Arguing Einstein

[Doctordick]

But if your t parameter is different then Einstein's, then why derive your geometry from his by rearranging t and tau. If Einstein's measure of time is different then yours, you cannot use Einstein as your starting place.

-Will

I don't! My geometry dates from far before I understood Einstein. As time went on, I was fascinatied by the fact that mine gave the same answers; it wasn't until I was a graduate student that I was able to show that they were mathematically equivalent.

 

Again, you seem to be missing the point that, when the scientists go to do their calculations, the calculations are always being done in a frame where dx=dy=dz=0: i.e., where the reference clock (which is measuring d[tau]) can be directly connected to the concept time. Notice that the Lorentz transformations are to a frame where dx'=dy'=dz'=0 (we are discussing special relativity here; things get a little more complex in general relativity). My path length is along dt while his is along d[tau]. So long as all the calculations are done in a frame where dx=dy=dz=0 a difference between his perspective and mine does not exist.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

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

[xersan]

I'll try to post a clear demonstration later today - I've got it all on paper, but need to pretty it up for public consumption. It might be best to hold off on further pronouncments of the death of SR for a little bit. :)

 

:eek_big: You really gave an interesting example, which had me scribbling and scratching my head for hours! If it’s not in introductory textbooks on SR, IMHO it should be – it’s an excellent example of examining the theory with careful skepticism. However, as my post will show, it is possible to reconcile with the theory, using nothing more complicated than 9th-grade math.

You just perceived the event. According to my trials, independent brains (especially uninfected students <80 %> in universities) may understand this fiction transparently, simplicity.

 

This matter detains the minds for more one hundred years, because the fantastic conclusions (voyages in time) of the theory SR attend for their passion of mysticism. Human is in needs mystic subjects to pass over the vacuum of existence.

 

I had shown that also Lorentz’s transformations have < time contraction > at # 55 . Time dilation and time contraction never become for the same experiment simultaneously. Theory can not require scientific integrity. Theory of SR is not consistent by itself.

 

I had written a book about <Light Clock>. Somebody thınks that the light clock explains the time dilation clearly. But it is not true. Light Clock’s tempo is variable according to its direction and general motion of earth. Besides, there are the cases of the planes of mirrors are parallel or perpendicular according to motion’s direction:

 

Time deformations of light clock:

 

T’(parallel) = t / sqrt(1 – v2/c2) Attention please sqrt is required. (*)

 

T’(perpendicular) = t / (1 – v2/c2) NOT sqrt.

 

The essential formula of time dilation of SR derived from Lorentz’s transformations:

 

T’ = t.(1 – v/c) / sqrt(1 –v2/c2) (**)

 

Einstein had used (*) this formula at the end of his theory for time dilation instead of essential relation (**). But Lorentz's equations never give this relation. I discern a trick at this point.

 

The terms at numerator are primary degree. So the time deformations are related by direction. If the light is at opposite direction according to its source we must take (-) c (or v) . Inthis case it is obtained Time contraction; tempo of time become faster.

 

These all explanations has shown that, The theory of SR is wrong. I have other some arguments about the autopsy of the theory. But there is a key knowledge that it makes transparent the space-time exactly.

[Turtle]

I don't know if this article applies to any specific post in this thread, but it certainly argues Einstein. Enjoy:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17159653-13762,00.html

:friday:

[Southtown]

That's cool, hehe. Exciting times...

[arkain101]

I do not know how fast an atoms velocity is when it vibrates among its partners in a small particle matter. Although, I do imagine it is a of a quick velocity.

 

I have considered an experiment to "faslify" SR or Truthify SR.

 

If one were to send a small group of atoms (bonded together) which are virbrating at a high tempture and of the correct material to function within a particle accelerator. Then take this small chunk of matter (with the atoms vibration velocity) and send it through a particle accelerate as fast as possible .99999C for an example. The theory of SR and its equatoins using this data would say that as the atoms travel at .99C they continue to virbrate amongst themselves (in however a pattern atoms vibrate). As long as their apparent mass increase does not disturb the thermal energy vibrations it would be said that at moments atoms would likely be exceeding or matching C over very short distances in which they vibrate within. The particles would experience a frequency of time dialtion and mass increasetion as they travel at + and - C with their combined vibration velocities and total velocity within the particle acclerator. If the test were done with the correct alignment of the machinery, one could perform the test in the same direction earth travels around the sun as to ADD velocity to the experiment.

 

How significant would the results of such a test be found to be?

[arkain101]

Right I just remembered another thought that I had awhile ago.

 

If a ship was capable of flying at .99C with some kind of advanced particle engine. The matter that it shoots out of the ship should contain and keep up to the rest of the ships mass increasement, therefore canceling out the problem of it becoming difficult to accelerate a moving body.

 

For an example. If you are on the ground and throw a ball at 500mph, you will have to exert a tremdouns amount of force!!

But if you are on a plane traveling at 495mph and throw the ball 5mph it still contains same energy as it did when it was thrown on the ground althought the force delivering the throw on the plane is somewhat within the same reference frame as the ball and causes an equalibrium of mass of force delivery and object of velocity.

 

So the ship that reaches infinite mass would be shooting out fuel of nearly the same mass. In order for this to be possible I would think the fuel of the engine would need to shoot out at .99C to make the ship reach .99C. So as the ship is coasting at .99c and it fires the fuel out to propell itself forward the fuel is still considered to travel a .99C

So in the beggining of this flight the mass of the fuel firing out of the engine at .99c when the ship is at zero velcoity would be much higher in relation to the mass of the stationary atoms of the ship. The accelerating force would be much greater. (using facts of SR). Once everything was measure out and calculated to say the ship is going .99c forwards and the fule is going .99c backwards. The balance of mass should be the same. Now would the force (of conservation of momentum) end up being split between the mass of the ship and the mass of the fuel , resulting in half the velocity?

or would the ship reach .99c and the fuel be considered to at rest as it is left behind the rocket?

[xersan]

I don't know if this article applies to any specific post in this thread, but it certainly argues Einstein. Enjoy:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17159653-13762,00.html

:hihi:

 

Thank you very much. :lol:

[EWright]

I don't know if this article applies to any specific post in this thread, but it certainly argues Einstein. Enjoy:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17159653-13762,00.html

:shrug:

 

Now is anyone ready to start believing me???

[CraigD]

I don't know if this article applies to any specific post in this thread, but it certainly argues Einstein. Enjoy:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17159653-13762,00.html

:shrug:

Now is anyone ready to start believing me???

Not quite yet, but definitely reconsidering.

 

But after reading Cahill (my favorite so far is this 10/05 journal article), I’m more receptive to the idea that evidence confounding to Relativity is suppressed – unintentionally, I think, in many college Physics classes. The research he sites (showing results partially supportive of Relativity, partially of luminescent ether, not clearly supporting or refuting one or the other), go back more than a century, and are not hard to find. Yet I have distinct memories of being told many times that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed no significant 90 degree difference in interference patterns, believing it, an repeating the claim to many credulous friends and a couple hundred students (I was only a classroom teacher for 1 year).

 

Some people (Cahill, for example) are obviously aware of these results, and there’re no signs of a sinister conspiracy to censor or revise them, but nonetheless, many people who should know better (me, for example) appear to have accepted a more pleasing, less confusing, but inaccurate version of the results.

 

I find it very exciting, but also daunting – I’ve a lot of work to do, and not nearly enough education to do it as easily as the pros.

 

I wonder how well acquainted with this data some of the folk working on quantum gravity and “theories of everything” (strings, loops, holographic, graph theory, etc) are? You’d think they could offer some much wanted constraints on the conditions these theories must be made to predict.

[Erasmus00]

Now is anyone ready to start believing me???

 

Come up with another theory capable of explaining the wealth of physical effects that relativity explains, and perhaps you'll start to be taken seriously. Untill then you simply throw out a lot of "relativity is wrong" which isn't worth all that much.

-Wll

[Tormod]

Now is anyone ready to start believing me???

 

The problem is that a) Paul Davies is right: Einstein's theory has been tested over and over and :shrug: Science isn't about being 100% correct. It's about challenging theories and improving them. That's what Einstein did - he was a revolutionary. However, he has been put on a pedestal and people think his theories are god given. They are not, and no scientific theory must ever be.

 

Relativity is the best explanation we have. It isn't wrong. But it isn't the final answer. Everybody knows that. To "refute it" is pointless - to create an alternative theory is the way to go.

[xersan]

The problem is that a) Paul Davies is right: Einstein's theory has been tested over and over and :evil: Science isn't about being 100% correct. It's about challenging theories and improving them. That's what Einstein did - he was a revolutionary. However, he has been put on a pedestal and people think his theories are god given. They are not, and no scientific theory must ever be.

 

Relativity is the best explanation we have. It isn't wrong. But it isn't the final answer. Everybody knows that. To "refute it" is pointless - to create an alternative theory is the way to go.

 

The theory of Special Relativity is wrong. It has paradoxies. It has inappropriateness according to recent paradigm of science. The theory had neglected the analyse of the light at opposite direction according to direction of its source. It had preferred the analyse the light at the same direction of the source.

 

A new postulate of new paradigm of actual science has appeared transparently the wrongs of the theory.

 

But, infected brains don't perceive these wrongs although they were submitted. Therefore this post is a record for the future.

[paultrr]

The problem is that a) Paul Davies is right: Einstein's theory has been tested over and over and :evil: Science isn't about being 100% correct. It's about challenging theories and improving them. That's what Einstein did - he was a revolutionary. However, he has been put on a pedestal and people think his theories are god given. They are not, and no scientific theory must ever be.

 

Relativity is the best explanation we have. It isn't wrong. But it isn't the final answer. Everybody knows that. To "refute it" is pointless - to create an alternative theory is the way to go.

 

What you have stated is very true. Even in the modern debate about C being a variable few have suggested that Einstein was actually wrong. The thought has been to push the envelope and find out if its possible SR only has a limited view on the real state or condition. Part of the reasoning started over three basic issues:

 

1.) There was certain modern theories that seemed to suggest that C could vary somewhat. (Ie String Theory as an example)

 

2.) We had certain observational data(somewhat argued a bit) that seemed to suggest C might have been higher in the past.

 

3.) GR itself depending upon how you discribe a region of space-time can allow for FTL conditions.

 

One interesting note, but its in the standard cosmology model itself, is that if you alter the vacuum itself C should change. During inflation the actual vacuum state was different than it is now. So in essence C should have been different then. The real question has become what transpired with C after inflation took place. Some have suggested it slowed over time and is still slowing. Some have suggested that it may not be the same everywhere. Some have suggested that under certain conditions C can vary. All of these issues require experiment and observation. This is where we stand at the present in testing the boundaries of Einstein's origial theory.

[paultrr]

A light cone defines locations that are in causal contact and those that are not. Any VSL condition would in theory alter what could be defined as in casual contact or not. According to the currently prevailing definition, adopted in 1983, the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 3 × 108 metres per second, or about thirty centimetres (one foot) per nanosecond). The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (ε0) in SI units. The permeability of free space (μ0) is not dependent on c and is defined in SI units. These constants appear in Maxwell's equations, which describe electromagnetism. Any varying of these values should produce a varying of the resulting value of C itself for the medium in question. This is one of the prime reasons C in air is different than C in a vacuum.

 

A simple example of a problem relativity has with a change in the speed of light is that if the conservation of energy and relativity hold through the change, then E=mc^2 would require the mass of all objects to change. At the present the best possible example of this would be the case of the Pioneer probe and the apperant measured sunward slowdown signals from that probe seem to indicate. The problem here is that in this case has only one such case to measure since this is the furthest out we have ever sent a probe from earth and done such measurements with. Real varified experimental observation and data requires multiple testing to be done under varying conditions before any solid conclusions can be made.

 

But for the moment let us assume this example is actually real and telling us something about space-time itself. In this case it would be an indication that the above stated case over E=mc2 would be true. It would also be showing us that the vacuum as we measure it locally around the earth varies somewhat over larger distances. It would also be showing us that at least as far out as we can measure it there is something that centers around our sun which makes the vacuum here the way it is as compared to say further out from our system. One thought there that comes to mind is solar particles themselves may pay into that issue. But whatever the answer is such a variance does not seem to effect the orbit of the planets themselves.

 

My own suggestion here is that if we go back to those vaules we use to discribe a given medium’s properties and utilize a bit of what under gravity theory is known as Polorized Vacuum approximation to GR first populaized by Hal Puthoff Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, what this information could be telling us is that space-time is not actually flat as many models of cosmology tend to assume. This would seem to indicate that the more matter present locally the more flat or positive curvature one encounters in the local vacuum condition. This would then lead one to the conclusion that in the absence of matter space-time is actually outward curved into a saddle condition.

 

One aspect of local geometry to emerge from General Relativity and the FLRW model is that the critical density is related to the curvature of the geometry of space. Expressing the ratio of average energy density of the universe over critical energy density as Ω, the curvature is given as either flat, positive curved, or negative curved.

 

Astronomical measurements of both mass density of the universe and spacetime intervals using supernova events constrain the curvature to be zero or positive but near to zero. Cosmological measurements infer the curvature as close to zero - either zero or just positive or negative. The most current such measurement suggests that it, while nearly flat globally, is slight into the negative (see WMAP data). This taken with the above mentioned siuation with our probe would tend to suggest that space-time is not actually flat and that it’s the amount of matter locally that alters the actual curvature towards either a flat or curved condition.

 

To my knowledge every usage of Hal’s original PV model has always started with the assumption that space-time is flat. However, if the real nature condition of space-time was one of a near infinite negative curvature when matter is not present the implcation would be that all PV models that start with a flat space-time condition are wrong from the get go. In their case the assumption that space-time is flat would be a false case with any correlation to the real case giving false answers. It would be interesting to see if the variable denoting curvature, usually K, was replaced with something else where local matter density varies say K from region to region and in conditions where little or no matter is present it tends towards an infinite negative curvature.

 

My point in all this is that what cosmologists are now terming dark energy may actually in itself be simply the by-product of the normal condition of the vacuum in a universe that is itself expanding and as such the local matter density via expansion is thinning out over time. This would seem to indicate exactly what the WMAP data has discovered in that the Universe started with enough regular and dark matter to be nearly flat at the beginning with a resulting slow roll towards an ever expanding condition. Relating this all back to the issue of C one should find that C does actually vary over time and region.

 

This would seem in itself to suggest that what we are now terming dark matter may simply be dark because the matter density locally is high enough to approximate a closed region of space-time where light itself does not seem to escape because its local lightcone state does not allow for casual contact with our own local lightcone state. The two regions to put it more simply are on different time zones, so to speak. This would imply that these regions may well be composed of regular matter who’s local density is just far higher than anything we have locally around us. The lack of there being any signature from these regions that they are say a blackhole state would mean that they must be some high density state just short of a blackhole condition. What that would be is subject to much speculation at the current time. One suggestion I myself have made before in a preprint on the Cern server ( see http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-115.pdf ) is that these different regions may simply have different local vacuum pressures. This in itself would have implcations when it comes to the subject of theoretical propulsion (see http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-114.pdf and http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-114.pdf ). But the most profound implcation would be in the area of cosmology itself tending towards our basic model needs a lot of revamping.

 

I would not pretend to offer a solid explination of how all of this could be true while at the same time all the data out there seems to indicate that C has remained generally globally the same at least since inflation. If anything that is where the present mainline debate stands when it comes to weither or not Einstein's relativity ought to be modified or not. But none of the figures in this whole issue are outside of mainline. I myself am a strong supporter of the idea that Einstein was not incorrect at all and that all we have here is a limited knowledge case where no matter weither C has varied over time Lorentz invariance still holds. My reasoning for that stems from the fact that while C varies in air to say a vacuum in both mediums Lorentz invariance holds and one can make measurments comparing both states to show that to be the case.

 

Thought this might actually help to illustrate why all this debate about C has arisen and why most of us in that debate do not actually reject Einstein at all.

[paultrr]

Jose who is often thought of as the main propoent of modern VSL theory is an interesting exception to what I have said. He is a friend of Lee Smolin who has perhaps gone the furthest out on a limb of all the rest of us out here in actually suggesting Einstein was flat wrong. My own thoughts on him are mixed. I find his brash anti-establishment attitude both good and bad. Its good in the sence that we all need to be reminded to think every once and a while outside the box and to push to bounds of known science. But its bad in that the end result is one becomes known as a sort of crackpot with all that label tends to imply. I firmly believe in peer review even if I sometimes question those who do such reviews for the motivation behind their individual reviews. Without such a process science would become little different from say religion and or philosophy. That tends to mean I do support the establishment that guys like Jose tend to put down all the time. But I too like Jose think the establishment does need to be shaken up from time to time.

[arkain101]

I read through part of the introducting part of the topic and got a very interesting idea.

 

Alright bare with me as I am not quoting knowledge directly out of a book or source in my presence but just from memory.

 

It has been found and decided as pure fact that the speed of light is constant and.... also, that no object is capable is exceeding this velocity accroding to certain equations that demonstrate the impossibility.

 

If the speed of light is constant and matter can only be accerlated to a specific velocity before the energy requirement causes a hypothetical wall to prevent and further acceleration (like a particle in a particle accelerator that is traveling .99999999C).

Also, there is apparently no absolute rest.

This is getting to my idea. If there is a constant that exists "out there" to constrain the velocity of all things.. then that exact velocity in the opposite direction should be, absolute rest. So if we accelerate a particle in an accelerater to the maximum speed that special relativity says is possible (and by useing an overhead view of this strait line accelerator) in the direction of north. Then the exact opposite direction of that same velocity should be zero. Now there is and will be more specific details as to testing time dialtion, half-life, and distance covered to create a good test. Then we spin the accelerator around 180 degrees and perform the same tests and reverse the velocity achieved a to find the zero in that situation. Next we reproduce this test east, west, and even further. Now with all this data, using special relativities laws, we find the absolute rest, if one does exist. (which I personally dont think does).

 

So for example. If a plane can only fly 100m/s in the air and this plane is on a very very large flying air deck but no velocity is known of the air deck, or direction (because we presume it is impossible to do so). We then fly this plane max speed in north, south, east, and west. Then we compare those velocities with the air deck. This should find out how fast the air deck is going and in which direction. Thus leading us to figuring out what is absolute zero in reference to the air. (which is relating to space [the constraining property and how to find its zero])

 

 

Next, time.

I want you to imagine yourself in space. Now begin to erase each and every particle in space leaving you floating all alone and you can not even see yourself now, because of no light source. Now, we remove you. All atoms of you. Now I want you to describe to me, time. If you speak, stop, because now you are creating matter in this hypethetical reality to explain time.

Now time has been deleted from existance.

We then imagine that one pure fundemental object is added. A tiny little perfectly sphereical fundemental peice of matter. Even now, It seems to me that time is still impossible. if this object is pure, whole and solid can it really experience an acceleration force? Even if it has magic to move it does not know it moves and should not experience force because theres no flexability to it because it is pure and whole.. this is getting a little out there now so we will let that go.

Now we return the universe and only replace your concsious knowing but absolutly not one molecule of your body. Just that imagination that can go, I am. You view from one spot and the universe carries on under its functino of laws but, forever... time is not a property of part of the universe, right? (when we consider our own thoughts when reading this, that we are probably imaging the big bang theory of birth and collpase for ever repeating.) It just goes and goes and time just doesnt fit into the picture, cause of this infinite theory.

 

Last thought,

Lets pretend we are on a ship that is traveling as fast as physics allows us to. Travel 10mph slower than C but not C.. Now we stand up and try to walk forward on this ship as we would also try to do on the carrage thought experiment of einstiens. Physics would say that we could not make any forward motion that met C. But, theoretically shouldnt our body contain incredible mass according to SR. If we began to move faster we would be infinite mass and would propell with infinte energy and what here says that we couldnt walk faster than C?