Arguing Einstein

[Doctordick]

Well guys and gals, I had to look at "Arguing Einstein" to see what the argument was all about. I am afraid I saw some simplistic errors in the discussion beyond those made from total ignorance. First of all there is the issue of "Laws" and "Theories". It is apparent that few people here comprehend just what this subject is all about. With regard to Einstein's "theories" of relativity, the obtained relationships (that is, the equations to be used to transform the descriptions of experiments in one frame to the correct descriptions of the same experiments as seen from a different frame of reference) are laws of physics. The theory is not that these relationships are correct but rather, why they are correct. It is Einstein's theory that this phenomena is due to the geometry of space (or rather, his space-time continuum).

 

Now the issues here sometimes get confused as particularly his theory of general relativity. Once his theory was proposed, it made a number of predictions: bending of star light passing a massive body, the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, and gravitational red shift to name a few (those thought of early on). Originally, that these things should occur was a theoretical proposition. The bending of star light was unexpected otherwise but the fact that the perihelion of Mercury's orbit advanced with respect to Newton's theory was known. Of course, the gravitational red shift was also a theoretical prediction as few people doubted the classical view of clocks.

 

Once the theory was put forth, experimentalists went to check these predictions. When they did they obtained the results predicted by the theory (well, within experimental error limits), the phenomena began its transformation into "laws". Gravitational bending of light (as predicted) was pretty well seen to be a fact; but the advance of the perihelion of Mercury was still a little iffy as Einstein's results were not "exactly" the observed advance. The gravitational red shift, however, has completely made the transformation into a "Law". That occurred when it was realized that the energy of a photon was quantized and had to be proportional to its frequency. With that realization, it became clear that conservation of energy was the only requirement necessary to generate gravitational red shift: i.e., any theory of gravity which is consistent with conservation of energy must yield the gravitational red shift. Thus it is that the gravitational red shift is no longer regarded as a valid test of Einstein's theory (even Newton's theory can be used to predict the red shift). Gravitational red shift is now an accepted law of physics.

 

Another issue which seems to me to be relevant here is the axiom that the laws of physics must be the same in all reference frames. That axiom may be false. It is a well known fact that the spectral distribution of the far infrared background radiation is a function of one's frame of reference. That is to say there exists one very special reference frame: that would be the frame of reference for which the center of mass of the universe is at rest. If that frame is "special" then it is entirely possible that the axiom is false and that any theory based on it could be false.

 

Just had to get my two cents in!

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Southtown]

Just had to get my two cents in!

Refreshing insight! I must confess, I am totally ignorant of these things, and any babble contained in my posts is pure conjecture. I know that relativity is pure math, and I know next to nothing of math. I am a high school drop out, who sobered up at 20 and got a AAS degree in computers, and currently spray cabinets and moulding with sealer during the graveyard hours. So I have a lot to learn in the way of physics on top of the catch up work from public education.

 

That said, I've been self-educating lately and just started to understand the implications of SR, specifically the second postulate, since it has been demonstrated (or so I hear.) If light travels at the same speed for all inertial frames of reference, then either time is relative to motion, or some other laws of physics are. This is surreal to me, seemingly miraculous! The fact that ANY laws can be relative to an observer (or frame) so that all experience the same effects but with tweaked constants, is utterly suspicious, and wreaks to me of... well, divine providence... or at least a consciousness related fabric of existence, rather than matter/energy.

 

The whole "spacetime" concept is still little more than a grid in my head. I'm not sure I know how to validate it with reality. I'm just the perpetual skeptic, though, trying to take everything with a grain of salt. I know how much I can trust people to screw things up, because I am one. LOL (Nice motto, Dr)

[CraigD]

If time dilation is real on our world and we can measure it. It must become different values of time dilation on the world according to Cluster of Coma, Virgo, M 81, M 87, Abell 2246, 3C273, NGC 4536……..etc. simultaneously. Of course this case is impossible.

I believe the source of you confusion with the implication of relativistic time dilation stems from your conclusion that it is impossible for the time dilation factor between many inertial frames to differ.

 

Algebraically, your statement is equivalent to: tB/tA = tB/tC where A, B, C are 3 object in motion relative to each other, which is equivalent to the claim tA = tC. Intuitively, this says that all inertial frames other than B are the same.

 

This is incorrect.

 

A neat and traditional way to visualize multiple time dilation factors between multiple inertial frames is with the aid of a 2-axis “space-time diagram”. Here’s one, time on the horizontal and distance on the vertical axis, to the limit of my ASCII art abilities :eek_big:, where, relative to A, vA=0, vB=.6c, vC=.3c

. . . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . .+.
. . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. . . . . b. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. . . . . . . . b. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . *. . . . . . . . . c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . *. . . . c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . +. . a. . a. . a. . a. . a. . .a. . a . . a. . a. .+. . a . . a. . a . .a. . a. . a . . a . .a . .a .
. . . . *. b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . *. . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . *. . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . *. . . . . . . b. . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Where the clock times for the 3 “world lines” for A, B, and C are:
tA. .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .15. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 
tB. .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 . . . . . . . . . . . . .24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4
tC. .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.3. . . . . . . . . . . .28.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2

Giving the different time dilation factors:

tB/tA = 12-0/15-0 = 24-12/30-15 = .8

tB/tC = 12-0/14.3-0 = 30.4-12/36.2-14.3 = ~.84

tC/tA = 36.2-0/38-0 = ~.95

 

Note that it doesn’t matter which object we chose to give 0 velocity, or even if we give 0 velocity to a 4th object in relative motion to the 3 – the 3 time dilation factors will be the same.

 

(the *s represent the world line for a photon traveling in either direction – the “light cone”, and isn’t important to the discussion, just traditional in space-time diagrams)

[xersan]

"same for all observerse." interesting concept. seems to me the whole argument is based on the varied perceptions between observers. hmmm. twin A leaves earth at fast speed, returns younger than twin B. "same" for all? i'm not saying these things don't happen, just that its an interesting way to phrase an axiom. oh, wait, semantics, nevermind.

 

There is an alternative interpretation for this concept.

[xersan]

It is. The point is that the basic assumption of relativity is that If it is not, then relativity fails, or at least will suffer a major setback.

 

Perception is what makes certain things seem like paradoxes when they are not. The finite speed of light is one of those "paradoxes" - it seems to violate the addition of speeds.

 

It is not a semantic discussion at heart. It turns into a semantic discussion when we start arguing what Einstein meant by this and that.

 

 

the laws of physics *must* be the same for everyone, all over the universe.. The wording "The velocity of light is measured always by the fixed value of < c > in every system" is more autenthic/perfect expression instead of the wording "The velocity of light is the same value for every system" . There is a nuans for the meaning. Einstein and others are falling into a trap of this nuans.

[xersan]

I believe the source of you confusion with the implication of relativistic time dilation stems from your conclusion that it is impossible for the time dilation factor between many inertial frames to differ.

 

Algebraically, your statement is equivalent to: tB/tA = tB/tC where A, B, C are 3 object in motion relative to each other, which is equivalent to the claim tA = tC. Intuitively, this says that all inertial frames other than B are the same.

 

This is incorrect.

 

 

Thanks for your effort. Your explaining is clever but it can not transform the multiple time dilations to a single value.

 

The essence of time dilation is wrong; please follow the posts of <one step beyond> by me.

[xersan]

ONE STEP BEYOND (1)

 

Do you join since here ?

 

ONE STEP BEYOND (2)

 

This is a new scrutiny that appears here for the first time.

 

Usually the formula of time dilation is set like explanation at the post of <one step beyond (1)>. And than person approve the time dilation. If we can think one step beyond ; we can find amazing results. And we can catch a chance to pass over the idefix what has captured human mind for 100 years.

 

Here is new scrutiny :

We put the source for this time to different place as following (S0S1 = v.t)

 

The moment of T0

 

…………………………….So

_______________________________

……………..………..*

 

 

 

………………………………………………====> v

 

 

 

_________V_______________

…………………..Oo

 

 

The moment of T1 ( t = T1 – T0)

 

…………………………….So..............S1

………….._______________________________

…………………………….*…………*

………….…….…………..!……...…/

……………....……….....!........../

………………..............!......../

………………...…….…...!…...../

…………………..…………!….../

……………………………..!...../

……………………………..!..../

……………………….…….!../

…._______+_______V_________________

…………………Oo.………O1

 

NOW, We do the same procedure exactly:

 

S0S1 = v.t S0O1 = c.t S1O1 = c.t’

 

With Pisagor relation (c.t’)2 = (v.t)2 + (c.t)2

 

===> t’ = t{1 + (v/c)2}1/2 The tempo of time become faster??????????????

[Doctordick]

Hi Southtown,

 

Not to insult you, but you remind me of myself when I was about ten years old. That's when I first heard about Einstein and relativity. I was ignorant as hell and didn't always understand what I was being told. Since you are not on the tenure track to being a professional physicist, I will tell you a tale which I think is worth thinking about (I showed this to a professor my second year in graduate school and he advised me not to show it to any of the other students because it would confuse them ;) ,but I don't think you will be confused – you're not educated enough to have lost your ability to think. ;) ) When I was originally told about relativity (back when I was ten), the most astonishing thing they told me was what is often referred to as the twin paradox. Well, not being familiar with "physics" my reaction was, "gee, clocks don't measure time!" The issue being that, if the twins were supposed to meet at a specific time, they certainly couldn't use their clocks to schedule the meeting! :(

 

Just as an aside, simultaneous means that "it's all at the same time" so the fact that simultaneity can not be uniquely defined sort of means that "time" can not uniquely defined doesn't it? But, let's go back to the twin paradox for a moment. Suppose the moving twin went to Alpha Centauri in a fast space ship. I mean like really fast; like ten seconds (if we are going to dream, let's dream big :( ). Then it turns out that the twin who stayed home sees the moving twin traveling at the speed of light (for all practicable purposes as the actual difference is extremely negligible). So the twin gets back roughly four years after he left and his clock only reads ten seconds of elapsed time. (That is the correct relativistic answer!)

 

So, what conclusion did my ten year old mind come to? Well before we can actually get to that, we have to have another deep meaningful statement promulgated by the theory of relativity: time is another dimension perpendicular to space. So, in my unbelievably ignorant mind, my clock must be measuring my change in position on that coordinate. Clearly my twins change in position on that coordinate was exactly the same as mine: roughly four years. But he had traveled a distance of four light years (two out and two back). Clearly, the distance one moves forward in time is exactly equal to the distance one moves in this "relativistic four dimensional space". Notice that in my mental image, this other axis Einstein had introduced was an axis just like x, y or z. (I had not the slightest idea of "imaginary numbers"). Notice also that my mental coordinate system was strictly Euclidean as I was ignorant of the possibility of anything else.

 

The only mental problem was that this fourth axis was projected out of view (we lived in a three dimensional projection of this four dimensional universe I had in my mind). I actually thought I understood what they were talking about. When I got to high school and took physics (they didn't teach relativity in high school back then) I used my mental image to obtain what I thought were the correct relativistic alterations to be applied to Newtonian mechanics.

 

When I got to college, they taught us the theory of relativity. It was then that I discovered I had misinterpreted most everything Einstein intended. However, by that time most all of the relationships I had deduced when I was in High School were pretty well second nature to me and I could use that perspective to solve relativistic problems quite quickly (at least from a a general expectation perspective). I was quite astonished that my point of view almost always yielded the same answer as the recognized theory. It wasn't until my second year in graduate school (when I had had enough mathematics to lay out that ten year old perspective in mathematical detail) that I discovered that the two perspectives were, mathematically, identical. That was when I showed my professor what I was doing in my head and got that "don't show this to the other students; it will confuse them" comment. So I didn't, I kept it to myself.

 

But another significant thing occurred in graduate school. That problem of projecting out the fourth axis vanished. I had begun my study of quantum and the solution of that projection just fell out of the sky. The uncertainty principal says that you cannot know both the momentum and position of an object simultaneously. In fact, if you know the momentum exactly, the expectation of the position is infinitely uncertain. Well, at least when it is at rest, the "momentum" along the time axis is mass. If the mass of an object is quantized, its position along that axis is infinitely uncertain. Well gee guys, every scientist I am aware of works in a laboratory constructed almost entirely of "mass quantized objects". No wonder he sees this dimension as projected out.

 

At that point, I thought of the two perspectives as totally equivalent but utterly worthless as a valuable insight. It wasn't until later, when I got seriously into general relativity that I realized that my perspective was actually superior to Einstein's. Remember, mine is based on a Euclidean coordinate system and is perfectly consistent with quantum mechanics. That actually makes general relativity quite straight forward. It yields general relativity in a much simpler mathematical representation and a representation which is perfectly consistent with quantum. However, I am now considered a certified quack and can't get anything published.

 

I just told you this for the fun of it. If you are interested, I can explain all of the phenomena of both special and general relativity in terms which are quite simple to understand but quite at odds with the conventional perspective. If you were going for a graduate degree I wouldn't want to "confuse" you by pointing out an alternate catechism to the current idiom. But since you seem to have a desire to understand the phenomena itself as simply as possible, perhaps you might look at my approach.

 

Actually, it is nothing more or less than treating Einstein's space-time path as a fundamental coordinate axis and treating his "time" axis as a path in the that coordinate space. The two perspectives can be proved identical by a very simple expedient. If you are interested in that proof, take a look at a post I made on "physicsforums.com". Unfortunately that post is followed by a number of posts not at all connected with the conversation with Hurkyl and the second step was not made until 04-27-2004. Actually, as the post was quite long, it is spread over four posts made from 11:30 to 12:30 on that date. Finally, you might like to take a look at a paper I tried to get published back around the turn of the century: "Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict".

 

Apparently the crux of my difficulty with the physics community is my assertion, "clocks do not measure time". Their response is universally, "clocks measure time by definition; discussion over, you are a quack". So don't try to talk to physicists about this. ;)

I'm not sure I know how to validate it with reality. I'm just the perpetual skeptic, though, trying to take everything with a grain of salt. I know how much I can trust people to screw things up, because I am one. LOL (Nice motto, Dr)

If anything I said doesn't make basic sense to you let me know. I love to talk to intelligent people; most of all to true skeptics.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[CraigD]

… This is a new scrutiny that appears here for the first time.

…

…………………………….So..............S1

………….._______________________________

…………………………….*…………*

………….…….…………..!……...…/

……………....……….....!........../

………………..............!......../

………………...…….…...!…...../

…………………..…………!….../

……………………………..!...../

……………………………..!..../

……………………….…….!../

…._______+_______V_________________

…………………Oo.………O1

 

NOW, We do the same procedure exactly:

 

S0S1 = v.t S0O1 = c.t S1O1 = c.t’

 

With Pisagor relation (c.t’)2 = (v.t)2 + (c.t)2

 

===> t’ = t{1 + (v/c)2}1/2 The tempo of time become faster??????????????

The distance D = S0S1 = O0S0 is measured relative to an observer with velocity 0

Relative to S or O, this distance is D’ = D*((1-(v/c)^2)^.5)

 

Calculate the distance S0O0 using this, and you’ll get the usual result for t’

[EWright]

Hi Southtown,

Edit: Very long and exact quote of above post deleted by Tormod for brevity

 

Dear Dick,

 

I read your post at physicsforums and found it interesting (I did not read the pages of responses). I agree with some of what you say, but disagree with some as well. You are correct in saying that all observers will read the same time on the clock in relation to the moment it was thrown and the moment is smashed. However I don't see how a point being made that is superior to relativity.

 

I don't see the point in arguing that there is not 'perfect clock' because relativity agrees with that fact. Time is relative according to the theory. Also to clarify, I assume you do agree that even though everyone sees the same time on the clock regardless of their frame of reference (true) that *different* amounts of time will pass on the clocks of observers dependant on their frame of reference (also true). Thus, the amount of time measured on the smashed clock, though it will *read* the same for all observers, will not coincide in time for all observers. This is the case even though the same clock *would* record the same amount of time locally for any observer.

 

If you are in agreement with these statements, I do not see how your post varies from relativity in any way or why anyone would have a problem with your position as it simply describes relativity. Perhaps you can clarify where the varioation is, if any; or expand on how your idea is superior to Einsteins.

[Southtown]

Excellent! Thanks for the input. I have already posted disapproval of the notion that clocks define time. I understand that's how time is quantified, but to say it doesn't exist until we measure it is blatantly unreasonable. Are you saying that time shouldn't be so much a 4th dimension as a it should a vector in 3d space?

 

"Interested" doesn't describe it... if you don't mind. As a creationist, I would have you beat in the "quack" arena, if I were to first qualify as a scientist. And, given what I've heard of "the community," not being published is quite the compliment. ;)

 

13 was my actual point of divergence from the public ed. "school of thought," so you're close. ;) I have to say, I'm considering more studies but lack any clear direction of pursuit that would also support the family. So go easy. I'm currently "dry reading" a used high-school calculus text book, along with some relativity intros.

[Tormod]

Just an important observations: Nobody is saying Einstein's relativity is a LAW (it is even proposed in capital letters in this thread). It is a theory that is still under scrutiny. It may well be surpassed. I am amazed at the lengths some people here are willing to go to display their ignorance of the fact that Einstein's theories of relativity have been proven over and over in actual experiments that you may easily check online and also duplicate if you have the means to do so.

 

Nobody is saying that Einstein's word is the final word. The critics in this thread are, by your "critical" review of it, turning it into something it is *not*, namely a religion. Relativity is a fascinating and marvellous way to view the world, but it is not the only one, nor is it uncontested.

 

It is, however, the most tried-and-tested theory of the 20th century and will possibly continue to be so well into the 21st. Then something will come along and surpass it. That is how science works. To philosophically denounce relativity because it is "counterintuitive" is arrogant, at best.

[infamous]

 

It is, however, the most tried-and-tested theory of the 20th century and will possibly continue to be so well into the 21st. Then something will come along and surpass it. That is how science works. To philosophically denounce relativity because it is "counterintuitive" is arrogant, at best.

Very true Tormod; "The more things change, the more they remain the same.".........John Stewart Mill

[EWright]

Just an important observations: Nobody is saying Einstein's relativity is a LAW (it is even proposed in capital letters in this thread). It is a theory that is still under scrutiny. It may well be surpassed. I am amazed at the lengths some people here are willing to go to display their ignorance of the fact that Einstein's theories of relativity have been proven over and over in actual experiments that you may easily check online and also duplicate if you have the means to do so.

 

Nobody is saying that Einstein's word is the final word. The critics in this thread are, by your "critical" review of it, turning it into something it is *not*, namely a religion. Relativity is a fascinating and marvellous way to view the world, but it is not the only one, nor is it uncontested.

 

It is, however, the most tried-and-tested theory of the 20th century and will possibly continue to be so well into the 21st. Then something will come along and surpass it. That is how science works. To philosophically denounce relativity because it is "counterintuitive" is arrogant, at best.

 

Granted, any alternate theory must account for the experiments that have confirmed SR, as mine does. It did sound to me as though Dick stated that certain parts of it had become law. I'm not sure which persons you are accusing of turning their views into a religion. It seems to me that those who are so tied to relativity that they won't even consider alternate views (ie, "tests prove it, we paid a lot of money to learn it, we understand it, so you're wrong") are the ones who have turned relativity into a sort of religion. But until it's a complete theory, it falls short of explaining everything (ie, the link between relativity and quantum mechanics).

 

Dick mentioned that his idea can ties these ideas together. But I did not see here or in the link he provided to physicsforums.com, how it does so. I'd like to hear more about this please.

[Southtown]

Finally, you might like to take a look at a paper I tried to get published back around the turn of the century: "Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict".

Try reading this, EW.

 

And guys, I expect to see a real discussion about this rather than just the usual grand-summary type arguments that attempt to minimize the evidence presented into irrelevance.

 

I am amazed at the lengths some people here are willing to go to display their ignorance of the fact that Einstein's theories of relativity have been proven over and over in actual experiments that you may easily check online and also duplicate if you have the means to do so.

I think the suspicion lies in the interpretation of those experiments, both those leading up to Einsteinian relativity, and those following. Have a look at the Dr's link above. It's very interesting, and it's nowhere near a display of ignorance.

[Doctordick]

If you are in agreement with these statements, I do not see how your post varies from relativity in any way or why anyone would have a problem with your position as it simply describes relativity. Perhaps you can clarify where the varioation is, if any; or expand on how your idea is superior to Einsteins.

Did you read the four posts I made on 04-27-2004? I thought I made it quite clear there that there is utterly no difference between the experimental results obtained from my perspective and the standard relativistic (Einstein's approach) perspective. There is utterly no variation beyond a few conceptual simplicities. And that virtue is rather worthless if everyone is already trained in Einstein's view (and I admit there are a number of problems which are simpler in his geometry); however, the fact that my perspective uses a coordinate system with a Euclidean signature makes general relativity quite easy. In particular, it certainly eliminates the problems casting general relativity into quantum mechanical notation. The other advantage of my perspective is that I can deduce the whole thing (general relativistically correct quantum mechanics) directly from first principals; however, that is another story.

Are you saying that time shouldn't be so much a 4th dimension as a it should a vector in 3d space?

No, in my perspective it is path length of our existence. And it seems to me that a skeptical-creationist is somewhat of an oxymoron. Good luck with learning calculus; it's not too hard if you are thoughtful about the definitions. And thanks for your support; I hope we generate some interest.

Granted, any alternate theory must account for the experiments that have confirmed SR, as mine does. It did sound to me as though Dick stated that certain parts of it had become law.

I think you have misunderstood me. I was attempting to clear up the usage of the terms "theory" and "law" (at least as far as the issue was seen forty years ago; however, I know things often change, opinions in particular ;) ). Laws tell us what is so; theories tell us what we suspect might be so. The status of the gravitational red shift underwent a transition when it was realized that it was a direct consequence of conservation of energy. Back when I was in the business, most everyone I knew had dropped it as a test of relativity. I did not say a "part" of Einstein's theory had become a law but rather that something once thought to be a consequence of his theory had become a law through other means. In the same vein, the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is c in any inertial frame is a law and was close to that status before the existence of Einstein's theory; that is what Einstein's theory was promulgated to explain.

Dick mentioned that his idea can ties these ideas together. But I did not see here or in the link he provided to physicsforums.com, how it does so. I'd like to hear more about this please.

There are two attacks on that problem. One could work it out from what I have already given you, which is not exactly straight forward, or one could work from first principles which is a tad longer but much more satisfying (at least to me). Neither is trivial and I personally don't wish to waste my time on the first as many of the assertions are much more difficult to defend without the first principle deduction of quantum mechanics (which ends up slightly askew of the standard representation). You might note that Maxwell's equations could be seen as "slightly askew of E&M of the day but didn't contradict any known experiments.

 

If you are indeed interested, my initial request would be that you make an effort to understand my abstract definition of "an explanation". That definition is essential to my first principle deduction of an explanation of the universe.

 

The absolute first issue is to define exactly what is meant by the phrase "an explanation". I begin by pointing out that all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be thought of as information. It thus follows that "an explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. The problem is then, if we are to model "an explanation" in general, we must lay down exactly what it is that an explanation does to (or for) information.

 

I say that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known; the explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

 

Thus I define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

 

That is my definition of an explanation. If you find fault with it, either point out an explanation which fails to provide any expectations or a method of yielding one's expectations which cannot be thought of as an explanation. Baring that event, I will show you exactly what can be deduced from that definition and a little mathematics. The only constraint I place on the explanation is that it is, itself, internally self consistent.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[EWright]

I like your ideas Doc. I believe you're on track with some concepts, but somewhat off on others. I've gotten about half way through your paper on the subject, but I'm off work soon and will finish it later or tomorrow. Some of the mathematical concepts are a bit beyond my expertise though, so I can not adequately judge them. When I say some ideas seem a bit off, I mean in regards to my own theory, which I am striving to express in a more understandable way.

 

It is refreshing to see someone who's trained in physics, yet willing to think outside of Einstein's box. I'd be interested in your views on my initial positions on Einstein's book at the beginning of this post. Perhaps it is related to your own views since I believe my thinking is more Euclidian? as you say...? I think our concepts cross paths on some levels, and I'll be interested in your opinions when I do come forth with my theory.