F is used to calculate the time on Tom's clock when Tom passes Sally

See how it all works out, or do I need to explain in more detail what each individual line of math is for?

[Eroica]

Typical. I finally work it all out, and then SeanF beats me to the post! Well, anyway, here's my analysis, Sam.

Dick and Harry
When Dick and Harry pass each other at 0.6c, they set their clocks to 0. Harry sends a signal to Sally, and Dick sends one to Tom.

Dick and Sally
Let’s take Dick as our stationary frame. When his clock reads 0, Sally is 2.4 light years away. She is approaching at 0.6c, so it takes her 4 years (by Dick’s clock) to reach Dick. So when Sally passes Dick, Dick’s clock reads 4 years.

But what should Sally’s clock read? Dick reasons as follows: Harry’s signal is heading towards Sally at 1.0c. Sally is approaching at 0.6c. So from Dick’s point of view, Sally should be approaching the signal at 1.6c. Since she was 2.4 light years away when Harry sent the signal, it will take 1½ years to reach her. By that time she will have covered 0.9 light years. She will then set her clock to 3 years. It will take her 2½ years to cover the remaining 1.5 light years; but because of time dilation, her clock will only tick a further 2 years during that time. So when Sally passes Dick, her clock should read 5 years.

Now let’s look at the same situation, but this time we’ll take Sally as our stationary frame. When she receives Harry’s signal, she sets her clock to 3 years. She reasons that when Dick set his clock to 0, he was 3 light years away (since he was passing Harry at the time). At 0.6c, it will take him 5 years to reach Sally, but because of time dilation his clock will only tick 4 years. So when Dick passes Sally, his clock should read 4 years. (Sound familiar?)

And what about Sally’s own clock? When she sets her clock to 3, she will reason that Dick in those three years has covered 1.8 light years. At 0.6c, it will take him 2 years to cover the remaining 1.2 light years. So Sally’s clock will show 5 years when Dick passes. (Sound familiar?)

Tom and Harry
The situation between Tom and Harry is a mirror image of the one between Dick and Sally. When Tom and Harry pass, both will calculate that Tom’s clock, like Sally’s, should be showing 5 years, while Harry’s clock, like Dick’s, should be showing 4 years.

Tom and Sally
Let’s take Tom as stationary. When Harry passes Tom, Tom’s clock is showing 5 years. Sally is 2.4 light years behind Harry and approaching at 0.6c. So it takes her 4 years to reach Tom. So when Sally passes Tom, Tom’s clock should be showing 9 years.

But what about Sally’s clock? Tom, by the same process of reasoning that Dick used, will already have calculated that Sally’s clock read 5 years when she passed Dick. Since Dick is three light years away, it will take Sally 5 years to get from Dick to Tom. But because of time dilation, her clock will only tick 4 years. So when Sally passes Tom, her clock will also read 9 years.

Finally, let’s take a look at the Tom-Sally encounter with Sally as our stationary frame. When Dick passes her, her clock is showing 5 years. Tom is 2.4 light years behind Dick, and approaching at 0.6c. So it will take him 4 years to reach her, by which time her clock will be showing 9 years.

Like Harry, Sally will have calculated that when Tom passed Harry, Tom’s clock was showing 5 years. Since Harry is 3 light years away from Sally, it will take Tom 5 years to reach her after his encounter with Harry. But because of time dilation his clock will only tick 4 years. So when Tom passes sally, Tom’s clock will read 9 years.

In Summary

Dick and Harry: Both clocks read 0

Dick and Sally: Dick’s clock reads 4 years. Sally’s clock reads 5 years.

Tom and Harry: Tom’s clock reads 5 years. Harry’s clock reads 4 years.

Tom and Sally: Both clocks read 9 years.

[Sam5]

SeanF,

Lol, :D you are indeed a clever guy, but you’ll have to give me some time on this one, since I’m busy right now.

I asked you to stop making your thought experiments more and more complicated, since all you need to do is confront the basic paradox in the two relatively moving clocks in his “peculiar consequence” thought experiment.

And you did that right here on an earlier page of this thread, when you said:




He's wondering about considering k the "stationary system" in this sense. I think he's still a little unclear about Einstein using "stationary system" as a name for K, not a general concept.

If the clocks are synchronized in K, then they're not in k. This will be true regardless of whether K or k is considered "at rest," because it's how the experiment is set up. If the clocks were synchronized in k, then they wouldn't be in K - in that case, the 2nd Clock would lag behind the 1st when they met.

You’ve already admitted to the paradox, so there is no need for you to try to hide it in a more complicated and elaborate thought experiment. However, I'll see if I can find your mistakes in this new one, and I'll get back to later. I printed this one out, and I'll work on it later.

[Sam5]

SeanF,

:D I see one error you are making. The k frame has its own set of coordinate numbers. The relative velocity between the two frames is “v”. The distances are the same for both frames and the travel times are the same, as seen by each set of observers on their own properly-synchronized clocks. k frame observers don’t use the K frame’s coordinate numbers and they don't move with clocks not synchronized in their own system, unless, of course, you want to constantly favor the K frame as being the only true “stationary one” with the only true “synchronized” and “synchronous” clocks. That’s what you have always tried to do before. You just went through your thought experiments without the k frame having its own clocks synchronized properly. You can’t favor just one of the frames, since both are equal.

And you know that when I synchronize the k frame clocks, just as should be done, the paradox will be obvious.

[SeanF]

SeanF,

:D I see one error you are making.
Okay . . .

The k frame has its own set of coordinate numbers.
In this experiment (Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally), which reference frame are you calling k? The one in which Tom and Dick are stationary or the one in which Harry and Sally are stationary?

The relative velocity between the two frames is “v”. The distances are the same for both frames and the travel times are the same, as seen by each set of observers on their own properly-synchronized clocks. k frame observers don’t use the K frame’s coordinate numbers and they don't move with clocks not synchronized in their own system, unless, of course, you want to constantly favor the K frame as being the only true “stationary one” with the only true “synchronized” and “synchronous” clocks. That’s what you have always tried to do before. You just went through your thought experiments without the k frame having its own clocks synchronized properly.
Not true.

Tom and Dick's clocks are synchronized in the reference frame in which Tom and Dick are stationary. Harry and Sally's clocks are not synchronized in this reference frame.

Harry and Sally's clocks are synchronized in the reference frame in which Harry and Sally are stationary. Tom and Dick's clocks are not synchronized in this reference frame.

You can’t favor just one of the frames, since both are equal.

And you know that when I synchronize the k frame clocks, just as should be done, the paradox will be obvious.

Both pairs of clocks are synchronized, but only within their own reference frame.

(BTW, did you notice that Eroica got the same answers I did?)

[freddo]

(BTW, did you notice that Eroica got the same answers I did?)

You can't say that Sean, that's obvious proof of a conspiracy.

Sam5, we're waiting for you to do some math.

[Tensor]

(BTW, did you notice that Eroica got the same answers I did?)

You can't say that Sean, that's obvious proof of a conspiracy.

Sam5, we're waiting for you to do some math.

You must have had an itch freddo, you said you were done back on page 20. :wink:

We've been waiting for math from Sam5 for most of this thread and parts of the other one. CM asked Sam to show where CM's math was wrong back in the last thread and hasn't produce any. There was also CM's math back on page 9 of this thread that Sam still hasn't shown where it was wrong, as Sam has claimed. Sam has produced handwaving, sidestepping, evaision and red herrings, but no math. Yeah, I had an itch too. :wink:

[SeanF]

Okay, guys, while were waiting for Sam5 to work through the math, help me out here.

The part of Einstein's 1905 paper that is giving Sam5 fits is in Section 4:


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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

The unspoken corollary, of course, is that if the clock at B is moved along the line AB to A, then it would be that clock that lags behind - a different result than predicted when we moved the first clock from A to B.

Sam5 points out that Special Relativity's symmetry principle (any inertial frame can be considered "at rest") suggests that we should get the same results regardless of which clock "moves."

So, my question to you all is, how do you explain to someone like Sam5 (i.e. without too much math) that moving the clock along the line A-B is the same as moving the line A-B past the clock, but it is not the same as moving the other clock along the line B-A? Is it even possible for someone to understand that if they don't understand the actual math behind it?

[kilopi]

So, my question to you all is, how do you explain to someone like Sam5 (i.e. without too much math) that moving the clock along the line A-B is the same as moving the line A-B past the clock, but it is not the same as moving the other clock along the line B-A? Is it even possible for someone to understand that if they don't understand the actual math behind it?
The confusion comes from insisting that all the clocks are in inertial reference frames, and so should be treated equally, according to special relativity. The resolution comes from recognizing that one clock, and not the other, changes from one inertial reference frame to another--which is an acceleration. The math, or even the casual analysis, is straigtforward from there.

J* and others used to argue that special relativity only dealt with inertial reference frames, so it was outside its purview to recognize that acceleration--but of course it's not outside the purview, and Einstein treated it in the very first paper published on special relativity.

It is amazing to me that Einstein would recognize this as a "peculiar consequence," publicize it, and persistantly worry it for ten years to ultimately produce general relativity.

[freddo]

The confusion comes from insisting that all the clocks are in inertial reference frames, and so should be treated equally, according to special relativity. The resolution comes from recognizing that one clock, and not the other, changes from one inertial reference frame to another--which is an acceleration. The math, or even the casual analysis, is straigtforward from there.

I'd have to agree with you here. What really boggles my mind though, is that people cannot grasp even this precept. I imagine - short of cutesy little animations - that this is about as abstract from the math the explanation can get.

[Sam5]

So, my question to you all is, how do you explain to someone like Sam5 (i.e. without too much math) that moving the clock along the line A-B is the same as moving the line A-B past the clock, but it is not the same as moving the other clock along the line B-A? Is it even possible for someone to understand that if they don't understand the actual math behind it?



If you move the line A-B past the k frame clock, the K frame clock will move right along with the line A-B. Nobody has ever said we move the B clock along the line B-A. We move the K frame and the whole line AB/BA, along the line A’B’, and the B clock will move along the line B’A’. We’ve been over this dozens of times, and I would appreciate it if you would stop claiming that I said something when in reality I never did. I’ve asked you over and over again not to misrepresent my position and point of view and not to claim that I “believe” something when I don’t.

The clock at B is NEVER moved along the line AB or BA. It is moved along the k frame line B’A’ to A’.

[Sam5]

The unspoken corollary, of course, is that if the clock at B is moved along the line AB to A, then it would be that clock that lags behind - a different result than predicted when we moved the first clock from A to B.

That is not true. The unspoken corollary is that we’ve got two “frames”, not just one. We’ve got the K and the k frames. You know that.

When the motion begins, the B clock moves along the line B’A’ to A’, where the k frame clock is located.

We’ve been over this many times. I even had you draw up two separate pieces of graph paper representing this. The two systems are K and k. During motion, the two relatively moving lines are AB and A’B’. During the motion, the two relatively moving clocks are the A’ clock in k and the B clock in K.

So my question to all is, how can I stop you from misrepresenting what I “believe”? How can I stop you from claiming that I “believe” something that I’ve never said I “believe”?

I have never said that the B clock moves along the line AB or BA. I have often said the B clock is fixed inside the K frame at the B point on the line AB.

When the relative motion begins, the two clocks separate into separate K and k “frames” and they move relatively.

The “clock at A” becomes the A’ clock in the k frame, and the “clock at B” becomes the B clock in the K frame, and they move relatively.

How difficult is that for people to understand?

[SeanF]

Seriously? Then where the bloody heck are you getting a paradox from? The clocks aren't synchronized in the k frame!

EDIT:

Blimey!

Two clocks, which are at A' and B' in k and at A and B in K (at the beginning, K and k are at rest relative to each other). The two clocks are synchronized.

Now, we impart the relative motion v such that point A' in k (with its clock) and point B in K (with its clock) will come together.

The "peculiar consequence" section suggests that if we leave K alone and impart the velocity to k, the A' clock would end up behind the B clock, but that if we leave k alone and impart the velocity to K, the B clock would end up behind the A' clock. However, the symmetry principle demands that having K at rest and k in motion should be the same thing as having k at rest and K in motion. Thus, the predicted "peculiar consequence" difference is a paradox.

Is that it, Sam5?

[Sam5]

Seriously? Then where the bloody heck are you getting a paradox from? The clocks aren't synchronized in the k frame!

The paradox is noticed when we ask the opinions of both observers. The k frame’s A’ clock observer would say that the K frame’s B clock moved, length contracted, and time dilated. The K frame’s B clock observer would say that the k frame’s A’ clock moved, length contracted, and time dilated.

So, at the end of the thought experiment, the k frame’s A’ observer would say, “The B clock moved, length contracted, and time dilated, so now it ‘lags behind’ my clock.” And, from the K frame’s B observer’s point of view, he would say, “The A’ clock moved, length contracted, and time dilated, so now the A’ clock ‘lags behind’ my clock.”

But neither observer would see their own clock move, length contract, or “lag behind”.

So, the two observers would both be standing there side by side, with their own clocks in their hands, saying, “Your clock lags behind mine,” and this is a paradox, because both clocks can’t lag behind each other.

The A’ observer would be saying, “I see 5 on my clock and 4 on your clock”, while the B observer would be saying, “I see 5 on my clock and 4 on your clock,” and such a thing is not possible.

The paradox is not noticed in the earlier thought experiments because he synchronizes the K frame clocks while the K frame is stationary, while he synchronizes the k frame clocks while the k frame is moving relative to the K frame, and he uses light signals and length contraction effects to determine at what “rate” the k frame clocks will run at. Then he “sets” the slower rate of the k frame clock himself with this statement:




Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time τ when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time τ. What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system.

So, based on his earlier method of synchronization of adjusting the rate of the k frame clock while that clock was moving, he actually “adjusts” the tick rate of the k frame clock for what he thinks will be a slow-down in that clock during his next thought experiment. BUT in his next thought experiment he makes the fatal error of synchronizing that clock with the K frame clock and making BOTH clocks synchronous (running at the same rate) BEFORE any motion begins.

And when he makes both clocks synchronized and synchronous, he adjusts the k frame clock rate to be the same as the K frame clock rate when both clocks are stationary. And then, when he moves the two clocks relatively, both frame observers “see” each other’s clock rates “slow down”, while they see their own clock rate NOT slow down. And that’s how he winds up with the paradox in the “peculiar consequence” thought experiment.

[kilopi]

And that’s how he winds up with the paradox in the “peculiar consequence” thought experiment.
It's not a paradox though. Both observers agree.

And, as you've said, it agrees with general relativity.

[Sam5]

Blimey!

Lol, yes, it is a brain twister alright!


However, the symmetry principle demands that having K at rest and k in motion should be the same thing as having k at rest and K in motion. Thus, the predicted "peculiar consequence" difference is a paradox.

Right. Because he synchronized both clocks to each other BEFORE the motion began and while there was NO length contraction taking place in either frame.

When he uses the earlier method of synchronizing the k frame clocks while those clocks were moving relative to the K frame clocks, and when he uses the light signals and the “length contraction” method of setting the k frame clock rate, then the “time dilation” shows up only in the k frame clocks, but not in the K frame clocks, since he synchronized all the K frame clocks while the K frame was stationary.

This is why the “time dilation” appears only in the k frame in his earlier thought experiments.

But by using only two clocks in the “peculiar consequence” thought experiment, and by synchronizing both clocks to each other while both are “stationary” relative to each other, there is no difference in the travel-time rates of the light signals used for synchronization, and there is no “length contraction” going on in either frame while the synchronization process is going on. So, he has both clocks running at exactly the same rate BEFORE the motion begins. So when the relative motion begins, both observers “see” the time dilation in the other frame’s clock, but not in their own frame’s clock, and this leads to the paradox.

[SeanF]

The paradox is not noticed in the earlier thought experiments because he synchronizes the K frame clocks while the K frame is stationary, while he synchronizes the k frame clocks while the k frame is moving relative to the K frame, and he uses light signals and length contraction effects to determine at what “rate” the k frame clocks will run at. Then he “sets” the slower rate of the k frame clock himself with this statement:




Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time τ when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time τ. What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system.

He's not adjusting the rate of the clock, he's adjusting the time on it. He's setting it so it displays "12:00:00" when τ=12:00:00. The tick rate is left alone. You're misunderstanding what he wrote (quelle surprise).

By the way, that last sentence in your quote of Einstein should have a question mark at the end, not a period.

You think he wrote, "I'm going to arbitrarily set the clock rate of this clock to something specific relative to the K frame. Now, what's the clock rate of this clock relative to the K frame? Let's do some math to find out." :roll:

[SeanF]

Blimey!

Lol, yes, it is a brain twister alright!


However, the symmetry principle demands that having K at rest and k in motion should be the same thing as having k at rest and K in motion. Thus, the predicted "peculiar consequence" difference is a paradox.

Right.

Ah, but here's the deal. Of the following two statements, only one is true. Do you know enough about SR to know which one?

A) "The symmetry principle of SR says that when K and k are in relative motion to each other, it makes no difference which is at rest and which is in motion."

B) "The symmetry principle of SR says that if K and k were not in relative motion to each other at one point in time but were at a later point in time, it makes no difference which changed."

Here's a hint. If you pretend the false statement is true, you'll end up with a paradox in SR.

[Sam5]

Sean,

The results of his earlier thought experiments aren’t correct either, even when he has only the k frame clocks “slowing down”, because if they do actually “slow down”, then all the k frame observers would see the K frame clocks “speeding up”, not “slowing down”.

Not understanding this, is how people wind up with three turn-around times on only two Bob and Ann clocks: 5, 4, and 3.2

What they want to have is just two times, 5 and 4, with both Ann and Bob “agreeing”, but, when we ask them what time Bob would “see” on Ann’s clock when he “sees” 4 on his own, then they have to say “it must be 3.2”, since, according to SR theory, Bob would “see” a time dilation in Ann’s clock.

But if we have Ann’s clock really at 5, yet we have to claim Bob “sees” 3.2 on her clock, then we have to multiply Ann’s time by a DOUBLE Lorentz Transformation factor of .8, twice, in order to arrive at the 3.2. But this is incorrect, since in his own theory, Einstein never uses a double Lorentz Transformation factor, so we wind up with a paradox in the Ann and Bob thought experiment.

People who claim that experiment is “correct” and that Bob and Ann “both agree”, don’t seem to notice that Bob and Ann DO NOT AGREE that Bob “sees” 3.2 on Ann’s clock while Ann “sees” 5 on her own clock.

[SeanF]

But if we have Ann’s clock really at 5

Ann's clock is light-years away from Bob's at the turn-around point. Therefore, there is no such thing as what is "really" on Ann's clock at turn-around. It's relative.

Some observers say it's 5.

Some observers say it's 3.2.

Some observers say it's 6.8.

They're all exactly right because it's "really" relative.

[Sam5]

You think he wrote, "I'm going to arbitrarily set the clock rate of this clock to something specific relative to the K frame. Now, what's the clock rate of this clock relative to the K frame? Let's do some math to find out." :roll:

Again I ask you not to try to tell other people what you think I think, because you always get it wrong.

He does not “arbitrarily” decide what rate to set the k clocks at. He decides that by how much length contraction the K observers see in the k frame while the k frame is moving. The rate of the k frame clocks is determined by the velocity of the k frame relative to the K frame, while the k frame synchronizes its clocks while the k frame is moving relative to the K frame.

[SeanF]

You think he wrote, "I'm going to arbitrarily set the clock rate of this clock to something specific relative to the K frame. Now, what's the clock rate of this clock relative to the K frame? Let's do some math to find out." :roll:

Again I ask you not to try to tell other people what you think I think, because you always get it wrong.

He does not “arbitrarily” decide what rate to set the k clocks at. He decides that by how much length contraction the K observers see in the k frame while the k frame is moving. The rate of the k frame clocks is determined by the velocity of the k frame relative to the K frame, while the k frame synchronizes its clocks while the k frame is moving relative to the K frame.

Doesn't matter. You still think he's setting the rate of the clock right before he does some math to figure out what the rate of the clock would naturally be. And that still doesn't make any sense.

[SeanF]

BTW, I thought you were doing some math on the Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally thought experiment so you could show us where the paradox is in it.

Didn't find one, did you?

[kilopi]

But if we have Ann’s clock really at 5, yet we have to claim Bob “sees” 3.2 on her clock, then we have to multiply Ann’s time by a DOUBLE Lorentz Transformation factor of .8, twice, in order to arrive at the 3.2. But this is incorrect, since in his own theory, Einstein never uses a double Lorentz Transformation factor, so we wind up with a paradox in the Ann and Bob thought experiment.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that I use a double Lorentz Transformation on this webpage (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm), and that's why I get the right answer, but Einstein didn't and that's why there is a paradox in special relativity? But there's no paradox in general relativity?


People who claim that experiment is “correct” and that Bob and Ann “both agree”, don’t seem to notice that Bob and Ann DO NOT AGREE that Bob “sees” 3.2 on Ann’s clock while Ann “sees” 5 on her own clock.
Well, in the Bob and Ann thought experiment--as far as I know, there is only one--they do agree.

[Sam5]

Ah, but here's the deal. Of the following two statements, only one is true. Do you know enough about SR to know which one?

A) "The symmetry principle of SR says that when K and k are in relative motion to each other, it makes no difference which is at rest and which is in motion."

B) "The symmetry principle of SR says that if K and k were not in relative motion to each other at one point in time but were at a later point in time, it makes no difference which changed."


They both "change", depending on which one is looking at which clock.

What makes the difference in the “peculiar consequence” thought experiment is that he synchronizes the two frame clocks to each other, and he makes them synchronous (running at the same rate) while both are stationary relative to each other. So in this example, the k frame clock is NOT running slow before the motion begins, since he synchronizes the rate of that clock to the K frame clock while they were both stationary, and when the motion begins, only the K frame observer “sees” the k frame clock running slow, WHILE the k frame observer “sees” the K frame clock run slow.

Based on his earlier “time dilation” math, and his symmetry principle, when the motion begins, then BOTH observers would “see” the other frame’s clock “slow down”, while they would NOT see their own clock “slow down”, so when the two clocks unite at the end, both observers disagree as to what the readings are on the faces of the two clocks.

[SeanF]

They both "change", depending on which one is looking at which clock.

Motion? Relative.

Change in motion? Not relative.

Simple to understand? One would think so.

[Sam5]

SeanF,

Do you understand the difference in his two methods of clock synchronization?

In his earlier example he first has the moving k frame clocks synchronized with the stationary K frame clocks:


We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the stationary system.''

Then he asks the opinion of the moving k frame observers about what they see on the clocks in the k frame, and he says:


Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

Then, to get the moving clocks to synchronize inside the k frame, he changes their rates by using his light-signal method inside the k frame, while the k frame is moving. Thus he makes all the clocks synchronous inside the k frame, but now they are running “slow” according to the K frame.

This is how he “slows down” the k frame clocks in the earlier thought experiment. When he sends the light signals in the k frame, he basically uses the K frame c-regulator for those signals, and since the k frame is moving relative to the K frame c-regulator, this is the results he gets:


But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif

But he doesn’t do that in the “peculiar consequence” thought experiment, because he synchronizes both clocks while there is no motion going on and there is no relative motion betweent the two systems’ c-regulators, so he gets no c-v factor to influence the k frame clock rate, since both clocks and both systems are stationary when the clocks are synchronized.

[Sam5]

Doesn't matter. You still think he's setting the rate of the clock right before he does some math to figure out what the rate of the clock would naturally be. And that still doesn't make any sense.

No, you misunderstand. He sets the rate of the k clock at the beginning of section 4, based on the math and relative motion method he outlined in section 3. But then he changes that rate and negates all the earlier math, by synchronizing the k clock with the K clock while both are still stationary in the “peculiar consequence” thought experiment.

[Sam5]

BTW, I thought you were doing some math on the Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally thought experiment so you could show us where the paradox is in it.

Didn't find one, did you?


In your long 4-clock thought experiment, you have both frames both moving and stationary at the beginning of it. You already have the motion taking place before you try to synchronize the clocks, and this is why you wind up with the incorrect results, which are not based on Einstein’s own theory. You said:

“If Tom and Dick are stationary:

B is used to calculate the time on Sally's clock when Dick passes Sally = 5 years
C is used to calculate the time on Dick's clock when Dick passes Sally = 4 years

If Harry and Sally are stationary:
A is used to calculate the time on Sally's clock when Dick passes Sally = 5 years
D is used to calculate the time on Dick's clock when Dick passes Sally = 4 years”

This is not correct, and it doesn’t match SR theory.

According to SR theory, if Tom and Dick are stationary, Dick will see 4 years pass on his clock when he sees Sally travel a contracted 2.4ly at .6 c, and Dick will “see” Sally’s clock “time dilated” down to 3.2 (based on what Dick sees on his own clock), because that is a requirement of the SR theory.

If Harry and Sally are stationary, Sally will see 5 years pass on her clock when Dick travels an uncontracted 3ly at .6c. Sally will see Dick’s clock “time dilated” down to 4, since that is a requirement of the SR theory.

So, using SR theory and your thought experiments, we wind up with 3 different times for only 2 clocks: 3.2, 4, and 5, and this reveals the paradox of SR theory.

In SR theory, if Tom and Dick are “stationary”, Dick certainly wouldn’t “see” 5 years on Sally’s clock, when he “sees” 4 years on his own, since he is supposed to “see” Sally’s clock as time dilated, not time-expanded. Nor would he see “4” on Sally’s clock when he sees 4 on his own clock, since that would represent no “time dilation” at all. So there is a mistake in your answers.

What you’ve got as a result of your math is Dick seeing 4 years on his clock while Sally has 5 on her clock. If that 5 is what Dick “sees”, then that would represent a moving clock rate “speed up” rather than a slow down, and such a thing is not in the SR theory. If you claim that while “5” is actually on Sally’s clock, but Dick “sees” a time-dilated “4”, then you’ve got Dick seeing on Sally’s clock exactly what he sees on his own clock, even though he saw Sally’s clock move, length contract, and time dilate, but this does not conform to SR theory, since you would have him seeing length contraction in Sally’s system but no time dilation at all, when Dick compares the reading on his clock, which is 4, to the same 4 reading he "sees" on Sally’s clock.

So if he “sees” 5 or 4 on Sally’s clock, that is wrong, when compared to SR theory. If he “sees” 3.2, that reveals the paradox.

[SeanF]

Sam5,

First of all, you're still confused on the whole synchronized/synchronous thing. When Einstein wrote in Section 2:


Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

The disagreement is not on whether the two clocks are both running at the same rate (both observers agree that they are), it is on whether the two clocks are displaying the same time simultaneously. At this point in SR, Einstein hasn't even introduced the time dilation yet.

Secondly, when you are reading these thought experiments (either mine or Einstein's), you need to learn to differentiate between the time displayed on a clock at any given time and the duration ticked off by a clock between any two given times.

In the Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally thought experiment, Dick sees his own clock as displaying "4" and Sally's clock as displaying "5" when they pass each other, but that does not mean that he perceived Sally's clock as ticking off 5 years in the same duration as his own clock ticked off 4, so it doesn't mean he saw Sally's clock running "fast."

Dick says that the duration between Sally setting her clock to 3 and Sally's clock reading 5 was actually 2.5 years. That means Sally's clock is running slow.

[Sam5]

Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

The disagreement is not on whether the two clocks are both running at the same rate (both observers agree that they are), it is on whether the two clocks are displaying the same time simultaneously.


I see what you mean. He should have used the word “synchronized” rather than “synchronous”. Well, that’s no big deal.



At this point in SR, Einstein hasn't even introduced the time dilation yet.

Lol, maybe he hasn’t officially “introduced” it yet, but he certainly has calculated it already, and I’ll show you where he did it.

When he synchronizes the K clocks in the K frame, using the K ether as the K frame c-regulator which is stationary with the K frame, with the speed of light traveling at “c” in both directions, he gets synchronous and synchronized clocks in the K frame. As here:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif

And here:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif

With the light synchronization signal traveling at “c” inside the stationary c-regulator of the stationary frame, which, with our numbers of 3 light years distance between A and B and between B and A. So, at “c”, it takes the light 6 years to make the round trip.

But, when he tries to synchronize the moving k frame clocks using the stationary K frame c-regulator (rather than using the moving k frame c-regulator), or when he tries to synchronize the moving k frame clocks using the K frame light signal traveling through the k frame c-regulator he gets this:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

With the light synchronization signal traveling at:

Ta = 0

Tb= 7.5 years (3ly at .4c) (first direction, before reflection at B, with the signal traveling at .4 c)

T’a = 9.375 total trip time (7.5 yr first direction, plus 1.875 yrs second direction, after reflection at B, with the signal traveling at 1.6c)

With the light signal speed going at c – v, the signal takes 7.5 years to go from A to B.

With the light signal speed going at c + v in the opposite direction, the signal takes 1.875 years to go from B back to A.

So, we’ve got Tb – Ta = 7.5 – 0 = 7.5

And we’ve Rab = 3 / (c-v) = 3 / .4 = 7.5

And we’ve got T’a – Tb = 9.375 – 7.5 = 1.875

And we’ve got Rab = 3 / (c+v) = 3 / 1.6 = 1.875

This is how he gets his time dilation factor.

6 year light signal total travel time in K frame using K ether

9.375 year light signal total travel time in moving k frame using stationary K ether, or with the signal moving in the stationary K frame using the moving k ether.

6 / 9.375 = .64

This is the result of (1 - .6c^2/c^2), and the square root of .64 is the .8 Lorentz Transformation factor.

See? He’s just manipulating the clock rates by switching the c-regulators for the synchronization signals in the k and K frames. So when he uses each frame’s own c-regulator to get the total signal travel time, he gets 6 years total travel time from A to B and back to A, because he has light traveling at “c” inside each frame’s own c-regulator.

But when he starts “looking over into” one frame from the other relatively moving frame, and when he uses the light synchronization signal of one frame traveling through the moving c-regulator of the other frame, then he gets c-v and c+v for the signal travel time, and he gets a total of 9.375 years for the total travel time of the signal from A to B and back to A for the moving k frame.

[Sam5]

SeanF,

Let me show you something else that is interesting about your thought experiment under SR theory.

If we’ve got S moving left 2.4ly to D at .6 c, while we have the light signal from H/D to S moving right 2.4ly at 1 c inside the HS c-regulator, then we’ve got the light signal moving to the right relative to D at only .4 c. That’s because we are using the c-regulator in the HS system, and it is moving relative to D in the TD system, so the speed of the light beam relative to D is only c – v, which is .4 c.

D/S relative speed = .6 c

Signal/S relative speed = 1 c relative to the HS c-regulator

D/Signal relative speed = .4 c

That looks like this in a graph (please disregard spacer dots):

D
H--------------S


.....D
H~~~..........S


..........D
H~~~~~~...S


..............D
H~~~~~~~S

....................D
H~~~~~~~S~


Now, if we use the TD c-regulator to regulate the speed of the light beam, the graph looks like this:

D
H--------------S


...D
H~..............S


........D
H~~~.........S


.............D
H~~~~~.....S


....................D
H~~~~~~~S


And in that case, then the speed of the light relative to D is c, but relative to S it is c + v, or 1.6c. This information turns up in your equation group #B, second line, and in your equation group #F, fourth line.

[Sam5]

In the Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally thought experiment, Dick sees his own clock as displaying "4" and Sally's clock as displaying "5" when they pass each other, but that does not mean that he perceived Sally's clock as ticking off 5 years in the same duration as his own clock ticked off 4, so it doesn't mean he saw Sally's clock running "fast."

Dick says that the duration between Sally setting her clock to 3 and Sally's clock reading 5 was actually 2.5 years. That means Sally's clock is running slow.

ROFLMAO!!!

Now you’ve got Dick not paying any attention to what the reading on Sally’s clock is when he sees it! You’ve got him “calculating” what her time “should be”, based on Einstein’s equations in the Special Theory of Relativity! Hey! That’s one way to get your numbers to work out!!

[Sam5]

SeanF,

Physics joke:

So one physics professor says to another physics professor:

“So, Dick sees 4 on his clock and he sees 5 on Sally’s clock, but he knows Sally’s clock is just lying to both him and Sally. How does he know this? Because he calculated what should be on Sally’s clock, based on what Einstein Sez, and that should be 3.2! So, even though Sally’s clock reads 5 to both Dick AND Sally, we all know that the clock is just lying, because we know that according to what Einstein Sez, the clock should read 3.2! That’s Relativity!”

[SeanF]

Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

The disagreement is not on whether the two clocks are both running at the same rate (both observers agree that they are), it is on whether the two clocks are displaying the same time simultaneously.

I see what you mean. He should have used the word “synchronized” rather than “synchronous”. Well, that’s no big deal.

Wow, an admission to misunderstanding something. We're on the right track now.



At this point in SR, Einstein hasn't even introduced the time dilation yet.

Lol, maybe he hasn’t officially “introduced” it yet, but he certainly has calculated it already, and I’ll show you where he did it.

And now you demonstrate exactly how the postulate of a constant speed of light leads directly to Einstein's equations. Splendid! =D>


SeanF,

Let me show you something else that is interesting about your thought experiment under SR theory.

And then you show us how the thought experiment correctly uses that constant speed of light. In the Tom-Dick reference frame, the light is moving at c relative to Tom and Dick. In the Harry-Sally reference frame, the light is moving at c relative to Harry and Sally. Again . . . =D>


ROFLMAO!!!

Now you’ve got Dick not paying any attention to what the reading on Sally’s clock is when he sees it! You’ve got him “calculating” what her time “should be”, based on Einstein’s equations in the Special Theory of Relativity! Hey! That’s one way to get your numbers to work out!!

Huh? The 5 is what he sees on Sally's clock. But he'd expect it to be 5.5, meaning it's running at 80% of what he would consider "normal." Not sure about your point here . . .

[SeanF]

You’ve got him “calculating” what her time “should be”, based on Einstein’s equations in the Special Theory of Relativity! Hey! That’s one way to get your numbers to work out!!

Ah, yes. When we use Einstein's equations, the numbers work out. That must be absolute proof that Einstein's equations are paradoxical and don't work, eh? The numbers work out when we use the equations, hence the equations don't work!

[freddo]

It begs the question then - what's the other way? :-?

[Sam5]

Huh? The 5 is what he sees on Sally's clock. But he'd expect it to be 5.5, meaning it's running at 80% of what he would consider "normal." Not sure about your point here . . .

Doh

5.5 x .8 is 4.4, not 5.

Einstein sez he’s supposed to see 3.2, not 5, not 4, and certainly not 5.5, if he sees 4 on his own clock.

What hat did you pull this 5.5 number out of?

Anyway, good magic show! =D>

Say, doesn’t Dick get really upset when he sees Sally’s synchronization beam traveling at .4 c and 1.6 c, relative to him?? I mean, certain guys on this board would get all bent out of shape if they saw something like that. =D>

[SeanF]

Huh? The 5 is what he sees on Sally's clock. But he'd expect it to be 5.5, meaning it's running at 80% of what he would consider "normal." Not sure about your point here . . .

Doh

5.5 x .8 is 4.4, not 5.

5.5 - 3 = 2.5
2.5 * .8 = 2
3 + 2 = 5
QED


Einstein sez he’s supposed to see 3.2, not 5, not 4, and certainly not 5.5, if he sees 4 on his own clock.

No, Einstein says he's supposed to see a duration of 3.2 when he sees a duration of 4 on his own clock. That only works out to seeing 3.2 on the other clock if the other clock started at 0 simultaneously with his own.

As per the equations I listed above, he sees Sally's clock tick of a duration of 2 (from 3 to 5) while his own clock ticks off a duration of 2.5 (from 1.5 to 4).


What hat did you pull this 5.5 number out of?

See above.


Anyway, good magic show! =D>

Say, doesn’t Dick get really upset when he sees Sally’s synchronization beam traveling at .4 c and 1.6 c, relative to him?? I mean, certain guys on this board would get all bent out of shape if they saw something like that. =D>

Dick doesn't see Sally's synchronization beam traveling at anything other than c relative to himself.

[Sam5]

No, Einstein says he's supposed to see a duration of 3.2 when he sees a duration of 4 on his own clock. That only works out to seeing 3.2 on the other clock if the other clock started at 0 simultaneously with his own.

As per the equations I listed above, he sees Sally's clock tick of a duration of 2 (from 3 to 5) while his own clock ticks off a duration of 2.5 (from 1.5 to 4).

LOL, so Sally’s clock only time dilates after she receives the 3 year synch signal? It doesn’t dilate while she is waiting 3 years to receive it? That’s pretty amazing, Mr. Science. Show me some more tricks! =D> =D>

[Musashi]

Interesting, weren't you just whining about people being rude to you a little while ago Sam?

[Sam5]

As per the equations I listed above, he sees Sally's clock tick of a duration of 2 (from 3 to 5) while his own clock ticks off a duration of 2.5 (from 1.5 to 4).

So he sees Sally’s clock tick off 2 while his ticks off 2.5, and before that he saw Sally’s clock tick off 3 while his ticked off 1.5!!! I got it now, Mr. Science!!! Sally’s clock first speeds up, so it can later slow down!!! Dat's Relativity!!! Yaaaaa! =D>

And of course you wouldn’t dare tell me that Sally’s clock did not start off at “0” would you? No, you wouldn’t dare do that! You are not that big of a .....

[SeanF]

As per the equations I listed above, he sees Sally's clock tick of a duration of 2 (from 3 to 5) while his own clock ticks off a duration of 2.5 (from 1.5 to 4).

So he sees Sally’s clock tick off 2 while his ticks off 2.5, and before that he saw Sally’s clock tick off 3 while his ticked off 1.5!!! I got it now, Mr. Science!!! Sally’s clock first speeds up, so it can later slow down!!! Dat's Relativity!!! Yaaaaa! =D>

And of course you wouldn’t dare tell me that Sally’s clock did not start off at “0” would you? No, you wouldn’t dare do that! You are not that big of a .....

Go back and read the original post of the thought experiment, Sam5:


Upon reception of Harry's signal, [Sally] sets her clock to 3 (tS=3)

This was done so that her clock and Harry's would be synchronized in the Harry-Sally reference frame, remember? This is an almost absurdly simple thought experiment, Sam5. If you have this much trouble with something this simple, you will never understand Special Relativity.

[Sam5]

Dick doesn't see Sally's synchronization beam traveling at anything other than c relative to himself.

Well sure he does. Einstein saw it. If he didn’t see it, he wouldn’t know to put c – v and c + v into his equations. I saw it. You saw it too. So I suspect that Dick saw it too.

[freddo]

And of course you wouldn’t dare tell me that Sally’s clock did not start off at “0” would you? No, you wouldn’t dare do that! You are not that big of a .....

Finish the sentence.

[Sam5]

Upon reception of Harry's signal, [Sally] sets her clock to 3 (tS=3)

In the HS frame, the distance the signal travels is 3 ly at 1 c = 3 years. Sally sees Dick travel 3 ly at .6c. Dick's total travel time is 5 years for Sally, from the beginning of your thought experiment until Sally passes Dick, and that is why the reading on her clock is 5, and that is what Dick sees, which is not the correct SR time answer, if he sees 4 on his clock. Sally’s time passes 3 years during the signal transit, and 2 more years afterwards.

You have Dick seeing the real time on Sally's clock, not the "dilated" time, although he saw Sally as the one that moved.

You will never admit that I am right, and your classmates will never understand that I’m right.

And you now know why the paradox turns up in the “peculiar conseqence” thougth experiment, because Einstein made the mistake of synchronizing the two clocks while both were still stationary.

[Sam5]

Finish the sentence.

“magician” =D>

[Eroica]

Sam, I don't think you even bothered to read my previous post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=182403#182403), in which I explained all this and showed that everything is in accord with SR and all four participants - Tom, Dick, Harry and Sally - are in agreement.

[Eroica]

Sally’s time passes 3 years during the signal transit, and 2 more years afterwards.
I don't know where you got this from. When Harry sends the signal to Sally, Sally is 2.4 light years away, as far as Dick's concerned. She is approaching at 0.6c, so she receives the signal after 1.5 years pass on Dick's clock, by which time Sally has covered 0.9 light-years. No time passes on Sally's clock, because she hasn't set it going yet! When she receives the signal, she sets her clock to 3 years and sets it going.

Why does she set it to 3 years. Because as far as she's concerned Harry is 3 light years away and at rest. So he must have sent the signal three years ago.

It takes Sally a further 2.5 years to cover the remaining 1.5 light years, as measured by Dick's clock. So 4 years elapse for Dick between Harry's sending the signal and Sally's arrival. Because of time dilation, Sally's clock only ticks off 2 years during those 2.5 Dick-years. So her clock reads 5 years when she passes Dick.


You have Dick seeing the real time on Sally's clock, not the "dilated" time, although he saw Sally as the one that moved.
No. If Sally's clock were ticking as fast as Dick's, it would show 5.5 years when she passes Dick. 5 years is the dilated time.



You will never admit that I am right, and your classmates will never understand that I’m right.
Correct on both counts - because you are wrong.

[SeanF]

Dick doesn't see Sally's synchronization beam traveling at anything other than c relative to himself.

Well sure he does. Einstein saw it. If he didn’t see it, he wouldn’t know to put c – v and c + v into his equations. I saw it. You saw it too. So I suspect that Dick saw it too.

Tom and Dick sees light moving at c-v and/or c+v relative to Harry and Sally. Conversely, Harry and Sally see light moving at c-v and/or c+v relative to Tom and Dick. Nobody ever sees light moving at anything other than c relative to him- or herself.


You have Dick seeing the real time on Sally's clock, not the "dilated" time

Sam5, the first thing you need to understand about Relativity is that the "dilated" time is no less "real" than the "undilated" time.


You will never admit that I am right, and your classmates will never understand that I’m right.

And again, you should really consider the fact that everybody disagrees with you to be evidence that you just might be wrong.

[Sam5]

as far as Dick's concerned. She is approaching at 0.6c, so she receives the signal after 1.5 years pass on Dick's clock, by which time Sally has covered 0.9 light-years. No time passes on Sally's clock, because she hasn't set it going yet! When she receives the signal, she sets her clock to 3 years and sets it going.

No time on Sally’s clock?? Sally’s clock is not running??

That’s the most ridiculous “time dilation” thought experiment I’ve ever heard!!!

If H sends S a time signal starting at 0 for H and 0 for S, and if S is 3 ly away from H in her frame and if her signal travels at c, then she will receive the signal at 3 by her clock. Two more years pass on her clock and her clock reads “5” when she sees D clock reading 4 and you’ve still got a paradox.

You can’t play games with SR theory and say that only 2 real years shows on her clock as seen by D, because the other 3 of the 5 were years she purposely set just so her clock would read 5 when D sees it. Even Einstein doesn’t use any of those silly tricks.

The more complicated your thought experiments become the more ridiculous they become. You can’t cover up the fact that the “time dilation” occurred in Section 3 of the paper because Einstein set the k clock using the K time signals moving through the moving k ether, and in one direction the signals travel at 1.6 c and in the other they travel at .4 c, while the paradox occurs in Section 4 because he set both clocks while both were stationary.

[Sam5]

Sally’s time passes 3 years during the signal transit, and 2 more years afterwards.


I don't know where you got this from.

As far as Harry and Sally are concerned, they are 3 ly apart. Both of their clocks read 0. In their frame the synch signal takes 3 years to reach Sally. So when she receives it, her clock reads “3”. Dick has traveled 1.8 ly by this time at .6 c. He has 1.2 more ly to go to reach 3ly distance. That takes him 2 more years by Sally’s clock.

His total travel time shows on his clock as 4 time-dilated years when her total time is 5 undilated years. This is because you have him see Sally travel 2.4 ly instead of 3. But you have Sally see him travel 3ly, so that’s why 5 is showing on her clock.

But you don’t want him to see 5 “real” years on Sally’s clock because he is supposed to se only 3.2 years on her clock, according to SR theory, so you try to cover up the errors in the thought experiment and the SR errors by just saying Sally’s clock was not running for a while, then when she started it running, she set its time to some advanced number.

What you are doing isn’t even in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, so you aren’t even talking about SR theory. You are manipulating the numbers and the thought experiments merely to cover up your errors and the errors in SR paper. And no mature, intelligent, science-minded adult is going to fall for your excuse that “Sally’s clock just wasn’t running yet” or “Ann’s time suddenly jumps”, or any other silly manipulation that is not even mentioned in the SR paper.

A person can’t give the parameters of a thought experiment and then leave something important out, such as, “Oh, I forgot to tell you, Sally’s clock wasn’t running for a while, during the time she was moving.”

[Sam5]

If Sally's clock were ticking as fast as Dick's, it would show 5.5 years when she passes Dick. 5 years is the dilated time.


I’ve told you what H and S “see” in their own frame, and 5 is not a dilated factor of 5.5 x .8.

[SeanF]

If H sends S a time signal starting at 0 for H and 0 for S, and if S is 3 ly away from H in her frame and if her signal travels at c, then she will receive the signal at 3 by her clock. Two more years pass on her clock and her clock reads “5” when she sees D clock reading 4 and you’ve still got a paradox.

I bolded that phrase for a reason. Sure, we can say that Sally's clock was already set so that her clock will already be 3 when she receives Harry's signal.

However, the two reference frames will disagree on what Sally's clock says when Harry sends the signal. That's part of the whole "two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." Harry sending the signal and Sally's clock displaying 0 are simultaneous in the Harry-Sally reference frame, but not in the Tom-Dick reference frame. So you still don't have Tom seeing Sally's clock tick off 5 years in the same duration his own ticks off 4.


You can’t play games with SR theory and say that only 2 real years shows on her clock as seen by D, because the other 3 of the 5 were years she purposely set just so her clock would read 5 when D sees it. Even Einstein doesn’t use any of those silly tricks.

She didn't set it to 3 "just so her clock would read 5 when D sees it." She set it to 3 so that her clock and Harry's clock would be synchronized. The fact that it ends up with 5 on her clock when Dick reaches her is just evidence that SR has no paradox.


The more complicated your thought experiments become the more ridiculous they become. You can’t cover up the fact that the “time dilation” occurred in Section 3 of the paper because Einstein set the k clock using the K time signals moving through the moving k ether, and in one direction the signals travel at 1.6 c and in the other they travel at .4 c, while the paradox occurs in Section 4 because he set both clocks while both were stationary.

There is no freakin' ether. There is no "c-regulator" that's different in one reference frame than in the other. The speed of light in a vacuum simply is c.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but . . . You don't know what you're talking about.

[SeanF]

A person can’t give the parameters of a thought experiment and then leave something important out, such as, “Oh, I forgot to tell you, Sally’s clock wasn’t running for a while, during the time she was moving.”

In my post where I presented this thought experiment:


Upon reception of Harry's signal, [Sally] sets her clock to 3 (tS=3)

How can you claim that I "left that out" or "forgot to tell you" that? It's right there!

[Sam5]

Sally’s time passes 3 years during the signal transit, and 2 more years afterwards.


I don't know where you got this from.


Sean said:

”Harry and Sally are also sitting motionless relative to each other. They also can measure their distance apart as exactly three light-years.”

And he said:

”Now, pick either TD or HS and assume that system is "stationary." From this reference frame, the two "stationary" observers will be three light-years apart and motionless”

This means when Harry, at 0 by his clock, sends the signal to Sally, she receives it in 3 years and her clock reads “3” already. She doesn’t have to “set it to 3”, because it was obviously at 0 when Harry first sent the signal.

Sean did not ask “what will Dick see along the way while Sally is moving”, he asked:

From the TD reference frame:

”From this reference frame, calculate what times will be on Dick & Sally's clocks at DxS.”

And from the HS reference frame:

”From this reference frame, calculate what times will be on Dick & Sally's clocks at DxS.”

And I did that.

D sees only 4 years pass because he sees Sally moving 2.4 ly at .6 c. Sally sees 5 years pass because she sees D travel 3 ly at .6c.

These two times of 4 and 5 don’t match any of the results of SR theory.

According to SR theory, D is “supposed” to see only 3.2 years on the S clock, but this number can’t be achieved the way this thought experiment is set up.

[Sam5]

A person can’t give the parameters of a thought experiment and then leave something important out, such as, “Oh, I forgot to tell you, Sally’s clock wasn’t running for a while, during the time she was moving.”

In my post where I presented this thought experiment:


Upon reception of Harry's signal, [Sally] sets her clock to 3 (tS=3)

How can you claim that I "left that out" or "forgot to tell you" that? It's right there!

I never said you left that part out. I said you left the part out where you now claim Sally’s clock “wasn’t running” part of the time.

In the HS frame, there is no need to “set” Sally’s clock, if her clock started out at 0 in the first place.

If you want, it can read “3” and she can “reset it to 3”. But since you said:

”Harry and Sally are also sitting motionless relative to each other. They also can measure their distance apart as exactly three light-years.”

If Harry sends a signal to Sally, when his clock reads 0, then her clock also reads 0 in that frame at that time, and her clock will read 3 when she receives the signal from Harry, since 3 years have passed on her clock.

If you want to say Sally’s clock reads 5,495,290,984,740 when Harry’s clock reads “0” you can say that. But by the time she gets the signal, her clock will read: 5,495,290,984,743, because three years have passed on her clock, so she resets it to read “3”. Her total time while D travels 3ly at .6 c is 5.

[Sam5]

However, the two reference frames will disagree on what Sally's clock says when Harry sends the signal.

That doesn’t matter. You didn’t ask what D would see on the S clock when H sends the signal. You didn’t ask for that information.

You asked only for the end times when D and S meet, and I gave you the end times. I also gave you the 3.2 “dilated time” which, according to SR theory, D is “supposed” to see on the S clock, but he doesn’t see that in your thought experiment, so your experiment doesn’t conform to SR theory.

[Eroica]

But you don’t want [Dick] to see 5 “real” years on Sally’s clock because he is supposed to se only 3.2 years on her clock, according to SR theory, so you try to cover up the errors in the thought experiment and the SR errors by just saying Sally’s clock was not running for a while, then when she started it running, she set its time to some advanced number.

You're forgetting that SR is a tripod. It has three legs: space contraction, time dilation, and relative simultaneity.

You want Sally to set her clock to zero at the same moment that Harry sets his to zero. But what Harry and Sally see as the same moment will be two different moments to Dick.

Let's do the math. First, how do we synchronize Harry and Sally's clocks? Imagine a fifth person is sitting halfway between Harry and Sally, and is at rest relative to them. This fifth person sends a signal to Harry and Sally telling them to set their clocks to zero. In the HS frame Harry and Sally receive this signal at the same time. This fifth person times it so that Harry receives the signal just as Dick passes him.

Now - as you correctly pointed out - in the HS frame, it will take Dick 5 years to cover the 3 light years between Harry and Sally, so her clock reads 5 years when Dick passes her.

But in Dick's frame, Sally set her clock to zero 2.25 years too soon. Look at it this way. In Dick's frame, Harry is rushing away from the fifth person's signal at 0.6c, while Sally is rushing towards it at 0.6c. It takes 3 years by Dick's clock for Harry to receive the signal, whereas Sally receives it after just 3/4 of a year. So her clock is running for 2.25 Dick-years before Harry stars his clock. But because of time dilation, her clock only ticks 1.8 years.

So when Harry passes Dick, Sally's clock already reads 1.8 years. It takes her - as you correctly pointed out - 3.2 dilated years to reach Dick, by which time her clock shows 5 years. No paradox!

[Sam5]

And again, you should really consider the fact that everybody disagrees with you to be evidence that you just might be wrong.

“Everybody” does not “disagree” with me. Only about 5 of your friends on this board, out of 6,500,000,000 people in the entire world disagree with me, but you 5 or 6 don’t represent or speak for the entire world population.

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.

Your 6 to 1 “majority opinion” is not the way science operates. Nature doesn’t conform to the “internet message board poster-majority” opinion. Not any more than “chemtrails contain poison” is “true”, just because a majority of opinion on a chemtrail message board says that it’s “true”.

[SeanF]

I never said you left that part out. I said you left the part out where you now claim Sally’s clock “wasn’t running” part of the time.

If Sally resets her clock to 3 when she receives Harry's signal, then what difference does it make what her clock was doing before that? It could've been showing 5, it could've been showing 2, it could've been showing 6, it could've been showing 3, it could've not been running at all. Because she resets it to 3 when she receives Harry's signal, it doesn't matter.


In the HS frame, there is no need to “set” Sally’s clock, if her clock started out at 0 in the first place.

But Harry and Dick will, must, disagree as to when her clock said 0. If Harry says her clock says 0 at the same time Harry's clock says 0, then Dick says her clock says 0 2.25 years before Harry's clock says 0. This simultaneity issue in SR has been pointed out to you multiple times (I even pointed out exactly where Einstein mentions it in the 1905 paper). You can't just ignore it and pretend that the time dilation tells you everything you need to know about what a clock will be showing when two observers meet up.


If you want, it can read “3” and she can “reset it to 3”. But since you said:

”Harry and Sally are also sitting motionless relative to each other. They also can measure their distance apart as exactly three light-years.”

If Harry sends a signal to Sally, when his clock reads 0, then her clock also reads 0 in that frame at that time, and her clock will read 3 when she receives the signal from Harry, since 3 years have passed on her clock.

If you want to say Sally’s clock reads 5,495,290,984,740 when Harry’s clock reads “0” you can say that. But by the time she gets the signal, her clock will read: 5,495,290,984,743, because three years have passed on her clock, so she resets it to read “3”. Her total time while D travels 3ly at .6 c is 5.

In the H-S reference frame, it takes 3 years for Harry's signal to reach Sally (and Sally's clock will tick off 3 years during this duration). In the T-D reference frame, it takes 1.5 years (and Sally's clock will only tick off 1.2 years during this duration). That means that if Sally receives Harry's signal when her clock says 3, it was sent when her clock said 0 in the H-S reference frame. It was sent when her clock said 1.8 in the T-D reference frame. Simultaneity is relative.

[SeanF]

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.

I bet they would agree with us after we explained it to them.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]"Everybody" does not "disagree" with me. Only about 5 of your friends on this board, out of 6,500,000,000 people in the entire world disagree with me, but you 5 or 6 don’t represent or speak for the entire world population.

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.
Can you please name some of these "dozens of physics professors and professional physicists" of yours? Please put up or shut up.

[Sam5]

If Sally resets her clock to 3 when she receives Harry's signal, then what difference does it make what her clock was doing before that? It could've been showing 5, it could've been showing 2, it could've been showing 6, it could've been showing 3, it could've not been running at all. Because she resets it to 3 when she receives Harry's signal, it doesn't matter.


Hmm, I wonder where you got that idea?


If you want to say Sally’s clock reads 5,495,290,984,740 when Harry’s clock reads “0” you can say that. But by the time she gets the signal, her clock will read: 5,495,290,984,743, because three years have passed on her clock, so she resets it to read “3”. Her total time while D travels 3ly at .6 c is 5.

[Sam5]

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.

I bet they would agree with us after we explained it to them.


Lol, I can just see all the working physicists of the world looking for the answers to the most difficult problems of physics, not knowing that all they have to do is come here and ask you to solve those problems for them.

I can just see one of them accidentally stumbling upon one of your posts, and then he calls all his physicist friends and says, “Hey! He must be right, because 5 of his friends agree with him! That’s Relativity!”

[Sam5]

In the H-S reference frame, it takes 3 years for Harry's signal to reach Sally (and Sally's clock will tick off 3 years during this duration). In the T-D reference frame, it takes 1.5 years (and Sally's clock will only tick off 1.2 years during this duration). :^o

Lol. You’re saying that Sally would “see” 3 years in 3 years by her clock, but D would see Sally’s 3 years take 1.5 years?? So now she’s got a time dilation factor of 50%. And then you say that while D “sees” the 3 years taking 1.5 years, he will “see” Sally’s clock ticking only 1.2 years during those 3 years? You’ve got him “seeing” her 3 years take 1.5 years, while her clocks ticks off 3 years, while he sees her clock tick off only 1.2 years. That doesn’t make any sense at all. You’re saying he “sees” her 3 years take both 1.5 and 1.2 years on his clock. =D>

[Sam5]

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.

I bet they would agree with us after we explained it to them. :^o


If you guys are as smart and as correct as you say you are, with all the physicists of the world “agreeing” with you if they were to read your posts, then I don’t understand why you are wasting your time on the internet. You should be in charge of physics theory at Harvard or NASA, or Los Alamos, or UCLA.

[SeanF]

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.

I bet they would agree with us after we explained it to them.


Lol, I can just see all the working physicists of the world looking for the answers to the most difficult problems of physics, not knowing that all they have to do is come here and ask you to solve those problems for them.

Special Relativity solves the "most difficult problems of physics"?!


You’re saying that Sally would “see” 3 years in 3 years by her clock, but D would see Sally’s 3 years take 1.5 years??

No, I'm saying that the time between transmission and reception of the signal is 3 years in Sally's reference frame and 1.5 years in Dick's. You really don't understand SR, do you?

[Grey]

Lol, I can just see all the working physicists of the world looking for the answers to the most difficult problems of physics, not knowing that all they have to do is come here and ask you to solve those problems for them.

I can just see one of them accidentally stumbling upon one of your posts, and then he calls all his physicist friends and says, “Hey! He must be right, because 5 of his friends agree with him! That’s Relativity!”
I'm a graduate student, working toward my PhD in physics, so I talk to physics profrssors quite frequently, and have taken courses from some of them covering relativity theory. None that I have discussed this with believe that there are fundamental contradictions in special relativity, or that there is a paradox in Einstein's "peculiar consequence".

I'd concur with Celestial Mechanic; if you know of dozens of physics professors who agree with you, provide some corroboration. Every physics professor I know loves to correct misuderstandings of physics, so if you were to ask them, I'm certain that some of them would be happy to take a few moments to explain to the people here why they are mistaken.

[Kaptain K]

[Snip!]"Everybody" does not "disagree" with me. Only about 5 of your friends on this board, out of 6,500,000,000 people in the entire world disagree with me, but you 5 or 6 don’t represent or speak for the entire world population.

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.
Can you please name some of these "dozens of physics professors and professional physicists" of yours? Please put up or shut up.
[Heck], I'd settle for just one! C'mon Sam5, name one physics professor or professional physicist who agrees with your interpretation of SR. As CM said, " put up or shut up".

[Laser Jock]

Lol, I can just see all the working physicists of the world looking for the answers to the most difficult problems of physics, not knowing that all they have to do is come here and ask you to solve those problems for them.

I can just see one of them accidentally stumbling upon one of your posts, and then he calls all his physicist friends and says, “Hey! He must be right, because 5 of his friends agree with him! That’s Relativity!”
I'm a graduate student, working toward my PhD in physics, so I talk to physics profrssors quite frequently, and have taken courses from some of them covering relativity theory. None that I have discussed this with believe that there are fundamental contradictions in special relativity, or that there is a paradox in Einstein's "peculiar consequence".

I'd concur with Celestial Mechanic; if you know of dozens of physics professors who agree with you, provide some corroboration. Every physics professor I know loves to correct misuderstandings of physics, so if you were to ask them, I'm certain that some of them would be happy to take a few moments to explain to the people here why they are mistaken.

I echo what Grey says. I too am a graduate student in (optical) physics. I have taken courses in relativity and even a course on relatavistic quantum mechanics (really cool how how the ideas of anti-matter and such come out of the math). Like Grey's professors, none I have known see any problems with relativity. I would also like to know something about these "dozens of physics professors."

Sam5, you also imply that special relativity is somehow one of "the most difficult problems of physics". That is not at all true. Your average sophmore physics major has little trouble grasping it. When you start to generalize the concepts to gravity or quantum mechanics, you quickly get into graduate level (and beyond). However, the troubles that you are having are at a basic conceptual level. You think that this is cutting edge, but it is really very basic.

[Sam5]

I'm a graduate student, working toward my PhD in physics, so I talk to physics profrssors quite frequently, and have taken courses from some of them covering relativity theory. None that I have discussed this with believe that there are fundamental contradictions in special relativity, or that there is a paradox in Einstein's "peculiar consequence".

Several days ago, Sean saw the pardox and described it. He even described the reason for it. I've got his exact quote on it. I saved that page of this thread to disk. Now he again denies there is a paradox. I'm trying to figure out what phenomenon of human psychology is involved with this strange turn-around in attitude.

Ok, let me ask you this. Do you see a paradox in this statement, and if not, can you tell me which of two relatively moving rockets will have a glass of water freeze first, as their relative velocity increases. Which glass will be "seen" to be cold enough to freeze, and which will actually freeze, if any:

“Thus, the temperature of a moving system is always lower with respect to a reference system that is in motion relative to it than with respect to a reference system that is at rest relative to it.”

If you can’t answer it, please ask some of your professors to answer it.

[SeanF]

I'm a graduate student, working toward my PhD in physics, so I talk to physics profrssors quite frequently, and have taken courses from some of them covering relativity theory. None that I have discussed this with believe that there are fundamental contradictions in special relativity, or that there is a paradox in Einstein's "peculiar consequence".

Several days ago, Sean saw the pardox and described it. He even described the reason for it. I've got his exact quote on it. I saved that page of this thread to disk. Now he again denies there is a paradox. I'm trying to figure out what phenomenon of human psychology is involved with this strange turn-around in attitude.

In case anyone is wondering, Sam5 is referring to this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9731&start=314). You can decide for yourself if there's any paradox in what I described.


Ok, let me ask you this.

Hold on to your seats, everybody! Subject change coming up!

[Sam5]

I'm a graduate student, working toward my PhD in physics,

While I’m at it, let me ask you this:

If I were to say that in the moving-coil/moving-magnet Faraday experiment, if the experiment is conducted in a university classroom, would it be possible for one law of physics to cause the electron flow in the coil for just some of the students, while a completely different law of physics causes the electron flow for the other students? I’m not talking about what they “see”. Let’s say they are all wearing blindfolds and they don’t get anywhere near the coil or the magnet. The law of physics that causes the electron flow is related to the magnet and the coil only, but not to the students, so can one law apply to the electron flow while some of the students are in the room, while a different law applies while some of the other students are in the room?

Or let me ask it this way: Can 6 students be in the room but not near the coil and magnet, and have one law of physics to cause the electron flow, then they leave the room and 6 different students come in and all of a sudden a different law of physics causes the electron flow? Assuming none of the students ever get close enough to the magnet or the coil to physically influence the electron flow in the coil.

[Sam5]

Hold on to your seats, everybody! Subject change coming up!

At least no one is mad at this point in time. I’m rather enjoying myself. How about you?

[Grey]

Several days ago, Sean saw the pardox and described it. He even described the reason for it. I've got his exact quote on it. I saved that page of this thread to disk. Now he again denies there is a paradox. I'm trying to figure out what phenomenon of human psychology is involved with this strange turn-around in attitude.
I don't believe that Sean has ever agreed that there's a paradox involved. He has on a few occasions tried to describe what he thought you saw as a paradox, and gone from there to try to explain why it isn't a paradox, but you then took him to task for claiming to know what you were thinking.


Ok, let me ask you this. Do you see a paradox in this statement, and if not, can you tell me which of two relatively moving rockets will have a glass of water freeze first, as their relative velocity increases. Which glass will be "seen" to be cold enough to freeze, and which will actually freeze, if any:

“Thus, the temperature of a moving system is always lower with respect to a reference system that is in motion relative to it than with respect to a reference system that is at rest relative to it.”
Neither glass of water will be seen to freeze, of course. While observers moving in different ways may disagree with what order events happen in and how much time elapses between them, they will always agree on what events actually happen. Since neither astronaut sees his own glass of water freeze, we know he won't see the other one freeze. Remember that other observable quantities about the water change as well (its length, and therefore volume, which will affect pressure, and so forth). Since the temperature at which water freezes can change when you change pressure, I'd guess that each astronaut would see the freezing point of water in the other ship decrease enough to explain why the water doesn't freeze. One of the nice things about relativity is that if you want to know what events take place, you can always work it out in the most convenient reference frame, and you know that all other observers will agree about the actual events, even if they may disagree about the timing of those events.

I know this comes from Einstein's 1907 paper (I believe you're using Anna Beck's translation in a collection of Einstein's papers, yes?), but I don't have a copy of that available to peruse. Do you know of any online source for this? I'd like to read the context of this statement, and if he gives the mathematical details involved, I'm sure we can work things out to see exactly why neither glass of water freezes, rather than relying on my speculation above. However, if you don't know of an online resource, I'll have to wait until January when I'm campus and can get to the university library again. Perhaps we can table this particular question until then, since it doesn't really relate to the rest of the discussion.


If I were to say that in the moving-coil/moving-magnet Faraday experiment, if the experiment is conducted in a university classroom, would it be possible for one law of physics to cause the electron flow in the coil for just some of the students, while a completely different law of physics causes the electron flow for the other students? I’m not talking about what they “see”. Let’s say they are all wearing blindfolds and they don’t get anywhere near the coil or the magnet. The law of physics that causes the electron flow is related to the magnet and the coil only, but not to the students, so can one law apply to the electron flow while some of the students are in the room, while a different law applies while some of the other students are in the room?

Or let me ask it this way: Can 6 students be in the room but not near the coil and magnet, and have one law of physics to cause the electron flow, then they leave the room and 6 different students come in and all of a sudden a different law of physics causes the electron flow? Assuming none of the students ever get close enough to the magnet or the coil to physically influence the electron flow in the coil.
Since you're asking this question in the context of a relativity discussion, I'll try to make sure I address the relativistic issues that are inherent in your question, even though you haven't made them explicit. First of all, the only really important thing is that all the students will see the same result from the experiment. In your precise example, they will indeed all agree on what laws of physics are causing that event, because during the experiment in each case, all the students are at rest relative to the apparatus.

However, if a group of students were hurtling by the classroom at some considerable velocity, they might disagree with the students who were just sitting there about what electric and magnetic fields are present in the apparatus, and thus disagree about the cause for the electrrical behavior. Whether they wouold disagree, and just what their disagreement might be, would depend on exactly what their relative motion to the apparatus was.

This really stems from the electrodynamic effects of relativity, which you've said you have no problems with, so I assume you'd agree with this assessment as well.

[freddo]

However, if a group of students were hurtling by the classroom at some considerable velocity
:lol: Good mental imagery..

[Sam5]

Since you're asking this question in the context of a relativity discussion, I'll try to make sure I address the relativistic issues that are inherent in your question, even though you haven't made them explicit. First of all, the only really important thing is that all the students will see the same result from the experiment. In your precise example, they will indeed all agree on what laws of physics are causing that event, because during the experiment in each case, all the students are at rest relative to the apparatus.

However, if a group of students were hurtling by the classroom at some considerable velocity, they might disagree with the students who were just sitting there about what electric and magnetic fields are present in the apparatus, and thus disagree about the cause for the electrrical behavior. Whether they wouold disagree, and just what their disagreement might be, would depend on exactly what their relative motion to the apparatus was.

Ok, thanks for your response. You are very polite and courteous about this discussion, and I see that we pretty much agree about the issue of the moving students hurtling by the classroom, except for one particular detail, and that detail is the very crux of this entire debate on this thread.

I’ll respond to the first part of your response a little later, but right now I want to pursue this moving-student issue.

I’m not quite sure what effects students traveling at that speed would notice, but I’m inclined to commit myself and say that I believe their perception would be very considerably altered, based not only on what we know about reality and scientific observation to date, but based on some very astute observations Einstein made in the Electrodynamical part of SR theory and in various papers of his GR theory. Of course, what the moving students would see or experience would not have any effect on the coil or magnet, or the other students, unless the moving students happened to run in to them or wiggle them or disturb them in some way by their rapid motion past them. If you disagree with this opinion of mine, then please let me know.

Now, based on the statement I’ve just made, I would say that the experience of the moving students would not really be due to “relative motion”. This is the most important point I’ve been trying to make here, but I think my point is just too subtle for anyone to understand in the simple and perhaps crude way I’ve been trying to explain it. But I think you might understand it, and what I’m trying to say, since you are a current physics student, and since we agree about most of what you posted in your response to me.

So, although I agree with your basic assessment about how the moving students might notice some effects due to their “motion”, I would disagree with your use of the term “relative motion”. I would say that what the moving students might notice, observe, or experience will not be due to “relative motion” between them and the other students, the magnet, and the coil, not at all, since their rapid motion causes absolutely no effect on the other students, the magnet, or the coil. So, the effects we are musing about might be called “classical electrodynamical” effects, and the effects Einstein described in the Electrodynamical part of his paper (the correct effects that he described) were what I would call “classical electrodynamical” effects. Whereas, my opinion of the Kinematical part of his paper – the bizarre part – is that it should be ripped from the pages of his 1905 theory, not taught in any physics classes in the world, and retired to university physics museums and libraries and placed under glass, on display, as representing an antiquated, outdated, and erroneous science theory that turned out to not only be wrong, but to be ridiculous.

Now, I would like your opinion about what I just said, if you don’t mind.

And if you disagree with me about the Kinematical part of the paper, I will now set out to, hopefully, prove my point and explain to you exactly what I’m talking about.

So, I would NOT attribute the altered perception of the moving students to “relative motion”, as you called it. This is apparently where you and I disagree, and this is what I hope to change your mind about, and, in the process, hopefully, I will be able to explain to you why I think the Kinematical part of the paper is so stupid, while I acknowledge that the Electrodynamical part is very clever, astute, and brilliant.

I maintain that the differences between the Kinematical part of the paper and the Electrodynamical part of the paper are so very subtle, they are as subtle as the elusive “aether” itself, in which all mankind has been resting for the past 3 million years.

If you think I’ve made any errors in my interpretation of the story I’m about to tell you, please let me know.

Let us now think of this slightly different version of the thought experiment you responded to above. I don’t have my compass bearings exactly right on this, but I think they will be close enough, and I will explain to you later what this is all about.

Ok, we’ve got a physics professor in Esmeraldas, Ecuador. He is in the Plaza there, facing North. He is demonstrating Faraday’s magnet/coil experiment to a group of students. He is moving both the coil and the magnet, one in each hand. A current is flowing through the coil.

Ok, now, there is a physics student in Sibolga, Sumatra. He is in his apartment. He is worried about a test that is coming up tomorrow, so he’s pacing back and forth across the floor of his apartment, first East, then West, then East, then West.

What would you think if I told you that every time that student changes direction, the force of nature and the physics law that determines what force compels the electrons to flow through he coil in Esmeraldas, Ecuador, changes? When the student in Sumatra walks East, the physics law changes in Esmeraldas. And when he turns around and walks West, the law again changes in Esmeraldas. While the student in Sumatra has absolutely no idea the magnet/coil demonstration is even going on in Esmeraldas.

Furthermore, suppose I say that an electric field that is present at the magnet and coil in Esmeraldas, when the student in Sumatra is walking in one direction, totally disappears from the face of the earth when he turns around and changes directions and walks the other way in Sumatra? What would you say if I made those two claims? And please be honest and forthright in your response.

[SeanF]

Furthermore, suppose I say that an electric field that is present at the magnet and coil in Esmeraldas, when the student in Sumatra is walking in one direction, totally disappears from the face of the earth when he turns around and changes directions and walks the other way in Sumatra? What would you say if I made those two claims? And please be honest and forthright in your response.

If I didn't know you, I would say that you were setting up a strawman, claiming that Special Relativity says something it doesn't actually say so that you can attack that false claim.

Since I do know you, I don't believe that you're intentionally setting up a strawman. I believe that you simply don't understand SR. SR does not predict that anything changes in the electric field when that student changes direction. It couldn't, obviously, because the students there in the classroom would notice its disappearance.

In dealing with Dick and Sally, SR does not predict that anything changes on Sally's clock (or Dick's clock) because she and Dick are moving relative to each other. Nothing changes in Sally's glass of water or coil-and-magnet electric field, either.

There is a point in space-time where Harry's clock is sitting and displaying "0". There is another point in space-time where Sally's clock is sitting and displaying "5". What's the distance between those two points in space-time, in both spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions?

The answer is that it's relative. From the reference frame in which Harry and Sally are motionless, those two points are three light-years and five years apart. From the reference frame in which Tom and Dick are motionless, those two points are zero light-years and four years apart.

It is not that the relative motion did something physical to Dick's clock that made it only tick off four years. It is the simple fact that those two points are only four years apart. Dick's clock is running just fine, which is why it only ticks off four years in four years!

[Sam5]

SeanF,

I’m waiting for Grey’s response.

I’m not setting up a strawman. I’m trying to reveal something strange about Einstein’s relativity theories, about why some of his early statements were correct while others were not.

In the meantime, read what he said about the magnet and the coil in the first paragraph of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, and let me know what you think about his comments.

[SeanF]

SeanF,

I’m waiting for Grey’s response.

Okay.


I’m not setting up a strawman. I’m trying to reveal something strange about Einstein’s relativity theories, about why some of his early statements were correct while others were not.

So far, the only thing you've revealed about Einstein's relativity theories is that you don't fully understand them.


In the meantime, read what he said about the magnet and the coil in the first paragraph of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, and let me know what you think about his comments.

Why? Do you want to find out how what you think is wrong before you verbalize it? If you want to talk about his comments, why don't you start by telling us what you think about them?

[Sam5]

So far, the only thing you've revealed about Einstein's relativity theories is that you don't fully understand them.

No, and it is useless for you to keep saying that. I think we need to stop arguing about the twins for the time being.


SR does not predict that anything changes in the electric field when that student changes direction. It couldn't, obviously, because the students there in the classroom would notice its disappearance.

Ok, then read what he said about the magnet and the coil, and give me your opinion about it. If you don’t know or if you have no opinion, just say so. I’ll get back to you later. I’m still waiting for Grey’s response.

[SeanF]

So far, the only thing you've revealed about Einstein's relativity theories is that you don't fully understand them.

No, and it is useless for you to keep saying that. I think we need to stop arguing about the twins for the time being.

Sam5: "There's a paradox in SR! Just look at the twins being different ages!"

Us: "No, there's no paradox. You're forgetting about the issue of simultaneity in SR."

Sam5: "Uh . . there's a paradox in SR! Just look at the 'peculiar consequence'!"

Us: "No, there's no paradox. Here's all the math. See how it all works out?"

Sam5: "Uh . . . there's a paradox in SR! Just look at the water freezing!"

Us: "No, there's no paradox. SR predicts a difference in temperature measurement, but that doesn't mean the water freezes."

Sam5: "Uh . . . there's a paradox in SR! Just look at the magnet-and-coil electric field!"

Us: ::sigh::



SR does not predict that anything changes in the electric field when that student changes direction. It couldn't, obviously, because the students there in the classroom would notice its disappearance.

Ok, then read what he said about the magnet and the coil, and give me your opinion about it. If you don’t know or if you have no opinion, just say so. I’ll get back to you later. I’m still waiting for Grey’s response.

Why? Do you want to find out how what you think is wrong before you verbalize it? If you want to talk about his comments, why don't you start by telling us what you think about them?

[Sam5]

Sam5: "There's a paradox in SR! Just look at the twins being different ages!"

Us: "No, there's no paradox. You're forgetting about the issue of simultaneity in SR."

Sam5: "Uh . . there's a paradox in SR! Just look at the 'peculiar consequence'!"

Us: "No, there's no paradox. Here's all the math. See how it all works out?"

Sam5: "Uh . . . there's a paradox in SR! Just look at the water freezing!"

Us: "No, there's no paradox. SR predicts a difference in temperature measurement, but that doesn't mean the water freezes."

Sam5: "Uh . . . there's a paradox in SR! Just look at the magnet-and-coil electric field!"

Lol, that’s pretty funny. But this is the way I see the conversation going:

Sam5: “If the magnet is moving in Los Angeles while the coil is in New York, no electrons will flow through the coil. This proves that the electron flow through the coil is not at all due to ‘relative motion’ between the magnet and the coil.”

Them: “You numbskull! Einstein was NEVER wrong!”

Sam5: “When cosmologists say the Vtot is negative, that means the photons are aimed at us but are traveling away from us because the distant galaxy is moving away from us faster than the speed of light relative to us.”

Them: “How dare you say that Einstein ever made any mistakes! He was perfect!”

Sam5: “Just relative motion alone can not slow down any clock tick rate.”

Them: “The dilation occurs in Bob’s clock because he changes frames... Uhh, no, wait a minute, it actually occurs because Ann’s time makes a big ‘jump’ when Bob turns around three light years away. No, no, wait a minute, uhh, doh, it actually occurs because Sally’s clock really wasn’t running part of the time while she was moving. You thought it was running, but it actually stopped running, then it started running again, but had it been running while it stopped running, it would have run slow, as seen by Dick and the rest of us, but not as seen by Sally; however, it could have been running, depending on who was looking at it. When Dick looked at it, it wasn’t running, but when Sally looked at it, it was running. And she was very cold too, frozen to –20º F, but her glass of water didn’t freeze, because Einstein was never wrong!”

Sam5: “It’s not ‘time’ that slows down in GR, but the atomic clock rate that slows down.”

Them: “I agree with Sean.” “Yeah, me too, I agree with Sean.” “Yeah, ditto, I agree with Sean.” “Doh, uhh, me too, I guess.” “Since you made a statement that disagrees with Sean’s statement, then I agree with Sean, even though I have no idea what you are talking about.” “Yeah, doh, me too, I think.” “Doh, my freezer is broken. The thermometer inside reads –20º F, but the water in the ice trays won’t freeze. Somebody must be moving relative to me!”

[Sam5]

SeanF:

Please see my question about the photo on the "light" thread.

I'm amazed that the photographer, who is an expert on this subject, does not give the correct answer to the question. He tried to add "acceleration" to his answer! LOL!

[SeanF]

SeanF:

Please see my question about the photo on the "light" thread.

I'm amazed that the photographer, who is an expert on this subject, does not give the correct answer to the question. He tried to add "acceleration" to his answer! LOL!

You know what I find amazing? First, how much you love to change the subject when you realize you can't argue the previous points you've brought up. Secondly, that you see absolutely nothing wrong with providing a direct link to the photograph with absolutely no link to where on that website the photograph is discussed. It is absolutely imperative to you that anybody you're debating with not have context for your claims, isn't it?

Point - the photographer to which you refer is not the photographer who took the picture.

The page is here (http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-slit-scan.html). In regards to the specific photograph, the website author says this:


A very famous photograph that depends on focal plane shutter distortion for its visual impact is one made by Henri Lartigue with a large camera equipped with a focal plane shutter. The photo shows a race car leaning in one direction while spectators and telephone poles included in the picture are leaning in the opposite direction. This indicates that the camera was panned causing the background to tilt one way while the panning speed was not fast enough to keep up with the vehicle thus causing the race car to lean in the opposite direction. Close examination of the degree of tilt in the image seems to also indicate that either the car changed velocity, the camera was not panned at a constant velocity and/or that the shutter curtain velocity across the film gate was not quite constant.

I'm no photography expert, but it appears to me that the "slit" moved down as the photograph was taken (since film images are upside down, this means it was moving in the "up" direction of the developed photo). The camera was panned to the right at the same time, but not as quickly as the car was moving to the right. The people "lean" to the left because the top part of the film was exposed later than the bottom part, and the camera had panned to the right. Thus, the top of the people are farther left (relative to the film) than the bottom is.

Since the car is moving faster than the camera is panning, the opposite is true on the car. The top of the car was farther right (relative to the film) when it was exposed than the bottom of the car was. This is all relative motion, but it's just a simple film distortion.

The reason the website author mentioned acceleration is because the angles of tilt aren't constant all the way up. That indicates that one of the relative velocities involved (car, pan, slit-scan) was not constant during the entire exposure.

I'm not sure what you think this film effect has to do with Relativity, although your indicating that the author was "wrong" to bring a change in velocity into the discussion indicates, once again, that you have misunderstood what you've read. He never claims that acceleration was necessary to cause the opposite-direction tilts, just that the acceleration affected the angles of the tilts.

[Sam5]

You know what I find amazing?

I told you I was waiting for Grey's answer. I'm also waiting for your answer regarding the magnet and the coil. And I said I'm not interested in keeping up the long running argument about Ann, Bob, Dick, and Sally. If you want to talk about them, then talk to someone else about them, and please leave me out of that particular loop.


Secondly, that you see absolutely nothing wrong with providing a direct link to the photograph with absolutely no link to where on that website the photograph is discussed. It is absolutely imperative to you that anybody you're debating with not have context for your claims, isn't it?

My dear grumpy friend, I did not post the link to the photographer’s answer because I didn’t want a bunch of wild guesses as responses from a bunch of people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I knew very well that someone of your great intelligence would be able to find the correct address by working backwards from the photo’s address, and I wanted responses only from people who are mentally capable of finding the address all by themselves. And, as usual, I was correct, you did find it, and up you popped with your particular answer.


Point - the photographer to which you refer is not the photographer who took the picture.

Well I know that! I don't think I implied that he was. The photographer who tried to answer the question is a modern slit-scan expert.


I'm no photography expert,

This is a classical space-time relativity question, not just a photography question.

[Sam5]

The reason the website author mentioned acceleration is because the angles of tilt aren't constant all the way up. That indicates that one of the relative velocities involved (car, pan, slit-scan) was not constant during the entire exposure.

Nope. Try again.

[Musashi]

Maybe he was using a frozen embryo for a power source...

[Sam5]

The reason the website author mentioned acceleration is because the angles of tilt aren't constant all the way up. That indicates that one of the relative velocities involved (car, pan, slit-scan) was not constant during the entire exposure.

Are you sure you want to leave your answer this way?

I told you there was no acceleration involved.

I’ll tell you the real answer later. In the meantime, I’ve saved your original answer to disk.

[Musashi]

I think we both know that is not the important part of the explanation. The fact that you choose to focus on it instead of either tell us what you think, or discussing the meat of the issue speaks all on its own. Do you have anything to say about the the other parts of Sean's post? Specifically:



I'm no photography expert, but it appears to me that the "slit" moved down as the photograph was taken (since film images are upside down, this means it was moving in the "up" direction of the developed photo). The camera was panned to the right at the same time, but not as quickly as the car was moving to the right. The people "lean" to the left because the top part of the film was exposed later than the bottom part, and the camera had panned to the right. Thus, the top of the people are farther left (relative to the film) than the bottom is.

[Sam5]

I think we both know that is not the important part of the explanation.

Certainly, not in your frame, and we both know why, don't we? It's because you don't know the correct answer to the question.

[Sam5]

Everybody, Todos,

Hey! I almost forgot! Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas to everyone, and happy secular holiday season to one and all!

Ho, Ho, Ho!

[Musashi]

Right.

[SeanF]

The reason the website author mentioned acceleration is because the angles of tilt aren't constant all the way up. That indicates that one of the relative velocities involved (car, pan, slit-scan) was not constant during the entire exposure.

Are you sure you want to leave your answer this way?

I told you there was no acceleration involved.

I’ll tell you the real answer later. In the meantime, I’ve saved your original answer to disk.

By "the answer," I presume you're referring to the question you asked on the other thread, which was:


Can anyone answer the question as to why the people in the photo appear to be slanting in one direction while the car appears to be slanting in the other direction?

As I quoted Mr. Davidhazy:


This indicates that the camera was panned causing the background to tilt one way while the panning speed was not fast enough to keep up with the vehicle thus causing the race car to lean in the opposite direction.

As I myself said:


The camera was panned to the right at the same time, but not as quickly as the car was moving to the right. The people "lean" to the left because the top part of the film was exposed later than the bottom part, and the camera had panned to the right. Thus, the top of the people are farther left (relative to the film) than the bottom is.

Since the car is moving faster than the camera is panning, the opposite is true on the car. The top of the car was farther right (relative to the film) when it was exposed than the bottom of the car was.

Both of us answered your question ("Why do the people tilt one way and the car the other?") without invoking acceleration.

The reason the angle of the people is not the same as the angle of the car is because the relative velocity between the people and the camera is not the same as the relative velocity between the car and the camera.

The reason Mr. Davidhazy did mention acceleration was because, as I said, the angles are not constant. One needs only to look at the rear right wheel of the car and the number "6" directly above the rear right wheel to see that the angle of tilt on the car is not constant. That gives us the additional information that there was a change in velocity during the exposure.

And for Pete's sake, you're doing photogrammetry by measuring angles in a JPEG from off a website?! That's even better than trying to translate Einstein's original German through Babelfish!

(When you measure that JPEG, be sure you use a magnifying glass on your monitor!)

[Sam5]

By "the answer," I presume you're referring to

No, and you know it. Man, I’ve never seen anybody so afraid to admit that he was wrong about something. After many hours and my clue on the other thread, you finally got the answer right this time. I said on the other thread, “Measure the angle of the car slant as opposed to the angle of the people slant, and maybe you can figure out what caused the difference.”

And you finally figured out that the background is moving faster relative to the camera pan than the car is. Great!


The reason Mr. Davidhazy did mention acceleration was because, as I said, the angles are not constant.

The people and pole angle is greater than the car angle. This has nothing to do with acceleration. He originally said:

"Close examination of the degree of tilt in the image seems to also indicate that either the car changed velocity, the camera was not panned at a constant velocity and/or that the shutter curtain velocity across the film gate was not quite constant.”

But if the camera pan was not constant, there’d be a curve in the long thin telephone pole, but there is none. Same regarding any “curtain velocity” change. That leaves it up to the car, and the (approx) 1/250 to 1/500th of a second effective shutter speed is too fast a shutter speed to be affected by any slight “acceleration” in the car, and also, any distortion due to “acceleration” would appear as a wavy smear across the entire length of the car, front to back. (try it with a photocopy machine and see what I mean)

[Sam5]

One needs only to look at the rear right wheel of the car and the number "6" directly above the rear right wheel to see that the angle of tilt on the car is not constant. :^o


No, no, no, no. The “6” is curved on what looks like the curved head of the gas tank. The right rear wheel is slanted because the camera shutter was moving upward (not “downward”). The top of the wheel was exposed before the bottom of the wheel was exposed. As I said, any auto velocity change would show up as a horizontal smear across the full length of the car, and there is no wavy smear distortion in the wheel, the “6”, or in the side of the car or in the emergency break handle. So, there is no acceleration shown in the photo.

Anyway, this photo is a good graphical demonstration of classical Euclidean space-time relativity distortions caused by relative motion.

[Musashi]

I see.

[SeanF]

By "the answer," I presume you're referring to

No, and you know it. Man, I’ve never seen anybody so afraid to admit that he was wrong about something. After many hours and my clue on the other thread, you finally got the answer right this time. I said on the other thread, “Measure the angle of the car slant as opposed to the angle of the people slant, and maybe you can figure out what caused the difference.”

Yes, you said that on the other thread - after I had already posted my response here. At the time I posted, the only question you had asked was why the spectators and car were tilted in different directions. You did not ask why they were tilted at different angles (relative to vertical) until later.


And you finally figured out that the background is moving faster relative to the camera pan than the car is. Great!

"Finally?" If you had asked why the spectators were angled more than the car to begin with, I would have told you that to begin with. You didn't.



The reason Mr. Davidhazy did mention acceleration was because, as I said, the angles are not constant.

The people and pole angle is greater than the car angle. This has nothing to do with acceleration.

Nobody said it did.


He originally said:

"Close examination of the degree of tilt in the image seems to also indicate that either the car changed velocity, the camera was not panned at a constant velocity and/or that the shutter curtain velocity across the film gate was not quite constant.”

What makes you think he's referring to the respective tilts relative to vertical?


But if the camera pan was not constant, there’d be a curve in the long thin telephone pole, but there is none. Same regarding any “curtain velocity” change. That leaves it up to the car, and the (approx) 1/250 to 1/500th of a second effective shutter speed is too fast a shutter speed to be affected by any slight “acceleration” in the car, and also, any distortion due to “acceleration” would appear as a wavy smear across the entire length of the car, front to back. (try it with a photocopy machine and see what I mean)

You got a photocopy machine with a 1/250th of a second scan speed, and you move an image across it in that time? Impressive.

He gave three options with an "and/or." The spectator/pole angle would not change if the slit-scan motion and the camera pan changed together. If they were both running off the same motor, that's certainly possible.

However, while it's hard to tell from a JPEG, it sure looks to me like there is a bend in the poles near the top of the picture.

By the way, what's your source for the exposure time? Davidhazy's website (http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-special-effects.html) says:


This effect, produced by a combination of relatively slow moving focal plane shutter and panning the camera to keep up with the moving vehicle (but not quite fast enough) is one that is normally not seen in everyday use of modern cameras also equipped with focal plane shutters. The reason for this is that in these cameras the shutter slit moves much faster than in the older models. Note that exposure time is not a factor in producing the effect, just shutter slit velocity.

Doesn't sound like 1/250th of a second to me. The spectator/pole angle looks fairly close to 45 degrees. If it only took a few milliseconds for the slit to make its way through the frame, he was panning to the right awful quick.


The top of the wheel was exposed before the bottom of the wheel was exposed.

? Let's see . . .

The spectators and the car are farther apart at the top of the photo than at the bottom.

The car was moving away from the spectators during the exposure.

The top of the photo (greater distance) was exposed before the bottom (lesser distance)?

I don't think so. The bottom had to be exposed before the top.

And what exactly does this have to do with our discussion of Special Relativity? Is there a frozen glass of water in that photograph somewhere?

[Sam5]

Yes, you said that on the other thread - after I had already posted my response here.

I mentioned the “acceleration” issue in my first post dated Dec 24, 2003 5:29 pm on this thread, but perhaps you misunderstood the issue and what I was talking about concerning the two different angles of slant.


You got a photocopy machine with a 1/250th of a second scan speed, and you move an image across it in that time? Impressive.

A photocopy machine has a total scan rate and an effective shutter speed for each slit-area of the photo copied. The two are different. The effective shutter speed is much faster than the total scan rate.

If you put a photo of a stationary car in a photocopy machine, and allow the machine to scan about half of the picture, bottom to top or top to bottom, then if you slowly accelerate the photo to the right or left (forward or backward relative to the front of the car) while the copy is being made, you’ll see a curved distortion along the full length of the center of the car as long as the accelerated motion is going on. But if you move the photo at a steady speed, you will see a sudden angle change but no curve.

[Sam5]

Doesn't sound like 1/250th of a second to me. The spectator/pole angle looks fairly close to 45 degrees. If it only took a few milliseconds for the slit to make its way through the frame, he was panning to the right awful quick.



The old cameras had several metal slits of different widths that were embedded in a long black curtain. The curtain rolled up on each end on wooden rollers, like a window shade rolls up on a wooden roller.

For an “effective” slow shutter speed, you set the spring-driven shutter curtain device to use the widest slit. For an “effective” fast shutter speed, you set the shutter curtain device to use the most narrow slit. Also, some cameras had a revolving-mass “governor” speed control to regulate the curtain and slit speeds. So, the slits could move past the film or glass plate either “fast” or “slow”.

So, even with a fairly fast “effective” shutter speed of 1/250th or 1/500th of a second for each part of the film the slit scanned, it might take the slit as long as 1/4th of a second to go from the bottom to the top of the film. The larger the camera, the longer it took for the slit to move cross the film. However, the “effective” shutter speed would still be the same, even if it was a giant camera that took 1 second for the shutter slit to scan the image.

The longer it took for the slit to go from bottom to top, the greater the angle of the slant of the panned image. However, the “effective” shutter speed would be the same for each area of the film.

I estimate the camera to be maybe a 5 x 7 or an 8 x 10, while I estimate the effective shutter speed to be about 1/250th to 1/500th of a second, since while the car was moving fast, and the pan was fast, there is not much pan-caused blur in the image.

I think maybe one reason why you and I disagree so much is because you evidently were raised mainly on Einstein relativity, and you aren’t as familiar with Classical Doppler/Newton relativity as I am. While I was growing up, I first learned Classical relativity, and then later I studied Einstein relativity. That’s when I found some of the errors in the Kinematical part of the paper. The first part and the second part of the paper are fundamentally different. In the first part he uses two light signals and two relatively moving ethers (“fields”). In the second part, he has his atoms and electrons of one frame moving through the ether (the “fields”) of the other frame. The second part tends to match 19th Century observation and experimental results regarding Electrodynamical issues, since the 19th Century experiments were conducted at the surface of the earth, with the atoms and electrons moving through the earth’s local fields.

Just “relative motion” alone can not alter or affect any “frame” or the contents of it in any real way. But the motion of atoms and electrons of one frame through the fields of another frame, CAN cause a real effect on the atoms and electrons.

[SeanF]

Yes, you said that on the other thread - after I had already posted my response here.

I mentioned the “acceleration” issue in my first post dated Dec 24, 2003 5:29 pm on this thread, but perhaps you misunderstood the issue and what I was talking about concerning the two different angles of slant.

Your post on this thread said, in its entirety:


SeanF:

Please see my question about the photo on the "light" thread.

I'm amazed that the photographer, who is an expert on this subject, does not give the correct answer to the question. He tried to add "acceleration" to his answer! LOL!

Absolutely no mention of the difference in the spectator's tilt compared to the vehicle's tilt. Only refers to "the question."

Your post on the other thread said, in its entirety:


To everyone,

Can anyone answer the question as to why the people in the photo appear to be slanting in one direction while the car appears to be slanting in the other direction? This is a simple basic space-time relativity question involving only “relative motion”, no gravitational field and no acceleration, and it has a common-sense classical-relativity answer that involves Euclidean space-time but not Riemann space-time.

LINK TO PHOTO

Defines the question as "why the people in the photo appear to be slanting in one direction while the car appears to be slanting in the other direction." Absolutely no mention of a difference in the degree of tilt, only a difference in direction.

I did not "misunderstand" what you were talking about, Sam5 - apparently you weren't talking about what you thought you were talking about.

Do you still maintain that in the photograph, the top of the wheel was exposed before the bottom?


I think maybe one reason why you and I disagree so much is because you evidently were raised mainly on Einstein relativity, and you aren’t as familiar with Classical Doppler/Newton relativity as I am. While I was growing up, I first learned Classical relativity, and then later I studied Einstein relativity.

Ah. So you find it a little difficult to make the "switch" from classical to relativistic phsyics. "Can't be right 'cause it's not what I learned before." Understandable.

[Sam5]

Ah. So you find it a little difficult to make the "switch" from classical to relativistic phsyics. "Can't be right 'cause it's not what I learned before." Understandable.

No, there is no “switch”. Nature is nature. It has no “switch” from one set of laws to a different set. What we must “rule out”, are all the errors, rumors, and myths that might be contained in Classical relativity, and all the errors, rumors, and myths that might be contained in Einstein relativity.

That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you about the magnet and the coil. There is no “different law” for when the magnet is moving relative to the students, and a “different law” when the coil is moving relative to students in the room. Any belief that there is a “different law” for “different students” is merely a superstition that was picked up in the 19th Century, when different physicist theorists tried to explain what “force” was felt by the electrons in the coil, when the coil was moving, and when the magnet was moving. Amazingly, that old myth of the “two different laws for two different sets of observers”, was picked up by Einstein in his 1905 theory, and the myth has endured from the Classical era of the 19th Century, right on through to today, and, amazingly, some modern physics professors still continue to teach that myth, but now they attribute the superstition to “Einstein relativity”, rather than to an error in 19th Century classical physics.

You probably will never see or understand the error and the myth, since you believe in the myth that Einstein never made any errors in SR theory. That’s why you can’t understand the time dilation paradox, even though you finally saw what I had been trying to point out to you for a long time. You saw it. You understood it. Then you lost it, because you returned to your old superstitious belief that “Einstein never made any errors in SR theory”, therefore, you apparently believe that what you saw, briefly, as the real and true clock “paradox” of SR theory, the true “error” of SR theory, must actually “not” be a paradox or an “error” at all, since, “Einstein never made any errors in SR theory”. So, you are totally disregarding a fact of nature, a fact of science, and a law of both nature and science, in favor of your superstitious belief that “Einstein never made any errors in SR theory”.

[Diamond]

Ah. So you find it a little difficult to make the "switch" from classical to relativistic phsyics. "Can't be right 'cause it's not what I learned before." Understandable.

No, there is no “switch”. Nature is nature. It has no “switch” from one set of laws to a different set. What we must “rule out”, are all the errors, rumors, and myths that might be contained in Classical relativity, and all the errors, rumors, and myths that might be contained in Einstein relativity.

Nope. There are no errors, rumors and myths about relativity, but there are misconceptions.


That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you about the magnet and the coil. There is no “different law” for when the magnet is moving relative to the students, and a “different law” when the coil is moving relative to students in the room. Any belief that there is a “different law” for “different students” is merely a superstition that was picked up in the 19th Century, when different physicist theorists tried to explain what “force” was felt by the electrons in the coil, when the coil was moving, and when the magnet was moving. Amazingly, that old myth of the “two different laws for two different sets of observers”, was picked up by Einstein in his 1905 theory, and the myth has endured from the Classical era of the 19th Century, right on through to today, and, amazingly, some modern physics professors still continue to teach that myth, but now they attribute the superstition to “Einstein relativity”, rather than to an error in 19th Century classical physics.

Amzingly there are different laws which are only used when precision is not an issue.


You probably will never see or understand the error and the myth, since you believe in the myth that Einstein never made any errors in SR theory.

If its a myth then you should be able to point to a single example that lies wholly within the framework of SR and point it out. I suspect that the reason is, because the errors, myth and paradox of SR lie entirely in your mind.


That’s why you can’t understand the time dilation paradox, even though you finally saw what I had been trying to point out to you for a long time. You saw it. You understood it. Then you lost it, because you returned to your old superstitious belief that “Einstein never made any errors in SR theory”, therefore, you apparently believe that what you saw, briefly, as the real and true clock “paradox” of SR theory, the true “error” of SR theory, must actually “not” be a paradox or an “error” at all, since, “Einstein never made any errors in SR theory”. So, you are totally disregarding a fact of nature, a fact of science, and a law of both nature and science, in favor of your superstitious belief that “Einstein never made any errors in SR theory”.

Actually grasping what you're talking about does not mean that the same conclusions are reached.

This is now page 29 and despite many many explanations, the subject changes continue. Special Relativity for all its limitations remains an extremely robust theory, whose assumptions continue to be tested some 98 years later.

The myth is not that "Einsterin never made any errors in SR theory" but that "Sam5 understands SR theory to be able to point out errors"

[Sam5]

Nope. There are no errors, rumors and myths about relativity, but there are misconceptions.

That’s just like you saying to me, “My interpretation of relativity is always right, whereas yours might contain some ‘misconceptions’.”

Do you understand the significance of how you’ve been trained to think in these modern times, in our modern educational system? Do you understand the political and social implications of your way of thinking? You are essentially saying that YOU are “always right” when it comes to “relativity”, while only I am capable of making mistakes and believing in some of the “misconceptions” of relativity.

You can’t even consider that you might be “wrong” about anything concerning “relativity”. You don’t even see how Sean first started out saying a “frame change” caused Bob’s clock to run slow. Then he changed it to a strange “jump” in Ann’s clock, then he change it to “Sally’s clock really wasn’t running part of the time,” even though these concepts aren’t even in the SR theory. And you see nothing wrong with this “ends justifies the means” approach to a “science” discussion, and you see nothing wrong with some of the other guys (who are completely incapable of understanding this subject well enough to discuss it), as they just keep saying, “I agree with Sean.”


This is now page 29 and despite many many explanations, the subject changes continue.

I think we’ve probably got about 10 pages of me explaining some of the errors to you, and about 10 pages of Sean’s changing story about why the clocks “time dilate”, and about 10 pages of “I agree with Sean,” and “Sam5 is a ninny.”

[Diamond]

Nope. There are no errors, rumors and myths about relativity, but there are misconceptions.

That’s just like you saying to me, “My interpretation of relativity is always right, whereas yours might contain some ‘misconceptions’.”

Excuse me, who is it on this thread who has repeatedly made the claim that Einstein made errors in SR, and that relativity is a myth? That's saying to most of us, and a lot fo very intelligent people that we don't know what we're talking about.


Do you understand the significance of how you’ve been trained to think in these modern times, in our modern educational system? Do you understand the political and social implications of your way of thinking? You are essentially saying that YOU are “always right” when it comes to “relativity”, while only I am capable of making mistakes and believing in some of the “misconceptions” of relativity.

Unfortunately YOU are the one with the problem. I am not "trained" into some wierd illogic. I sturggle with comprehending the meaning of relativity. The mathematics is very clear. I am not claiming to be alway right, so don't put words in my mouth.

As long as you think that relativity is some sort of hoax, you won't learn anything.


You can’t even consider that you might be “wrong” about anything concerning “relativity”.

Please, that's just infantile.


You don’t even see how Sean first started out saying a “frame change” caused Bob’s clock to run slow. Then he changed it to a strange “jump” in Ann’s clock, then he change it to “Sally’s clock really wasn’t running part of the time,” even though these concepts aren’t even in the SR theory. And you see nothing wrong with this “ends justifies the means” approach to a “science” discussion, and you see nothing wrong with some of the other guys (who are completely incapable of understanding this subject well enough to discuss it), as they just keep saying, “I agree with Sean.”

No. The comprehension problem is with you. There are many versions of the twin paradox, but the implications are clear: Time is not absolute.


This is now page 29 and despite many many explanations, the subject changes continue.


I think we’ve probably got about 10 pages of me explaining some of the errors to you, and about 10 pages of Sean’s changing story about why the clocks “time dilate”, and about 10 pages of “I agree with Sean,” and “Sam5 is a ninny.”

Actually its about Sean being very patient with someone who thinks they know it all, but doesn't.

[Sam5]

Excuse me, who is it on this thread who has repeatedly made the claim that Einstein made errors in SR, and that relativity is a myth?

Nobody.


Unfortunately YOU are the one with the problem.

That's funny, because from my frame it is you. That's Relativity! =D>



As long as you think that relativity is some sort of hoax, you won't learn anything.

I don't think that.


Time is not absolute.

I never said it was.


Actually its about Sean being very patient with someone who thinks they know it all, but doesn't.

I've noticed that. He is very patient with himself.

[Sam5]

Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

The disagreement is not on whether the two clocks are both running at the same rate (both observers agree that they are), it is on whether the two clocks are displaying the same time simultaneously.

I see what you mean. He should have used the word “synchronized” rather than “synchronous”. Well, that’s no big deal.

Wow, an admission to misunderstanding something. We're on the right track now.


Actually, I’ve studied Anna Beck’s translation, and he clearly uses the term “synchronous” and he clearly means “synchronous” (running at the same rate). Welcome to the world of Mr. Einstein, the humble bumbling confused patent clerk. This is the Einstein you don’t know very well.

Anna Beck’s translation reads:

”The observers co-moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks do not run synchronously while the observers in the system at rest would declare them synchronous.”

So, he clearly means “synchronous”, meaning “running at the same rate.” This is what I’ve been trying to explain to you, the guy got thing mixed up in some of his earlier theories, and he made some stupid mistakes.

To paraphrase you, the disagreement should not be on whether the two clocks are both running at the same rate.........., it should be on whether the two clocks are displaying the same time simultaneously.

So, what he actually says and what he actually means, makes absolutely no sense at all.

First, he proclaims the two clocks in the moving system to be synchronous with each other and with all the clocks in the “stationary system”. Then he puts one observer each with the two moving clocks. Then he resets the synchronization of the two clocks, then he says they are not “synchronous” (not running at the same rate) in their own system, after having just been set in their own system by the two system observers, so he’s got one guy on one end of the “moving” rod disagreeing with the guy on the other end about whether the two clocks are running at the same rate or not, while all the observers in the “stationary system” still agree! that the two “moving clocks” are still “synchronous” (running at the same rate) with all the clocks of the “stationary system”! This is what I’ve been trying to tell you, the guy made outlandish mistakes in the Kinematical part of the SR theory, and also in the 1907 update of it.

He said in 1905 there was “no ether” in space to regulate the speed of light, yet he used two of them in the same theory to regulate the speed of light in each frame. He said his 1916 book that there was “no ether”, but then in his 1920 paper he said “there must be an ether”.

He said in 1905 that the geometrical shapes of “moving” things “shrivel up”, then in 1907 he said they didn’t, then in 1916 he again said they “did”.

He said in 1905 that that the speed of light was always “c”, then in 1911 he said it wasn’t. Then in his 1916 book, he said it was.

And I’m telling you, this sentence is absolute nonsense:

“Thus, the temperature of a moving system is always lower with respect to a reference system that is in motion relative to it than with respect to a reference system that is at rest relative to it.”

He is saying here that two relatively moving systems are colder than each other.

I’m not saying he was stupid overall, because he wasn’t. I’m just saying that because of the unusual way he thought out some of his complex thought experiments, he was prone to making some outrageous mistakes during his early years.

These mistakes are part of the historical record, and when some physics students stumble upon them, they do like you do. They just change a word they don’t like, such as “synchronous” to something else, like “synchronized”, just as you did, and they assume that what Einstein actually said was “highly intellectual”, “super ingenious”, “stunningly overwhelmingly brilliant”, while the English translator must have “translated the German text poorly”, and then you guys move on, never realizing that it was HE who made the mistake, while you believe that it was the “translator”, not Einstein himself, who made the stupid mistake. And then you get mad at guys like me who insist that he meant “synchronous” when he said “synchronous” and when the translation says “synchronous”. HE made the stupid mistake, but you get mad at me for pointing it out! You see that it actually IS a mistake, and you INSIST on changing his word from “synchronous” to “synchronized”! While you get mad at me for saying, “No, he said ‘synchronous’ and he meant ‘synchronous’.”

There is nothing all bad about him making some mistakes. What’s “bad” is that some guys like you absolutely refuse to believe that they actually are “mistakes”, and you trash and insult decent honest people who try to point out to you that they are nothing more or less than “mistakes”.

[SeanF]

Nobody's getting mad at you for not understanding Einstein.

At the end of Section 2, look at all of what Einstein says:


We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the "time of the stationary system" at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore "synchronous in the stationary system."

We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that

tB-tA = rAB/c-v

and

t'A-tB = rAB/c+v

where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod--measured in the stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system. (Emphasis mine)

Both the mathematics and the emphasized text make it clear that he is talking about whether the clocks are synchronized.

Also, earlier, near the end of Section 1, he said:


Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous," or "synchronous," and of "time."

This clearly indicates that the word "synchronous" has the same definition as "simultaneous" (hence his use of the word "or" before "synchronous") while "time" has a different definition (hence his use of the words "and of" before "time").

I will also point out to you that Dictionary.com (referencing The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) gives the first definition of "simultaneous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simultaneous) as "Happening, existing, or done at the same time" and the first definition of "synchronous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synchronous) as "Occurring or existing at the same time."

Einstein (or rather, the English translator) is clearly using this definition of "synchronous." You are, plain and simple, wrong in your suggestion that Einstein is referring to the rate the clocks are running. The first paragraph quoted above from Section 2, in fact, indicates that the two moving clocks are set to run at the same rate as the stationary clocks! "[T]heir indications correspond at any instant to the 'time of the stationary system' at the places where they happen to be."

And please rest assured that I have taken note of the fact that you have quietly dropped discussion of the photograph since I pointed out how you were wrong about Mr. Davidhazy's implication of acceleration (not to mention the question of whether the bottom or top of the wheel was exposed first).

[Grey]

Ok, thanks for your response. You are very polite and courteous about this discussion, and I see that we pretty much agree about the issue of the moving students hurtling by the classroom, except for one particular detail, and that detail is the very crux of this entire debate on this thread.

I’m waiting for Grey’s response.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've been travelling for the holidays (actually, I'm still away travelling for the holidays, but even in the rustic north woods of Michigan we at least have a dial-up connection). Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone reading this a Merry Christmas, Joyous Yule, Happy Channukah, Blessed Solstice, or a pleasant holiday season of whatever sort you might choose to celebrate. Of course, buried nearly 30 pages into a thread about relativity, only the really die-hard BABB members will ever see this message. :)

I'll probably only be on intermittently until at least the first of the new year, so if I don't respond quickly, it's not that I'm ignoring you or have no interest in the conversation, just that I'm off playing in the snow with my nieces and nephews or something.


I’m not quite sure what effects students traveling at that speed would notice, but I’m inclined to commit myself and say that I believe their perception would be very considerably altered, based not only on what we know about reality and scientific observation to date, but based on some very astute observations Einstein made in the Electrodynamical part of SR theory and in various papers of his GR theory. Of course, what the moving students would see or experience would not have any effect on the coil or magnet, or the other students, unless the moving students happened to run in to them or wiggle them or disturb them in some way by their rapid motion past them. If you disagree with this opinion of mine, then please let me know.
I agree that the moving students will not affect the apparatus or the experience of the stationary students (assuming that they're not hurtling past carrying giant magnets or something :) ). Of course, their motion may change how they perceive the situation.


Now, based on the statement I’ve just made, I would say that the experience of the moving students would not really be due to “relative motion”. This is the most important point I’ve been trying to make here, but I think my point is just too subtle for anyone to understand in the simple and perhaps crude way I’ve been trying to explain it. But I think you might understand it, and what I’m trying to say, since you are a current physics student, and since we agree about most of what you posted in your response to me.

So, although I agree with your basic assessment about how the moving students might notice some effects due to their “motion”, I would disagree with your use of the term “relative motion”. I would say that what the moving students might notice, observe, or experience will not be due to “relative motion” between them and the other students, the magnet, and the coil, not at all, since their rapid motion causes absolutely no effect on the other students, the magnet, or the coil. So, the effects we are musing about might be called “classical electrodynamical” effects, and the effects Einstein described in the Electrodynamical part of his paper (the correct effects that he described) were what I would call “classical electrodynamical” effects. Whereas, my opinion of the Kinematical part of his paper – the bizarre part – is that it should be ripped from the pages of his 1905 theory, not taught in any physics classes in the world, and retired to university physics museums and libraries and placed under glass, on display, as representing an antiquated, outdated, and erroneous science theory that turned out to not only be wrong, but to be ridiculous.

Now, I would like your opinion about what I just said, if you don’t mind.
Certainly. I disagree with your statement that it's not the relative motion involved. We can talk about some extremely simple experiments here, and I'll try to show you why I think we can't talk about motion in any absolute sense. For example, suppose I have a device which detects magnetic fields, along with their strength and direction. If I'm sitting next to a stationary charged particle, I'll read a zero magnetic field. If instead the charged particle is moving past me, well, that's a current, and I'll see an induced magnetic field. What if the particle is standing still, but I run past? Well, I'll still detect a magnetic field. In fact, as you mention, from classical electrodynamics I can show that any device I could create will show the same field measurements whether the particle is moving past me or I'm moving past the particle. So is there a magnetic field there or not? I some sense, whether there is a nonzero field depends not only on the apparatus itself, but on the relative motion of the observer.


So, I would NOT attribute the altered perception of the moving students to “relative motion”, as you called it. This is apparently where you and I disagree, and this is what I hope to change your mind about, and, in the process, hopefully, I will be able to explain to you why I think the Kinematical part of the paper is so stupid, while I acknowledge that the Electrodynamical part is very clever, astute, and brilliant.
You know, whether or not you disagree with relativity theory, I think it's important to point out that I don't think you can realistically consider it "stupid". If it were as completely ridiculous as you claim, some prominent physicist would have shown that it's demonstrably false. As I've pointed out elsewhere, showing a real flaw in relativity theory would probably net a Nobel prize, so there's actually a lot of incentive to do so. Relativity remains part of mainstream physics because it works; the predictions it makes are borne out by experiment, which is always the ultimate test of the correctness of a theory. It may be shown to be inaccurate, but just as relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of low velocities, any theory that supersedes relativity will have to match its predictions in the domains we've measured so far.


Let us now think of this slightly different version of the thought experiment you responded to above. I don’t have my compass bearings exactly right on this, but I think they will be close enough, and I will explain to you later what this is all about.

Ok, we’ve got a physics professor in Esmeraldas, Ecuador. He is in the Plaza there, facing North. He is demonstrating Faraday’s magnet/coil experiment to a group of students. He is moving both the coil and the magnet, one in each hand. A current is flowing through the coil.

Ok, now, there is a physics student in Sibolga, Sumatra. He is in his apartment. He is worried about a test that is coming up tomorrow, so he’s pacing back and forth across the floor of his apartment, first East, then West, then East, then West.

What would you think if I told you that every time that student changes direction, the force of nature and the physics law that determines what force compels the electrons to flow through he coil in Esmeraldas, Ecuador, changes? When the student in Sumatra walks East, the physics law changes in Esmeraldas. And when he turns around and walks West, the law again changes in Esmeraldas. While the student in Sumatra has absolutely no idea the magnet/coil demonstration is even going on in Esmeraldas.

Furthermore, suppose I say that an electric field that is present at the magnet and coil in Esmeraldas, when the student in Sumatra is walking in one direction, totally disappears from the face of the earth when he turns around and changes directions and walks the other way in Sumatra? What would you say if I made those two claims? And please be honest and forthright in your response.
I think it's important to remember that in some sense, the "laws of physics" are human-created explanations of the things that we see around us. What are electric and magnetic fields, really? Are they something physically real? These are questions that border on the philosophical. We can create devices to measure these fields, but if you do that and give one to the student in Sumatra, he will indeed get different results for the field strength in Esmeraldas when he's walking east than when he's walking west (assuming he has some imaginarily sensitive measuring device that can notice the field at all at that distance). The student in Esmeraldas won't notice a change in his instruments when the student in Sumatra moves, but he'd notice differences if he started to move himself.

So is the electric field turning on and off? The canonical view is simply that the electric and magnetic fields you measure depend on your frame of reference. Maybe that makes the fields more nebulous than you think they should be, but they're pretty nebulous things to begin with. One could make a reasonable argument that the fields are really just mathematical abstractions created by us, and what is "really real" are just the charged particles we see moving in various ways. Even though observers moving in different ways will disagree about what fields are present, they can use the laws of physics to work out how the particles will move. The variously moving observers will all agree on their predictions, even if they arrive at those results in different ways, and these predictions will also match the actual outcome, giving us confirmation that we've described the situation correctly. Which observer is "correct"? Einstein would say that they are all equally correct, and that it's a mistake to assume that one of them has to be right while the others see a distorted view.

If we really wanted to, we could probably eliminate the weirdness that the fields are different depending on how the observer is moving by saying that the "real" properties of an object should always be measured when you're at rest with respect to the equipment in question. But since we're not always stationary with respect to something that's going on, we'd need equations to tell us, if we are moving relative to the thing that interests us, how to calculate what we'll observe. Sometimes we'd need the reverse, how to find out what the "real" properties are (that is, in this hypothetical world, those that would be measured if you were at rest relative to the subject of interest), given what we measured when not at rest relative to the subject. However, those transformation equations would turn out to be entirely equivalent to the equations of special relativity. There is a sense in which that's all those equations really are.

[Sam5]

Both the mathematics and the emphasized text make it clear that he is talking about whether the clocks are synchronized.

No it doesn’t, it only seems to you, since you need to find something to draw attention away from the error of his conclusion statement. So that’s your interpretation of some of his other statements and his math, that led up to his conclusion statement. But you basically disagree with his conclusion statement, so if you say his conclusion statement is “wrong”, then you can’t use his earlier nearby statements to justify your conclusion that his conclusion statement is “wrong”, since he used those very same earlier statements as “proof” that his conclusion statement is “right”.

Talk about “circular reasoning”! Lol.

Sean sez: “Einstein was wrong in saying ‘synchronous’ instead of ‘synchronized’, and as proof that my statement is true, I offer his statements that he used to prove his erroneous statement was true.”

doh



Also, earlier, near the end of Section 1, he said:


Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous," or "synchronous," and of "time."

This clearly indicates that the word "synchronous" has the same definition as "simultaneous" (hence his use of the word "or" before "synchronous") while "time" has a different definition (hence his use of the words "and of" before "time").


No.

We’ve been over this already. I’ve already told you:

Interestingly, the standard translation reads, “Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of ``simultaneous,'' or “synchronous,” and of “time.”

But, the original German sentence does not use the two words “simultaneous” and “synchronous”. It uses the single word “gleichzeitig”, which Babblefish translates as, “at the same time”. This would seem to match the word “simultaneous”, rather than “synchronous”.

Although the standard translation uses the two English words “simultaneous” and “synchronous,” for his single word “gleichzeitig” (“at the same time”), Anna Beck’s translation uses the single English word “synchronous” rather than “simultaneous”. So, both the English translations are at variance with the original German phrase.

So the truth is, nobody on earth, including Einstein himself, you, me, and his translators, knows what he really meant. He might have thought he knew what he meant, but what he wrote in the Kinematical part of the paper was babble, and that babble led to the clock paradox and the "temperature" paradox two years later.

That’s why he said in 1905 that there is such a thing as geometrical “shriveling up”, while in 1907 he said there is no such thing, and then again in 1916 he said there is.

And that's why he said in 1905 that there is “no ether”, yet he used two of them in the Kinematical part of his paper, and in 1916 he said there is “no ether”, but in 1920 he said, “there is an ether”.

The truth is, he never was sure whether there was an "ether" or not. He used them in his papers when they were necessary, then he denied them whenever he wanted to, and they became "fields" when he found that necessary.

[Sam5]

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. :D I got about 2/3 the way through it and decided to go ahead and post this, then I’ll respond to the rest later. In long posts, it’s easier for me to format this way. I’ll put your quotes in bold:

I agree that the moving students will not affect the apparatus or the experience of the stationary students (assuming that they're not hurtling past carrying giant magnets or something. Of course, their motion may change how they perceive the situation.

Ok, I agree with you completely. :D My point is, their motion will not actually change the situation between the magnet and the coil. In other words, a moving student can not make a magnetic or electric field disappear from the room in which the magnet and coil are moving relatively. In other words, anybody’s motion might change what they “see” or think they “see”, but NOBODY’S motion will change what’s actually going on with the magnet and the coil.

If I'm sitting next to a stationary charged particle, I'll read a zero magnetic field. If instead the charged particle is moving past me, well, that's a current, and I'll see an induced magnetic field.

That’s a “current”? You are a copper wire, and the charged particle is moving inside you??

I don’t think what you describe is that simple, unless you know of a way to make conductorless electric circuits that can have "currents" pass through the air, such as a computer that contains no copper printed circuit boards, with no electrical components touching one another, and toasters that take their electricity right from the air and not from a wire plugged into the wall.

I think the charged particle has to be moving past you inside a conductor, with the conductor stationary and all the atomic nucleuses inside the conductor stationary too, before you can call it a “current” in the usual sense of the word.

So there are three things in the magnet/coil experiment, not just two: 1) the magnet, 2) the coil of wire with its stationary atomic nucleuses, 3) the electrons inside the coil of wire. When the electrons inside the wire feel a changing magnetic field, no matter whether it is the magnet or the coil that is “moving”, then those electrons go zipping down the wire at almost the speed of light, relative to the atomic nucleuses, whereas the coil and the atomic nucleuses don’t move except slightly, relative to the magnet. So, we’ve got the other “stuff” inside the coil to consider, other than just the electrons, and I’m not sure that a single “charged particle” blowing past you in the wind can be called a “current”.

Anyway, we’re not talking about occasional “charged particles” blowing past you in the wind. We are talking about billions of electrons inside the coil moving very fast relative to the atomic nucleuses, while they feel a changing magnetic flux inside the coil, and they don’t care whether it’s the magnet or the coil that is “moving”. And in fact, if we use an electromagnet and vary the voltage to it, we don’t need the coil or the magnet to be “relatively moving” at all. That’s why I say it’s not the “relative motion” that causes the electron flow, it’s the changing magnetic flux that does it, and of course the “students” and “observers” don’t have anything at all to do with the physics law that causes the electrons to flow in the coil. But some university physics departments teach that “Einstein relativity” says that if the students move, the laws of physics change for the magnet and coil.

You know, whether or not you disagree with relativity theory, I think it's important to point out that I don't think you can realistically consider it "stupid".

Please. Don’t say I “disagree with relativity theory”. I’m speaking specifically of certain parts of the 1905 paper. :D Einstein didn’t invent all of “relativity theory”. Galileo discussed it, Newton wrote about it, Doppler predicted star-motion redshifts and blueshifts regarding relative motion. Hundreds of scientists discussed “relativity theories” long before Einstein was born. I’m talking about specific errors contained in the 1905 paper that have become modern science myths and legends. So, I don’t consider “relativity” to be “stupid”. But certain parts of the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper are not only erroneous, but they, those certain parts, are downright “stupid”, as is this physics legend that the motion of the students has something to do with what’s going on inside the magnet and the coil. That is “stupid”, but it’s still being taught in some university physics departments today, and this science myth from the 19th Century is now being attributed to “Einstein’s relativity theory”.

Relativity remains part of mainstream physics because it works; the predictions it makes are borne out by experiment, which is always the ultimate test of the correctness of a theory.

The correct parts of SR and GR work and they have been proven correct by experiments and observations, but the general myth is that ALL parts of SR and GR “work” and have been “proven correct” by experiments and observations. But the incorrect parts of SR and GR have not been “proven correct” at all. For example, the universe is apparently not a “hypersphere” filled with “fixed” stars and galaxies, as Einstein claimed in 1915. So that part of GR theory was proven wrong, and Einstein admitted it in 1932. Also, “c” is not “fixed” relative to everything, and he admitted that in his 1911 paper on gravitational redshifts. “c” is apparently not a “limiting speed” on a universal scale since the most distant galaxies apparently are moving away from the earth (and I don’t care how or why the distance is “growing”) at faster than “c”. Whereas “c” does seem to be a “limiting speed” inside local gravitational fields, such as here at the earth. But the distant high-speed galaxies are not traveling through the earth’s gravitational field. They apparently aren’t traveling through any gravitational field at all, and they are carrying their own fields along with them. But instead of physics professors saying this, what I’ve just said, they still pretend that “c” is a “limiting speed” and in order to make that “so”, they proclaim “space” to be “expanding” in between the galaxies, while they claim that the galaxies themselves “are not moving at all”! Now, in my humble opinion, that is “stupid”.

So, ALL of SR and GR have NOT been “proven correct” in experiments and by observation, and some of each have been proven to be wrong.

The canonical view is simply that the electric and magnetic fields you measure depend on your frame of reference.

That might be true, and Doppler said the very same thing about electromagnetic fields in 1842, but the fields I measure do not depend on whether or not you are moving relative to me, and our motion relative to each other doesn't slow down either of our clocks.

It seems to me that any other theory of science can be critiqued openly, except Einstein’s relativity theories. If I or anyone else tries to point out a single mistake, a single flaw in the wording of one of his papers, we are labeled “crackpots” and are accused of “not believing in relativity”. Now THAT is “stupid”.

[Diamond]

Excuse me, who is it on this thread who has repeatedly made the claim that Einstein made errors in SR, and that relativity is a myth?

Nobody.

Really?


While I was growing up, I first learned Classical relativity, and then later I studied Einstein relativity. That’s when I found some of the errors in the Kinematical part of the paper. The first part and the second part of the paper are fundamentally different.

Busted.



Unfortunately YOU are the one with the problem.

That's funny, because from my frame it is you. That's Relativity! =D>

Nope. There are no equivalent frames for truth and error in science. The truth of a proposition is unrelated to the frame of reference.



As long as you think that relativity is some sort of hoax, you won't learn anything.

I don't think that.

Really?


Freddo,

Seriously, you need to stop reading the internet hoax and urban legend websites and study his own original papers. I don't think you even know what he said in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Of course, those internet sites were about the theory of Relativity.



Actually its about Sean being very patient with someone who thinks they know it all, but doesn't.

I've noticed that. He is very patient with himself.

No. He is very patient with YOU, someone who reads but does not comprehend, and when the chips are down, moves the subject from one thought experiment to another.

We're still waiting for a response to


[Snip!]"Everybody" does not "disagree" with me. Only about 5 of your friends on this board, out of 6,500,000,000 people in the entire world disagree with me, but you 5 or 6 don’t represent or speak for the entire world population.

I know of dozens of physics professors and professional physicists who would agree with me, but they don’t waste time arguing this stuff on internet message boards.
Can you please name some of these "dozens of physics professors and professional physicists" of yours? Please put up or shut up.

As Celestial Mechanic says, put up or shut up. In any case, the truth or falsity of a scientific proposition is not related to whether 6,5 billion people believe it, but whether it explains and predicts phenomena.

But lets hear some names of physics professors who agree with you that Einstein made mistakes in his Relativity papers.

[Eroica]

I think we’ve probably got about 10 pages of me explaining some of the errors to you, and about 10 pages of Sean’s changing story about why the clocks “time dilate”, and about 10 pages of “I agree with Sean,” and “Sam5 is a ninny.”
I have explained both the Bob-&-Ann and the Tom-Dick-Harry-&-Sally thought-experiments more than once. I have never changed my story and I have never resorted to saying "I agree with Sean," or "Sam5 is a ninny." You have simply ignored me.

[milli360]

It seems to me that any other theory of science can be critiqued openly, except Einstein’s relativity theories. If I or anyone else tries to point out a single mistake, a single flaw in the wording of one of his papers, we are labeled “crackpots” and are accused of “not believing in relativity”. Now THAT is “stupid”.
Anybody (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Eddington.html) can make a mistake.

[Diamond]

It seems to me that any other theory of science can be critiqued openly, except Einstein’s relativity theories. If I or anyone else tries to point out a single mistake, a single flaw in the wording of one of his papers, we are labeled “crackpots” and are accused of “not believing in relativity”. Now THAT is “stupid”.

No. Einstein's theories are critiqued very openly, which is why they are considered so robust. The very nature of them is such that very clever people have been tripped up by them, and railed against paradoxes that don't exist.

I will go further and define a crackpot. A crackpot is someone who assumes their own logic has universal application despite any and all counter-arguments. You have clearly displayed the relevant conditions for crackpottery:

1. You point out errors in 98 year old scientific papers that miraculously no-one has noticed.
2. You believe that these perceived errors are part of some conspiracy to stifle the truth.
3. You contemptuously believe that any who believes Einstein's Theory are religious believers in a scientific cult.
4. You have NOT POINTED TO ONE ERROR THAT LEADS TO AN EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION.
5. You carefully avoid demonstrations or proofs that can be tested or checked.

Now that is stupid.

[Starbuck]

1. You point out errors in 98 year old scientific papers that miraculously no-one has noticed.
2. You believe that these perceived errors are part of some conspiracy to stifle the truth.
3. You contemptuously believe that any who believes Einstein's Theory are religious believers in a scientific cult.
4. You have NOT POINTED TO ONE ERROR THAT LEADS TO AN EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION.
5. You carefully avoid demonstrations or proofs that can be tested or checked.

Now that is stupid.

Or intentionally provocative...

[SeanF]

But, the original German sentence does not use the two words “simultaneous” and “synchronous”. It uses the single word “gleichzeitig”, which Babblefish translates as, “at the same time”. This would seem to match the word “simultaneous”, rather than “synchronous”.

I will also point out to you that Dictionary.com (referencing The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) gives the first definition of "simultaneous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simultaneous) as "Happening, existing, or done at the same time" and the first definition of "synchronous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synchronous) as "Occurring or existing at the same time."

[Sam5]

But, the original German sentence does not use the two words “simultaneous” and “synchronous”. It uses the single word “gleichzeitig”, which Babblefish translates as, “at the same time”. This would seem to match the word “simultaneous”, rather than “synchronous”.

I will also point out to you that Dictionary.com (referencing The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) gives the first definition of "simultaneous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simultaneous) as "Happening, existing, or done at the same time" and the first definition of "synchronous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synchronous) as "Occurring or existing at the same time."

We are talking about two different sentences and two different meanings of the two different things that he said, which he wrote in German in 1905.

When he wanted to say “happening at the same time”, he said “gleichzeitig”. When he wanted to say “synchronous”, he said “synchron”.

If you think he made a mistake by saying “synchronous” (running at the same rate) when you wish that he had said “synchronized” (showing the same time), then that’s not my problem.

[Sam5]

No. Einstein's theories are critiqued very openly... :^o

[-X

[Sam5]

Starbuck,

Hey, what do you think of Einstein’s use of the terms, ““synchron lauft”, “nicht synchron”, and “gleichzeitig”?

[JimTKirk]

No. Einstein's theories are critiqued very openly... :^o

[-X

Perhaps you should provide specific examples (besides yourself) that include specific proofs! Also, how about giving us the names of those you say agree with you...

[Sam5]

4. You have NOT POINTED TO ONE ERROR THAT LEADS TO AN EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION.

Uhh, a “error” won’t lead to an “experimental confirmation”.

His 1915 “curved space, hypersphere” error was eventually uncovered by scientific observation, and he wrote in 1932:

”There is no direct observational evidence for the curvature, the only directly observed data being the mean density and the expansion, which latter proves that the actual universe corresponds to the non-statical case. It is therefore clear that from the direct data of observation we can derive neither the sign nor the value of the curvature, and the question arises whether it is possible to represent the observed facts without introducing a curvature at all.”

“Although, therefore, the density corresponding to the assumption of zero curvature and to the coefficient of expansion may perhaps be on the high side, it certainly is of the correct order of magnitude, and we must conclude that at the present time it is possible to represent the facts without assuming a curvature of three-dimensional space. The curvature is, however, essentially determinable, and an increase in the precision of the data derived from observations will enable us in the future to fix its sign and to determine its value.”

Why would you care if someone pointed out some errors in an old science paper?

[Starbuck]

Starbuck,

Hey, what do you think of Einstein’s use of the terms, ““synchron lauft”, “nicht synchron”, and “gleichzeitig”?

Bear in mind, my understanding of german used to be quite good (made it through 3 years of college level Deutsch), but that was a while ago.

lauft= traditionally, it's the verb "to run," but it obviously can have a more expansive interpretation a la "to travel swiftly"

nicht= easy. "not." rather difficult to get muddled.

gleichzeitig= ah, German's strong point, ridiculously long compound words. The most comprehensive English interpretaion of "Gleich" would be "exactly." It's akin to the "right" in the English expression "right now." It's an expression of precision. "Zeitig"'s root word, "Zeit," is, of course, "time," which, when the suffix -ig (basically the -ly or -y suffix of English adjectives and adverbs) is added, we get the word "timely." In final construction, the translation I find most suitable is "precisely timed," or, perhaps "punctual."

Or, maybe I'm off my nut and kucharek can right my mistakes.

But am I to understand that one can change the nature of a physics theory simply by re-interpreting the language its presented in? I thought theory was above sematics. 'Course, I have no acumen in science. I'm only reading this thread to see how next you'll evade recognizing the airtight nature of your opponents' arguments. Cheers.

[SeanF]

But, the original German sentence does not use the two words “simultaneous” and “synchronous”. It uses the single word “gleichzeitig”, which Babblefish translates as, “at the same time”. This would seem to match the word “simultaneous”, rather than “synchronous”.

I will also point out to you that Dictionary.com (referencing The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) gives the first definition of "simultaneous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simultaneous) as "Happening, existing, or done at the same time" and the first definition of "synchronous" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synchronous) as "Occurring or existing at the same time."

We are talking about two different sentences and two different meanings of the two different things that he said, which he wrote in German in 1905.

When he wanted to say “happening at the same time”, he said “gleichzeitig”. When he wanted to say “synchronous”, he said “synchron”.

If you think he made a mistake by saying “synchronous” (running at the same rate) when you wish that he had said “synchronized” (showing the same time), then that’s not my problem.

He didn't make a mistake. "Synchronous" means the same thing as "simultaneous," and I've cited the dictionary several times as proof. No matter how much you want to demand that "synchronous" must mean "running at the same rate," it simply isn't so. It can mean that, but it doesn't have to. This is where the skill known as "reading for context" comes in, and you have amply demonstrated that this is not your strong suit.

You demonstrated it when you misunderstood what Einsten meant when he wrote "Now in reality" in his Relativity book, when you misunderstood what Wright meant when he wrote "comoving space" on his website, when you misunderstood what Davidhazy meant when he was talking about the angles in the photograph, when you misunderstood what you yourself meant when you asked about the angles in that photograph. You're reading what you want to read instead of what's actually written, and that's why you consistently don't have any idea what you're talking about.

[semi-sentient]

If someone needs something translated from German to English, let me know. My mom speaks fluent German and English, as do a few of my friends in Berlin. Of course, non of them are physicists so I can't say how technically accurate it would be ... not that I'd know the difference anyway. :D

[The Supreme Canuck]

syn·chro·nous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkr-ns, sn-)
adj.
Occurring or existing at the same time. See Synonyms at contemporary.
Moving or operating at the same rate.

Having identical periods.
Having identical period and phase.




si·mul·ta·ne·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sml-tn-s, sml-)
adj.
Happening, existing, or done at the same time. See Synonyms at contemporary.
Mathematics. Containing variables for which there are values that can satisfy all the equations: simultaneous equations




Entry: simultaneous
Function: adjective
Definition: coexistent
Synonyms: accompanying, agreeing, coetaneous, coeval, coexistent, coexisting, coincident, coinciding, concurrent, concurring, contemporaneous, contemporary, dead heat, in sync, synchronal, synchronic, synchronous

[Sam5]

Perhaps you should provide specific examples (besides yourself) that include specific proofs! Also, how about giving us the names of those you say agree with you...

You can find the examples for yourself, just like I did. For example, you can buy a copy of “The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers”, or “A Sourcebook in Astronomy and Astrophysics – 1900-1975”, or Beckmann’s “Einstein Plus Two”, or “Theory of Relativity” by W. Pauli, first published in 1921.

I found only a couple of the 1905 mistakes myself.

I learned most of them from mainstream physics professors and physicists all across the country and around the world, by talking to some of them personally and by reading their books and papers going back as far as the 1920s, and by reading Einstein’s own later papers in which he changed his mind and contradicted things he had said in the Kinematical part of his 1905 paper.

For example, Petr Beckmann (University of Colorado) said in his 1987 book:

“When I run, I feel a wind; but not one that will make a windmill run. As long as an observer is at rest on the ground, it does not matter whether the velocity of the wind is referred to the observer or the windmill. A physicist who falsely assumes that the effect-producing velocity (that makes the windmill turn) is that with respect to the observer, but correctly applies the relativity principle, will expect the windmill to turn when he is running.”

This is the very point I’ve been trying to make about the magnet and the coil. The only thing that controls the electron flow inside the coil is the changing magnetic field at the coil, and it doesn’t matter how the students are moving or whether it is the coil or the magnet that moves.

Here’s another example that I’ve been trying to explain here, about how just “relative motion” can not change the rate of any clock. This is from Wolfgang Pauli’s 1921 book. Pauli was awarded with a Nobel Prize in 1945:

”Equation (392) has the following physical meaning: Consider two equal, originally synchronous, clocks at rest and let one of them be placed in a gravitational field for a certain length of time. Afterwards they will no longer be synchronous; the clock which had been placed in the gravitational field will have lost. As mentioned by Einstein*, this is the basis of the explanation for the clock paradox described in #5[q.v]. In the coordinate system K’ in which the clock C2 is permanently at rest, a gravitational field exists during the time in which its motion is retarded, and the observer in K’ can regard this field as causing the clock C2 to lose.

* A. Einstein, Naturwissenschaften, 6 (1918) 697.”

In his book, Pauli says this paradox problem was discussed by “Langevin (1911), Laue (1912), and Lorentz (1914)”. And he says, just as I have said, that the only “solution” to the paradox is to place Clock 2 resting on the surface of an astronomical body inside a gravitational field. That’s what I’ve been trying to explain here, and a bunch of guys have been calling me a “crackpot” and other nasty names because of it.

In another chapter of his book, Pauli says:

“Let us describe the process in terms of a reference system K’, always at rest with respect to C2. Clock C1 will then move relative to K’ in the same way as C2 moves relative to K. Yet, at the end of the motion, Clock C2 will have lost compared with C1, i.e. C1 will have gained compared with C2. The paradox is resolved by observing that the coordinate system K’ is not a Galilean reference system and that in such a system the effect of acceleration cannot be neglected, since the acceleration is not produced by an external force, but, in the terminology of Newtonian mechanics, by an inertial force.”

In this thought experiment K is the “stationary system” of the 1905 paper that was called “K” in that paper. K’ is the “k” system (or the “K1” system) that Sean and I have been talking about in the 1905 paper. And Clock 2 is the “moving clock”, which is the one Sean called “Clock 1”.

I have consistently said here that the ONLY solution to this paradox is that if the clock that “lags behind” is place in a gravitational field. I’ve consistently said that just “relative motion” will not resolve the paradox, since there is no “force” placed on the slow clock as the result of the “relative motion”. That’s exactly what Pauli says, that the “force” that slows down the atomic clock is an “inertial force”, and that’s exactly what I have been saying. Einstein discovered this in 1911, with his gravitational redshift theory, and according to Pauli, Einstein began changing his story in 1918, about why the “k” clock “lags behind” the “K” clock, and that reason is because the “k” clock must exist in a gravitational field, or in a stronger field than the “K” clock, and must experience “acceleration” that the K clock does not experience. Pauli also says in his book that the “acceleration” in this thought experiment is not due to the “turn-around”, which is exactly what I’ve said.

I’ve explained this whole thing on this board and this thread over and over again, probably dozens of times. I didn’t make this stuff up. I got it out of Pauli’s book, Einstein’s papers, and out of other mainstream books and papers.

And anyone who disagrees with me, Pauli, and Einstein, might risk being labeled a “crackpot”.

You can’t get this detailed specific information out of popular mass-media type of books, because, apparently, the science writers don’t understand this issue very much. I think maybe the popular physicists, like Einstein, Pauli, Lorentz, and the others, just got tired of trying to explain it over the years, since it is a little complicated, and so today the “runaway” myth that the “relative motion” causes the “lagging behind” prevails in mass-media popular science articles and websites.

So don’t blame me if you learned the wrong information about Einstein relativity theory, or if your own physics professor didn’t explain all of this too you. [-X

[JimTKirk]

Sam5,
The only thing I know about Einstein's theories are what I read in "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" first published in 1920. Does that have the errors you say are contained in the 1905 papers?

[Sam5]

Sam5,
The only thing I know about Einstein's theories are what I read in "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" first published in 1920. Does that have the errors you say are contained in the 1905 papers?

Unfortunately, yes, some of them.

He removed the 1905 thought experiment that led to the original “clock paradox,” but he still said in that 1916 book that moving clocks slow down and length contract due only to “relative motion”. Pauli says he didn’t start attributing the “time dilation” of the “moving clock” in the 1905 theory to “gravity” until 1918. Einstein had plenty of time to correct his errors in the 1916 book, because over the years he added 5 “Appendixes” to the book, and he added the last one in 1952. Most copies of the book today use the English translation of the early 1920s, in Chapters 1 - 32. So, he corrected some of his 1905 errors in his highly-technical papers that he published later and that physicists read back in the old days, but he didn’t correct them in his 1916 mass-media book, which has been reprinted many times.

As I mentioned to Sean, some of his wording in the 1905 paper was so peculiar and difficult to understand, even his translators disagree about what he was trying to say.

Generally speaking, when he considered fields and especially gravitational fields acting on masses, atoms, and electrons, he was more correct, but when just “relative motion” was concerned, he made several mistakes, especially in 1905 and 1907. He was aware of some of the mistakes in 1916, but he didn’t correct them in his book that was designed for the mass-media market. And too many people read just that 1916 book and they think that is all there is to Einstein relativity.

I happen to be a guy who loves research and who has had experience with detailed research projects, so when I first read that 1916 book, and I found stuff in it that was confusing, not logical, or that I disagreed with, I sought answers from many other books and papers. That’s how I learned what I’ve learned. Plus I’ve interviewed several physics professors who are aware of the 1905 and 1907 errors. I’ve conducted my research during the past 12 years.

[Grey]

Ok, I agree with you completely. :D My point is, their motion will not actually change the situation between the magnet and the coil. In other words, a moving student can not make a magnetic or electric field disappear from the room in which the magnet and coil are moving relatively. In other words, anybody’s motion might change what they “see” or think they “see”, but NOBODY’S motion will change what’s actually going on with the magnet and the coil.
Let's be very careful here though. With respect to the magnet and the coil, what's really there are the particles that make them up, and the way in which they move. As for the fields, that's something that we infer from the way those particles are moving (or we can make a device specifically to measure them, of course, using the principles of electrodynamic theory). So, if you read my post thoroughly, you'll see that I said that the fields that exist depend on the motion of the observer measuring those fields.


That’s a “current”? You are a copper wire, and the charged particle is moving inside you??

I don’t think what you describe is that simple, unless you know of a way to make conductorless electric circuits that can have "currents" pass through the air, such as a computer that contains no copper printed circuit boards, with no electrical components touching one another, and toasters that take their electricity right from the air and not from a wire plugged into the wall.

I think the charged particle has to be moving past you inside a conductor, with the conductor stationary and all the atomic nucleuses inside the conductor stationary too, before you can call it a “current” in the usual sense of the word.
No actually, that's not the case. That may be the sense in which a layperson uses the term current, but to a physicist speaking in the context of electrodynamics, a current is just electric charge in motion. It makes no difference whether the charge is confined in some way, or even if it's moving in a linear fashion (it could be spreading out, or converging on a point, or doing something else weird). A single moving charge will generate a magnetic field, just like any other current.


So there are three things in the magnet/coil experiment, not just two: 1) the magnet, 2) the coil of wire with its stationary atomic nucleuses, 3) the electrons inside the coil of wire. When the electrons inside the wire feel a changing magnetic field, no matter whether it is the magnet or the coil that is “moving”, then those electrons go zipping down the wire at almost the speed of light...
A relatively unimportant side note: under normal circumstances, the drift velocity of electrons flowing through a wire is actually quite slow; I believe it's on the order of centimeters per hour, not anywhere close to the speed of light.


...relative to the atomic nucleuses, whereas the coil and the atomic nucleuses don’t move except slightly, relative to the magnet. So, we’ve got the other “stuff” inside the coil to consider, other than just the electrons, and I’m not sure that a single “charged particle” blowing past you in the wind can be called a “current”.
But if you ask a physicist whether there is a current flow in the case of a single moving charged particle, he'll tell you "yes".


Anyway, we’re not talking about occasional “charged particles” blowing past you in the wind. We are talking about billions of electrons inside the coil moving very fast relative to the atomic nucleuses, while they feel a changing magnetic flux inside the coil, and they don’t care whether it’s the magnet or the coil that is “moving”.
Well, I was just trying to simplify the discussion. Rather than discussing millions of electrons travelling, plus the magnet and the coil and all that, I thought we could discuss a single charged particle, and the fields it produces. It's a simpler case, but all the same issues should be relevant.


And in fact, if we use an electromagnet and vary the voltage to it, we don’t need the coil or the magnet to be “relatively moving” at all. That’s why I say it’s not the “relative motion” that causes the electron flow, it’s the changing magnetic flux that does it, and of course the “students” and “observers” don’t have anything at all to do with the physics law that causes the electrons to flow in the coil. But some university physics departments teach that “Einstein relativity” says that if the students move, the laws of physics change for the magnet and coil.
Remember, I said that all the observers will agree about what they predict will happen, but they won't necessarily agree about what forces will cause that to happen. I don't think it's possible to consider the fields that exist at a certain point and the laws of physics that are in action at a given point in time to be as "real" as the particles that we observe moving. The students moving don't change the "laws of physics" as seen by the stationary students, but their motion does change what fields they themselves will measure to be present, and so they'll have a different view as to why the particles are moving the way they do. Why should we take the word of the students that are standing still, rather than the word of the students that are moving, as far as what fields are present? If we're in space, and the coil and magnet moving relative to each other, with one group of students stationary with respect to the coil and one group stationary with respect to the magnet, who's right about what fields are present and acting on the flowing charge?


Please. Don’t say I “disagree with relativity theory”. I’m speaking specifically of certain parts of the 1905 paper. :D Einstein didn’t invent all of “relativity theory”. Galileo discussed it, Newton wrote about it, Doppler predicted star-motion redshifts and blueshifts regarding relative motion. Hundreds of scientists discussed “relativity theories” long before Einstein was born. I’m talking about specific errors contained in the 1905 paper that have become modern science myths and legends. So, I don’t consider “relativity” to be “stupid”. But certain parts of the Kinematical part of the 1905 paper are not only erroneous, but they, those certain parts, are downright “stupid”, as is this physics legend that the motion of the students has something to do with what’s going on inside the magnet and the coil. That is “stupid”, but it’s still being taught in some university physics departments today, and this science myth from the 19th Century is now being attributed to “Einstein’s relativity theory”.
My apologies for generalizing. I disagree that there are parts of the 1905 paper that are "downright stupid", and I don't believe that you've successfully shown that there are. I'll ask a question that others have asked in this thread, but that I don't think you've answered (if you have and I've missed it, I apologize; if so, please point me to your response). Do you believe that the postulates of special relativity (as set forth in the 1905 paper) are in error, or do you believe that there are errors in logic in drawing conclusions from those postulates?


The correct parts of SR and GR work and they have been proven correct by experiments and observations, but the general myth is that ALL parts of SR and GR “work” and have been “proven correct” by experiments and observations.
However, the predictions made from the essential elements of special relativity as set forth in the 1905 paper have been confirmed by experiment. If you know of experiments that contradict the predictions of special relativity, by all means, please tell me!


“c” is apparently not a “limiting speed” on a universal scale since the most distant galaxies apparently are moving away from the earth (and I don’t care how or why the distance is “growing”) at faster than “c”. Whereas “c” does seem to be a “limiting speed” inside local gravitational fields, such as here at the earth. But the distant high-speed galaxies are not traveling through the earth’s gravitational field. They apparently aren’t traveling through any gravitational field at all, and they are carrying their own fields along with them. But instead of physics professors saying this, what I’ve just said, they still pretend that “c” is a “limiting speed” and in order to make that “so”, they proclaim “space” to be “expanding” in between the galaxies, while they claim that the galaxies themselves “are not moving at all”! Now, in my humble opinion, that is “stupid”.
You may not care how or why, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. :D Within the contect of general relativity, there is a world of difference between two objects moving through space at more than the velocity of light, and space itself expadning at a speed higher than that. The former is not permitted, while the latter is. This isn't a semantic game, it's the way the mathematics work out. It's not because of the gravitational fields involved stop (remember, gravitational fields technically go on indefinitely).


That might be true, and Doppler said the very same thing about electromagnetic fields in 1842, but the fields I measure do not depend on whether or not you are moving relative to me...
That's correct, but the fields we'll measure will be different if we're moving differently. Which of us is measuring the "real" field and which of us is mistaken?


...and our motion relative to each other doesn't slow down either of our clocks.
Again, my motion won't change how you see your clock moving, but it will change how I see you clock moving.


It seems to me that any other theory of science can be critiqued openly, except Einstein’s relativity theories. If I or anyone else tries to point out a single mistake, a single flaw in the wording of one of his papers, we are labeled “crackpots” and are accused of “not believing in relativity”. Now THAT is “stupid”.
I disagree. If you can actually show a valid flaw in the theory, you'll probably get a trip to Stockholm. One of the tricky parts, though, is that the mathematics involved is pretty compicated. Physicists seem to have pat answers to most of the objections to the theory because they've been all over it from nearly a century of intense scrutiny, often from people who didn't fully understand the mathematics involved. So it may seem like nobody is listening, but that's probably because someone has heard that objection before, went over the theory, and found out that it's not a valid objection.

[Sam5]

Your text is in bold:

So, if you read my post thoroughly, you'll see that I said that the fields that exist depend on the motion of the observer measuring those fields.

I think we would basically disagree about that. The gravitational field of the sun in no way depends on the motion of an observer a billion light-years away. What the observer “sees” would depend on his motion relative to the sun, but the sun's fields don't depend on his motion. The fields at the magnet and coil in Ecuador in no way depend on the East-West pacing motion of the student in Sumatra, 12,000 miles away.

A single moving charge will generate a magnetic field, just like any other current.

How would you demonstrate this?

A relatively unimportant side note: under normal circumstances, the drift velocity of electrons flowing through a wire is actually quite slow; I believe it's on the order of centimeters per hour, not anywhere close to the speed of light.

Interesting. However, when NBC NY used to send KNBC LA a signal via the old telephone cable, the signal got to LA in a small fraction of a second, so I assume now that it is not believed in physics that the electrons themselves carry that signal, so what is it that can travel through a wire from NY to LA in less than a second? Fields, charges?

Remember, I said that all the observers will agree about what they predict will happen, but they won't necessarily agree about what forces will cause that to happen.

My opinion is rapidly becoming that “nobody really knows, and that’s why some people will ‘disagree’”, but their disagreement is evidently due to their lack of knowledge rather than their “relative motion”.

but their motion does change what fields they themselves will measure to be present, and so they'll have a different view as to why the particles are moving the way they do.

I suspect now that they might not ever know in their lifetime, “why”. Most electrical engineers I’ve known don’t pay any attention to “why”. All they need to know is that the changing magnetic field strength causes the “information flow” in the copper wire, and that “information flow” travels not too much less than the speed of light. Evidently, based on what you say about the slow movement of the electrons through the wire, a fast train could make it from New York to Los Angeles before the wire’s electrons do, so I'll assume now that the information is not carried by the electrons, but something inside that coil is moving at almost the speed of light.

Why should we take the word of the students that are standing still, rather than the word of the students that are moving, as far as what fields are present?

At the present moment, I’m not going to take anybody’s word about what “fields are present”. But I will maintain that the motion of the students has nothing at all to do with what fields are present. If that were the case, then the 6 billion people on earth, all moving around, would be changing the laws of physics all over the place. I think perhaps that “physics does not yet know” the answer to what flows through the coil, why it flows, and what fields are present. But Faraday discovered early in the 19th Century that the varying magnetic field at the coil is what basically sends the current through the coil, and it does not matter who is looking at or moving relative to the magnet or the coil.

If we're in space, and the coil and magnet moving relative to each other, with one group of students stationary with respect to the coil and one group stationary with respect to the magnet, who's right about what fields are present and acting on the flowing charge?

If there are fields present, and if they are measurable, then you put a measuring device right at the magnet and the coil, and totally disregard what the students do. Stop the guessing game. Put measuring devices at the magnet and the coil. If you can’t measure any field appearing and disappearing when the students move, then the theory outlined in Einstein’s opening paragraph is wrong. It’s as simple as that. If you want to still believe that invisible and unmeasurable fields “appear” and “disappear” when students move, then you can hold that as a strong personal “belief”, or a “hunch”, but it shouldn’t be taught to others as a “law of physics”, unless you can show the students the measurements that prove the field “appears” and “disappears”.

What some university professors are getting away with right now is showing the students the deflection of the galvanometer needle when the magnet and coil are moving relatively, and they are just claiming that that is “proof” that the electric field magically “appears” and “disappears” when the students move with either the magnet or the coil. This is outright fraud in the classroom.

If an electric field really “appears” and “disappears” at the magnet and coil for some students but not for others, then it is measurable at the coil and the magnet. If it doesn’t, then this is a fantasy theory. What you are talking about is highly speculative and highly theoretical, and it has nothing to do with the basic fact that it is the changing magnetic field at the coil, and not the “relative motion” of anything or anyone that causes that current flow in the coil.

My apologies for generalizing.

Maybe we can generalize when we talk about general relativity.

I disagree that there are parts of the 1905 paper that are "downright stupid", and I don't believe that you've successfully shown that there are.

Well, sometimes I’m a little too outspoken. Suppose I say that all the parts are “downright brilliant”, but “relative motion” alone has never caused any clock to slow down anywhere in the universe. See my post above about Pauli saying Einstein cleared up the clock paradox of the 1905 paper by adding a gravitational field to the K’ frame. So the “relative motion” of the Kinematical part of the paper does nothing at all to slow down any clock, and Einstein later admitted it in other papers that are almost never quoted today.

Do you believe that the postulates of special relativity (as set forth in the 1905 paper) are in error, or do you believe that there are errors in logic in drawing conclusions from those postulates?

I’ve read so many different versions of them, from “the laws of physics are always the same everywhere”, to what Einstein actually said, “the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good”. I think this was known hundreds of years ago, and probably thousands of years ago by some scientists. Regarding the speed of light postulate, he actually said in 1905, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.” He later amended that somewhat, regarding light being propagated in strong gravitational fields, but he also later said that there is no such thing as “empty space”.

So, which do you prefer to believe, what he said in 1905, or what he published in 1920 and 1952? In 1952 his statement was, “There is no such thing as an empty space, ie. a space without field.”

So, what he said depended on what he believed at the time, and some of what he said in 1905, he disavowed or changed later.

However, the predictions made from the essential elements of special relativity as set forth in the 1905 paper have been confirmed by experiment. If you know of experiments that contradict the predictions of special relativity, by all means, please tell me!

Well, be specific. And, why don’t you show me some experiments that “confirm” what you think he said in 1905. For example, do you have any experiments that show “relative motion” actually “shrivels up” objects? What about the high-z galaxies that appear to be moving at 2 and 3 times the speed of light relative to the earth? What happened to the 1905 “limiting speed”? I hear people say all the time that “the traveling twin ages more slowly”, but can you actually show me a traveling twin that aged more slowly? All of Hafele’s flying atomic clocks ticked more rapidly, when their final readouts were compared to earth-based clocks that did not travel.

Within the contect of general relativity, there is a world of difference between two objects moving through space at more than the velocity of light, and space itself expanding at a speed higher than that.

Why don’t you explain that to me from your point of view? I would like to know what you think the difference is. For example, what would restrict the distant galaxies from “moving through space” at speeds faster than c, relative to the earth?

The former is not permitted, while the latter is.

LOL! Oh? You’ve talked directly to God about this? Or was it just a couple of your professors who said “it’s not permitted”?

This isn't a semantic game, it's the way the mathematics work out. It's not because of the gravitational fields involved stop (remember, gravitational fields technically go on indefinitely).

Yes, but they “thin out” considerably at great distances.

Where does this new “expanding space” come from? Or, is it just the same old space “stretching out” that causes the “expansion of space”? Or is it that nobody really knows, but they believe that higher than “c” velocities “can’t exist”, therefore something else must happen, so how about “an expansion of space”?

... but the fields we'll measure will be different if we're moving differently. Which of us is measuring the "real" field and which of us is mistaken?

We are both measuring the “real” field from different vantage points. First, the “real” field exists whether we move or measure it or not. Then we move within it and we measure it, and we might get different measurements. So? The “real” air exists, but is it a “wind”? That depends on how fast you and I are moving relative to it, but it is not our motion that makes the air “real” or “unreal”, and our motion has nothing to do with the existence of the “real” air. Our motion has to do only with the measurement we get as individuals when we move relative to the “real” air, and if we are moving at different rates, our measurements will vary. Scientists have known this for probably 5,000 years or more.

Again, my motion won't change how you see your clock moving, but it will change how I see you clock moving.

So said Doppler in 1842.

If you can actually show a valid flaw in the theory, you'll probably get a trip to Stockholm.

Lol, no, not me. I might get run out of town on a rail, but I won’t receive a free R/T ticket to Stockholm for this. Anyway, Einstein, Pauli, and others have already shown flaws in the Kinematical part of the 1905 theory. This was all done back in the old days. Perhaps your professors just haven't told you about the flaws yet.

One of the tricky parts, though, is that the mathematics involved is pretty compicated.

Actually, try reading the 1911 gravitational redshift theory. The math is very easy, but the wording is difficult. In fact, I wish you would read that paper and tell me what you think the “U” clocks are for and what they do. Then I’ll give you my opinion.

Oh, and while we’re at it, maybe you can tell me which temperature is lower. Ok, we’ve got two equal relatively moving frames, and this 1907 Einstein statement: “Thus, the temperature of a moving system is always lower with respect to a reference system that is in motion relative to it than with respect to a reference system that is at rest relative to it.”

He’s not talking about what is “seen”. He’s talking about what “is”.

Oh, and by the way, I went to the trouble of copying what he quoted Max Planck as saying about this same subject. This is in Einstein’s 1907 paper, just before his “temperature” paradox. And this version, by Planck, actually makes sense, but Einstein’s version does not. Planck’s version does not contain a paradox, but Einstein’s version does:

Max Planck:

"Let us imagine that the body is brought by some reversible, adiabatic
process from a state in which it is at rest with respect to the unprimed [stationary]
system into a second state, in which it is at rest with respect to the primed [moving]
reference system. If the body's entropy for the unprimed system in the
initial state is denoted by n1 and in the final state by n2, then, because
of the reversibility and adiabatic nature of the process, n1 = n2. But the
process is reversible and adiabatic for the primed reference system as well,
hence we will also have n2’ = n2’.

"Now, if n1’ were not equal to n1 but, say, n1’ > n1 this would mean
the following: The entropy of a body is larger for the reference system for
which it is in motion than for the reference system for which it is at rest.
But this proposition would also require that n2’ > n2, because in the latter
state the body is at rest for the primed reference system while in motion for
the unprimed one. However, these two inequalities conflict with the two
equalities established. Similarly, one cannot have n1’ > n1; consequently
n1’ = n1 and, in general, n’ = n, i.e., the entropy of the body does not
depend on the choice of the reference system."

Physicists seem to have pat answers to most of the objections to the theory because they've been all over it from nearly a century of intense scrutiny, often from people who didn't fully understand the mathematics involved.

“Seem” is the key word in your sentence. See my quote from Pauli, a few posts above, who explained the basic error of the 1905 clock paradox in 1921, and who said Einstein finally admitted the error in 1918 and added a gravitational field to the K’ frame so that that frame’s clock would have a real “forced” placed upon it so that it could actually slow down and “lag behind” the K frame clock. Perhaps your professors haven’t pointed out that particular Pauli quote to you.

Oh, and ask them about Hafele’s statement in his July 18, 1970 paper in Nature, where he said: “What would be the rate of a standard clock that is moving relative to stationary standard clocks on the geoid? The standard answer that moving clocks run slow by the well known factor √1 – (v^2/c^2) is almost certainly incorrect.”

But, I warn you, if you do mention these things to your professors, and if they start to become agitated or red in the face, or if they start having deep chest pains, then drop the subject immediately, for your own good, and for theirs too.

So it may seem like nobody is listening..

Trust me... people are listening.

[Sam5]

Grey,

See this:

Einstein and the twin paradox
Peter Pesic
St John's College, 1160 Camino de la Cruz Blanca, Santa Fe, NM 87505-4599, USA
Received 2 July 2003
Published 5 September 2003

Abstract. Einstein was the first to discuss and resolve the 'twin paradox', which in 1905 he did not consider paradoxical and treated as a consequence of lack of simultaneity. He maintained this view until at least 1914. However, in 1918 Einstein brought forward arguments about accelerated frames of reference that tended to overshadow his initial resolution. His earlier arguments were gradually rediscovered during the subsequent controversy about this 'paradox'.

LINK TO SOURCE (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/24/6/004)

[milli360]

Einstein and the twin paradox
Peter Pesic
This looks promising. Anybody have more details on this article--it appears that it would cost $18 to access it through that link.

The author, Peter Persic, is a musician, but from the abstract it looks like it may resolve some of the disagreements.

[Sam5]

Einstein and the twin paradox
Peter Pesic
This looks promising. Anybody have more details on this article--it appears that it would cost $18 to access it through that link.

I'm trying to find another link that won't cost as much. I'll let you know if I am successful.

The 1918 paper on which this paper is based is available in one of the Einstien "Collected Papers" books, but I don't feel like spending $35 for the book.

[Sam5]

milli360,

What I think happened was, Einstein apparently thought of a lot of his early ideas between the ages of 16 and 26, and when he published the 1905 paper, it contained some great ideas in the Electrodynamical part, but the Kinematical part contained some errors. He gradually corrected those errors as time went by, as he gradually thought more about gravitational fields and how they influence light speed, atomic vibration rates, and the motion of atoms and electrons through them.

Since he was a brilliant atomic theorist by the age of 26, and since he was a contender for the Nobel Prize in physics by 1915-16, as he made the new discoveries about gravity, he realized some of his 1905 and 1907 SR ideas were not quite correct, but he didn’t want to come right out and admit that he had been “wrong” in the Kinematical part of the 1905 theory, so he subtly changed what he said about clocks, time, light speed, and other Kinematical stuff, but without coming right out and saying, “Opps, I was wrong in the Kinematical part of the original 1905 SR theory.”

The reason he was right about some things in the Electrodynamical part of the 1905 theory, was because he imagined atoms and electrons moving through fields, such as at the surface of the earth, whereas in the Kinematical part of the theory, he had fields moving relative to one another, and light beams moving at different speeds in the different relatively moving frames. At “c” in their own frames, but a more or less than “c” when the two moving frames “saw” the light from the other frame.

Essentially, his main “stationary frame” in his earliest thought experiments was the surface of the earth, and at the surface of the earth was where all the 19th Century electrodynamical experiments had been conducted. Since the Michelson Morley experiment had been conducted at the surface of the earth, they could not measure the motion of another astronomical body’s fields relative to the earth. Einstein later went on to use the local gravitational field of an astronomical body as basically a local “light propagating medium”. So, when the fields move relatively, or when light moves from one body to another, the light is changing field orientations and it changes speeds in space. This is why light emitted from the earth at “c” will slow down as it passes near the sun, because it has moved from the earth’s “gravitational-field light propagating medium” to the sun’s “gravitational-field light propagating medium”.

One thing that confuses this entire issue is that atomic clock “tick rates” are influenced by gravitational fields too, so if we use an atomic clock on the sun and an atomic clock on the earth to measure the “local” speed of light at the sun and at the earth, then we will get “c” as the local measurement of the local speed of light. But, if we use an earth-based atomic clock to measure the speed of light passing the sun, we will get “slower than c” for the speed of the light passing the sun, and if we measure the light speed at the earth, by means of an atomic clock located at the sun, we will get “faster than c” for the speed of the light at the earth.

This basic information is contained in his 1911 gravitational redshift theory, but it took me 12 years to figure this all out, since the 1911 paper uses a lot of convoluted and even “backwards” reasoning to come up with its basic (and apparently correct) ideas.

For example, he says in the 1911 paper:

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K’ in S2 toward S1 had the frequency f2 relatively to the clock in S2, then, relatively to S1, at its arrival in S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 relatively to an identical clock in S1, but a greater frequency f1, such as that to a first approximation

f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

------------

Ok, then a few paragraphs later he says:

Thus according to our view the spectral lines of sunlight, as compared with the corresponding spectral lines of terrestrial sources of light, must be somewhat displaced toward the red.....

So, 12 years ago when I first read those two paragraphs, I went, “Doh?? If the earth receives a greater frequency, then how can the waves be shifted toward the red, which indicates a lower frequency??”

In fact I said “Doh??” about that for several years, until I began to figure out some of the other parts of the theory. What he actually does is theoretically manipulate the tick rates of “clocks” at the earth and at the sun, and he actually figures out that atoms at the sun are not only “ticking more slowly”, but they emit redshifted light to start with. So the light is redshifted at the sun, not at the earth, with him thinking in terms of the sun’s “clocks” (which are atomic clocks, ie harmonically oscillating atoms) “slowing down” at the sun, but not slowing down at the earth, since the earth’s gravitational field is weaker at its surface than the sun’s field is at its surface. So the light is not emitted at a normal frequency and then “stretched out” due to the “gravitational pull” of the sun, but the light is emitted at a redshifted frequency to start with.

So, in this theory he is saying: 1) the tick rates of atomic clocks “slow down” in a strong gravitational field and they speed up in weak gravitational fields, 2) atoms inside a strong gravitational field emit light of a lower frequency from the very beginning of their emission, 3) light speed slows down in strong gravitational fields, 4) light speed speeds up in weaker gravitational fields, 5) the “speed up” and “slow down” can not be noticed when measuring the speed locally by means of an atomic clock that is resting inside a local gravitational field, 6) the speed variations can be noticed if we use a local atomic clock to measure the speed of photons that are traveling through a distant gravitational field.

And, if all of this is correct, then we can deduce from this the following:

Light is emitted at the surface of the earth slightly redshifted, and since light travels slow in a strong gravitational field, and fast in a weak gravitational field, therefore, outgoing light from the surface of the earth starts out redshifted from the very beginning, and it starts out traveling slow, then it gradually speeds up the further away it gets from the surface of the earth, but the speed up is very small, not much at all. And we can further deduce, that light traveling toward the earth gradually slows down as it gets closer to the surface of the earth. Thus, a light beam projected horizontally to the surface of the earth will travel slow in the beginning (but measured locally at "c" by means of a local atomic clock) and will be deflected toward the earth very slightly, giving the illusion that the earth is “pulling” the light beam “downward” as the result of a gravitational force acting on a light “particle” that has mass; however, what is actually happening is that the light is being “refracted” by the gravitational field of the earth, and thus curves downward slightly, but as the light leaves the full strength of the local gravitational field of the earth, it becomes “less refracted” and it’s path begins to straighten out as it leaves the vicinity of the earth.

And so, photons would not “speed up” as they approach the surface of the earth, as if they had “mass” and were being “sucked into” the earth or “gaining speed as they were ‘falling’ toward “ the surface. They would actually act like waves that are entering a more “dense” medium (just as they do when they enter glass) and they would “slow down” the closer they get to the surface.

If this analysis is correct, then light “photons” don’t “struggle” to get out of a gravitational well, they merely slow down while inside the gravitational well, and they speed up as they leave it. Also, a photon at or in a “black hole” does not “struggle” to get out of the gravitational field, thus “losing energy” and “disappearing” back into the “back hole”, but the light is actually “emitted at an infinitely low frequency” due to the “infinitely low harmonic oscillation rate of the atoms in the black hole”, which means that the light is “infinitely redshifted”, which means that the light is not “emitted” at all!

Any deeply “redshifted” light seen coming from the vicinity of a black hole, did not “lose energy” while “struggling” to get away from the gravitational pull, but it was emitted at the redshifted frequency to start with. It traveled slowly to start with, but that initial slow travel is not noticed by us, since we are receiving a continuous flow of photons from the source. The only way we could detect that initial slow travel speed would be if we could detect a slight “delay” in the travel time of the light, as, for example, if we could detect a slight reception delay in a “flash” of light coming from the source.

What I’ve just described is merely a “classical” way of describing Einstein General Relativity principles.

[SeanF]

Sam5, a quick question, if you don't mind.

You've indicated that the GR prediction that acceleration changes the rate of an atomic clock is correct. Can you give me the equation that can be used to calculate how much the rate will change for an accelerating clock (relative to a stationary clock) at a given acceleration rate?

(And if it's not an equation that you yourself developed, can you tell me what paper you got it from?)

[Sam5]

Sam5, a quick question, if you don't mind.

You've indicated that the GR prediction that acceleration changes the rate of an atomic clock is correct. Can you give me the equation that can be used to calculate how much the rate will change for an accelerating clock (relative to a stationary clock) at a given acceleration rate?

(And if it's not an equation that you yourself developed, can you tell me what paper you got it from?)

Sure. Give me a couple of hours and I will copy some of the equations from the 1911 theory. I think one or two of them might answer your question. In the meantime, I've got to go out and get a hamburger.

You need to call your local mall book store and order this book:

"THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY", Dover Publications Inc., 0-486-60081-5

This has a lot of the good Einstein papers in it, along with the Lorentz papers. In paperback form this should cost you about $10, thereabouts.

[Sam5]

mili360,

So why didn’t Einstein say what I just said? Well, in some ways he did, such as when he said in the 1911 paper:

Let f0 be the vibration-number of an elementary light-generator, measured by a delicate clock at the same place.

Ok, the “elementary light-generator” is merely an “atom”, and a basic single atom is an fundamental “atomic clock”.

The “delicate clock” he mentions, he later calls a “U” clock. And after studying the theory for many years, I finally realized that this “U” clock tick rate speeds up in a weak gravitational field and it slows down in a strong gravitational field, at the same rate as the vibration rate of the “elementary light-generator”. So, the “U” clock is nothing more or less than a local “atomic clock”! It is the “atom” itself! And so, when he says, “Let f0 be the vibration-number of an elementary light-generator,” he’s saying let frequency “0” be the vibration-number of an atom at the surface of the sun. (The “0” doesn’t mean zero frequency, it just means the sun-atom’s frequency, whatever that frequency might be.)

Now, here’s where his theory becomes very complicated, although he says it is “simple”:

On a superficial consideration equation (2), or (2a), respectively, seems to assert an absurdity. If there is constant transmission of light from S2 [the sun] to S1 [the earth], how can any other number of periods per second arrive in S1 than is emitted in S2? But the answer is simple. We cannot regard f2 or respectively f1 simply as frequencies (as the number of periods per second) since we have not yet determined the time in system K. What f2 denotes is the number of periods with reference to the time-unit of the clock U in S2, while f1 denotes the number of periods per second with reference to the identical clock in S1. Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U in different gravitational potential must be regarded as going at the same rate.

Then he goes on to describe, in a very complicated way, how the U clock tick rates in each place (at the sun and at the earth) mimic “the vibration-number of an elementary light-generator” at each place. It took years for me to figure out that all he was saying – and I think he didn’t even realize it himself – was that the U clocks are “atomic clocks”. And when the U clocks slow down in a gravitational field, like at the sun, at the same rate as the vibration rates of the atoms in the same field, then the atoms emit a lower frequency of light, as measured by the same kind of U clock (the same kind of atom) located on the surface of the earth.

So, according to the sun’s slower-ticking U clock, the sun’s atoms are NOT emitting a “lower frequency” of light, but according to the faster-ticking earth-based U clock, the sun’s atoms ARE emitting a “lower frequency” of light.

Therefore, the light at the sun is emitted at a lower frequency to start with, when compared to the same light emitted by the same kind of atom at the earth. And here we have the reason why atomic clocks slow down when resting in a strong gravitational field, and why they speed up when resting in a weaker gravitational field.

And this is why he says later in that same paper:

This has a consequence which is of fundamental importance for our theory. For if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K’, employing clocks U of identical constitution, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitational potential.

What he’s saying here is that if we use atomic clocks resting on the surface of an astronomical body, they will always measure “c” as the local speed of light at that body and at the exact place where the clocks that are measuring the local light speed are located. So, if we want to measure the various speeds of light at various local places in the universe, then we can’t use local atomic clocks that are resting on the bodies at those different places to do it, since, if we do, then we will always measure “c” as the local light speed at each place where those resting atomic clocks are located, since the rates of atomic clocks that are resting inside a local gravitational field are “geared” to the local speed of light in that same gravitational field. IE, when the clocks slow down, the local speed of light slows down the same amount. When the clocks speed up, the local speed of light speeds up the same amount.

So, as he says, we “must use clocks of unlike constitution” if we want to measure the various speeds of light at different places. So, what kind of clock can we use? I suggest a rapidly spinning distant pulsar, the rate of which would be steady and would not be influenced by our earth’s own gravitational field. So, a steady stream of pulsar pulses would be received at the same rate at sea level and on top of a mountain on earth, whereas an atomic clock will tick more slowly at sea level, than when it is on top of a mountain, because of the different gravitational potentials at those two places.

For example of how pulsars can be used to measure relativistic effects, see this website:

Pulsars are neutron stars -- the extremely dense, strongly magnetized, rapidly spinning remnants of supernova explosions. They also appear to be nature's most precise clocks. Over intervals exceeding a few months, some of them have stabilities exceeding those of the best atomic clocks. A few dozen pulsars are known to be members of gravitationally bound orbiting systems, some with orbital periods so short that general relativistic effects can be detected by comparing the "ticks" of the pulsar clocks with those of terrestrial atomic clocks. Such experiments have yielded exquisite experimental tests of the relativistic nature of gravity

SOURCE (http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:6dodqN5hQ8IJ:www.princeton.edu/~umpc/taylor.html+rapidly+spinning+pulsar+clocks&hl=en&i e=UTF-8)

And.....

The rapid millisecond pulsars are important for an additional reason: they have relatively weak magnetic fields (about 10 000 times smaller than their normal brethren) and so they only slowly radiate away their energy. As a result, they constitute the most accurate clocks known. This makes them ideal tools for studying relativistic effects

SOURCE (http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:cAbO_Sb0qmgJ:www.astron.nl/ska/science/strom/graveyard.htm+rapidly+spinning+pulsar+clocks&hl=en &ie=UTF-8)


:D

[SeanF]

Sam5, a quick question, if you don't mind.

You've indicated that the GR prediction that acceleration changes the rate of an atomic clock is correct. Can you give me the equation that can be used to calculate how much the rate will change for an accelerating clock (relative to a stationary clock) at a given acceleration rate?

(And if it's not an equation that you yourself developed, can you tell me what paper you got it from?)

Sure. Give me a couple of hours and I will copy some of the equations from the 1911 theory. I think one or two of them might answer your question. In the meantime, I've got to go out and get a hamburger.

Mmm. Hamburger sounds good.

The 1911 theory? I'm looking for something you accept as correct, not something you think Einstein got wrong. I'm hoping you're not going to point out one that had to be changed or modified in later papers . . .


You need to call your local mall book store and order this book:

"THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY", Dover Publications Inc., 0-486-60081-5

This has a lot of the good Einstein papers in it, along with the Lorentz papers. In paperback form this should cost you about $10, thereabouts.

I'll look into it.

[Sam5]

Mmm. Hamburger sounds good.

The 1911 theory? I'm looking for something you accept as correct, not something you think Einstein got wrong. I'm hoping you're not going to point out one that had to be changed or modified in later papers . . .

No, no. We’ve entered a new phase of our discussion. During my last several posts, I’ve been translating Einstein’s General Relativity theory into the Classical terms of Newtonian and Dopplerian mechanics and Maxwellian electrodynamics. Evidently I’ve been doing this for the past 12 years and didn’t realize what I was doing. Somebody needs to publish a good book that does this, and then everybody can understand Einstein relativity, including all the university physics professors of average intelligence.

Basically, Newton, Doppler, and Maxwell used only one absolutely steady clock tick rate. To a Classicist like myself, a “perfect” clock is a “perfectly steady” clock that doesn’t change rates when it is moved from place to place or elevated or placed inside a strong gravitational field, just like that new "atomic clock" I bought that receives updated synchronization signals from the stationary atomic clock in Boulder. Now I'm happy, because I have a reasonably stable earth based clock for the first time in my life.

But to an Einsteinian, a “perfect” clock has a steady rate ONLY at the place where it is resting inside a gravitational field, and its rate must be compared with the local speed of light at the clock, and if it is moving it must be moving at a steady velocity and as far away from a strong gravitational field as possible, in order to have a steady rate at the place where it is at the moment. But when clock rates are compared from place to place, there is no classical “perfect” absolutely steady clock in Einsteinian relativity.

Ok, so I do go along with the 1911 paper, except that I would shorten it a little and uncomplicate it by leaving out the “U” clocks. All they are, are atomic clocks.

So you have the equation I posted earlier. Then after that he says:

For yh we substitute the gravitational potential Φ of S2 [at the sun] and that of S1 [at the earth] being taken for zero, and assume that the relation which we have deduced for the homogeneous gravitational field also holds for other forms of field. Then

f1 = f2 (1 + (Φ/c^2))

Where f2 is the vibration rate of an atom at the sun and f1 is the vibration rate of the same kind of atom at the earth. But you need to use caution with some of his equations, because he often thought in a “backward” manner, and so it is possible that his frequency numbers might be reversed. This is because sometimes he thought of the sun's atomic clock while he thought of the sun’s vibrating atom, and other times he thought of the sun’s atomic clock tick rate as seen from the earth and the frequency of the sun’s light when received on earth and measured by an earth-based atomic clock. This is one thing that is so confusing about some of his papers. Sometimes he doesn’t make it clear which clock rate he is using to measure frequencies and light speed.

Ok, so you might want to compare that equation with a real in-use modern atomic clock gravitational-redshift and time-dilation equation. Sometimes his theory equations are the “pure” ones which are based on some basic and fundamental single law of physics, whereas in reality they have to be modified somewhat to match real-life situations which might include other laws of physics that are not calculated into his own original basic theories. As a theoretical physicist, he tends to think more in terms of “pure” individual laws of physics, one at a time, rather than a bunch of them mixed up together, but a pragmatic working physicist has to think in terms of a whole bunch of laws of physics mixed up together.

By the way, you can find Greek math symbol computer codes here:

SOURCE FOR GREEK MATH SYMBOLS (http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/demos/symbol.html#s0370)

Use the “Numeric reference” codes for this board.

:D

[SeanF]

Okay, that's for the equivalent gravitational field, but what if it's just two clocks with one of them being accelerated. In that case, would you use the original equation you posted?


f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

What are y and h?

[Sam5]

Okay, that's for the equivalent gravitational field, but what if it's just two clocks with one of them being accelerated. In that case, would you use the original equation you posted?


f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

What are y and h?

He says:

In a homogeneous gravitational field (acceleration of gravity y) let there be a stationary system of co-ordinates K, oriented so that the lines of force of the gravitational field run in the negative direction of the axis of z. In a space free of gravitational fields let there be a second system of coordinates K’, moving with uniform acceleration (y) in the positive direction of the axis of z.

Oh, lol, he also says:

To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity [the 1905 theory], and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.

In other words, “never mind” about the 1905 SR theory, because THIS is the real “relativity” theory.

He also says:

Let the two material systems S1 and S2, provided with instruments of measurement, be situated on the z-axis of K at the distance h from each other, so that the gravitational potential in S2 is greater than that in S1 by yh.

Later in the paper he turned the S1 system into the earth and the S2 system into the sun.

He has a drawing with S2 at the top of the z axis, S1 at the bottom, and h being the distance between the two, and y being represented by an arrow pointing down from S2 toward S1.

[SeanF]

Okay, I don't understand your answer. You're still talking about gravitational fields.

If I have a stationary clock, and h distance away I have another clock that is accelerating (relative to the stationary clock) at a rate of y, can I put the appropriate values for h and y into the equation

f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

And determine how the accelerating clock's rate (f1) will compare to the stationary clock's rate (f2)?

[Sam5]

Okay, I don't understand your answer. You're still talking about gravitational fields.

If I have a stationary clock, and h distance away I have another clock that is accelerating (relative to the stationary clock) at a rate of y, can I put the appropriate values for h and y into the equation

f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

And determine how the accelerating clock's rate (f1) will compare to the stationary clock's rate (f2)?

Well, that's what he said. You asked me what y and h were, and I gave you the quotes where he introduced them into the paper.

[SeanF]

Okay, I don't understand your answer. You're still talking about gravitational fields.

If I have a stationary clock, and h distance away I have another clock that is accelerating (relative to the stationary clock) at a rate of y, can I put the appropriate values for h and y into the equation

f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

And determine how the accelerating clock's rate (f1) will compare to the stationary clock's rate (f2)?

Well, that's what he said. You asked me what y and h were, and I gave you the quotes where he introduced them into the paper.

:( I also said . . .


I'm looking for something you accept as correct, not something you think Einstein got wrong.

You had said before that you accepted the GR prediction that an accelerating atomic clock will change its rate relative to a stationary atomic clock. Do you accept that this specific equation gives the correct "rate change" or don't you?

[Sam5]

Okay, I don't understand your answer. You're still talking about gravitational fields.

If I have a stationary clock, and h distance away I have another clock that is accelerating (relative to the stationary clock) at a rate of y, can I put the appropriate values for h and y into the equation

f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

And determine how the accelerating clock's rate (f1) will compare to the stationary clock's rate (f2)?


Well, that's what he said. You asked me what y and h were, and I gave you the quotes where he introduced them into the paper.



I also said . . .


Look, I don’t know what you are fishing for. I gave you what you asked for, and that is never enough for you, so just buy the book and look up the theory yourself.

[SeanF]

Look, I don’t know what you are fishing for. I gave you what you asked for, and that is never enough for you, so just buy the book and look up the theory yourself.

Wow. You've got a book? What's it called? See, I'm not interested in knowing what Einstein thought. I'm interested in knowing what you think.

You suspect I'm "fishing for" something. So what if I am? If you know what you're talking about, I would just end up looking stupid if I tried to "get you," wouldn't I?

You claimed that GR's prediction of clock changes under acceleration was perfectly valid and acceptable, but you don't really understand it, do you? You don't know how acceleration affects the clocks, you don't know how much it affects the clocks, you don't know how to calculate the rate change for a clock undergoing a given acceleration -- so how can you accept it as valid?

[Sam5]

Wow. You've got a book? What's it called? See, I'm not interested in knowing what Einstein thought. I'm interested in knowing what you think.

You suspect I'm "fishing for" something. So what if I am? If you know what you're talking about, I would just end up looking stupid if I tried to "get you," wouldn't I?

You claimed that GR's prediction of clock changes under acceleration was perfectly valid and acceptable, but you don't really understand it, do you? You don't know how acceleration affects the clocks, you don't know how much it affects the clocks, you don't know how to calculate the rate change for a clock undergoing a given acceleration -- so how can you accept it as valid?


[-X No personal insults please. Just stick to the intellectual part of the discussion.

[Tensor]

Look, I don’t know what you are fishing for. I gave you what you asked for, and that is never enough for you, so just buy the book and look up the theory yourself.

Wow. You've got a book? What's it called? See, I'm not interested in

snip

rate change for a clock undergoing a given acceleration -- so how can you accept it as valid?

Sean, from my point of view, I didn't see any personal insults in here. A couple of valid questions and some conclusions just about anyone would come to.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]I happen to be a guy who loves research and who has had experience with detailed research projects, so when I first read that 1916 book, and I found stuff in it that was confusing, not logical, or that I disagreed with, I sought answers from many other books and papers. That’s how I learned what I’ve learned. Plus I’ve interviewed several physics professors who are aware of the 1905 and 1907 errors. I’ve conducted my research during the past 12 years.
Which "detailed research projects"? Could you please name some of your "several physics professors"? Put up or shut up.

[Celestial Mechanic]

A few more comments while I'm here:

Sam5 keeps repeating a mantra that basically goes "Kinematical Part bad, Electrodynamical Part good." He accepts GR (at least as far as the 1911 paper he's always quoting), but not SR. Unfortunately Sam5, you really cannot pick and choose. In the Electrodynamical Part of the 1905 paper, the first thing that Einstein does is use the Lorentz transformations just derived in the "erroneous" Kinematical part to derive first the transformation of the electromagnetic fields in the case of empty space (no sources) and then goes on to derive the relativistic forms of the Doppler shift and aberration, some results concerning the energy of light rays, then the transformations of the electromagnetic fields when charges and currents are taken into account and finally some results on the dynamics of a slowly accelerated electron. All of these results are built upon the transformations derived in the Kinematical Part and cannot be valid if the Kinematical Part is wrong.

Also, I have searched the second part of the paper in vain for any mention of the fields being in a gravitational field where your imaginary "c-regulator" lives. There is no mention of gravity whatsoever in this paper, unless he is subsuming it under the definition "where the laws of mechanics hold good".

[Eroica]

If I have a stationary clock, and h distance away I have another clock that is accelerating (relative to the stationary clock) at a rate of y, can I put the appropriate values for h and y into the equation

f1=f2 (1 + γ (h/c^2))

And determine how the accelerating clock's rate (f1) will compare to the stationary clock's rate (f2)?
No. The equation you give relates to two observers, S1 and S2, who are both in freefall in a homogeneous gravitational field of acceleration y (in the directions from S2 to S1). If S2 sends a pulse of radiation to S1, the frequency and energy of this radiation will be greater as measured by S1.

The equation you want, where one clock is being accelerated and the other is stationary, can be derived from SR without any need for GR. I did it recently on another thread. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=172713#172713)

t = [c/(2g)] * [e^(gT/c) – e^(-gT/c)]

OR

t = (c/g) * sinh(gT/c)

where

t is the time recorded on the stationary clock
T is the corresponding time on the accelerated clock
g is the acceleration
e is 2.7182818284....
c is the speed of light

Because the relative velocity of the accelerated clock is constantly increasing, its tick-rate is constantly decreasing.

[kilopi]

No. The equation you give relates to two observers, S1 and S2, who are both in freefall in a homogeneous gravitational field of acceleration y (in the directions from S2 to S1). If S2 sends a pulse of radiation to S1, the frequency and energy of this radiation will be greater as measured by S1.
But that seems to match the formula I use here (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twin2.htm).


The equation you want, where one clock is being accelerated and the other is stationary, can be derived from SR without any need for GR. I did it recently on another thread. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=172713#172713)
I couldn't find the derivation at that thread. Help?

[SeanF]

[-X No personal insults please. Just stick to the intellectual part of the discussion.

"[J]ust buy the book and look up the theory yourself" passes for intellectual discussion in your world?

What I'm trying to get you to realize (and what I think you have realized, which is why you refused to answer my question) is that the simultaneity issue is still part of GR, and you can't accept GR without accepting it.

Of course, GR has been experimentally shown valid (GPS and all that), so it can't be denied, can it? In fact, that means that the simultaneity "paradox" can't really be a paradox after all.

But if it's not really a paradox in GR, then it isn't one in SR, either . . .