Mathematical Obscurities in Special Relativity

DAVID,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... I can’t see in his papers that he ever understood the concept of thermodynamic time or the fact that it ran at different rates from atomic time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Let us introduce Relativistic Thermodynamics ... (for those who find thermodynamics not complicated enough)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />
Let us introduce Relativistic Thermodynamics ... (for those who find thermodynamics not complicated enough)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Here’s a funny thing he said in one of his 1907 papers, when he was trying to figure out relativistic thermodynamics:

<b>“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.”</b>

Doh.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />
Let us introduce Relativistic Thermodynamics ... (for those who find thermodynamics not complicated enough)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Here’s a funny thing he said in one of his 1907 papers, when he was trying to figure out relativistic thermodynamics:

<b>“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.”</b>

Doh.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Of course, when I stick my hand out of the car window my hand becomes cold indeed. []


Jokes aside, I firmly believe that relativistic phenomena can be perfectly explained without rescaling dimensions and time. Process slowing/speeding is a prefectly natural phenomenon, showing that the objects interact with an ambient environment such that any changes to that environment will obviously change the game. These changes can be induced by motion and this is nothing special, contrary to what other people want us to believe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />
Jokes aside, I firmly believe that relativistic phenomena can be perfectly explained without rescaling dimensions and time. Process slowing/speeding is a prefectly natural phenomenon, showing that the objects interact with an ambient environment such that any changes to that environment will obviously change the game. These changes can be induced by motion and this is nothing special, contrary to what other people want us to believe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Yes, I agree with you. I think the whole subject of “relativity” has been overplayed by the mass media.

But I go a little further than that. I think SR is filled with errors and essentially does not work. I see SR as Einstein’s attempt to copy and plagiarize Lorentz’s 1895 book about relativity. But Einstein changed some of Lorentz’s ideas, and wound up with an erroneous theory of this own, which he had to keep changing and altering during the rest of his life, in attempts to correct it.

For example, the SR theory contains no physical “force” at all, and in it Einstein himself adjusts the rates of the “moving” clocks. His physical “adjustment” of a clock is revealed in Section 4. He sets the rate of the moving frame clock, and he actually says he adjusts it, before any motion begins. Then in his 1916 book he tried to claim that the moving clock changes its own rate because of “relative motion”, even though “relative motion” places no force on any clock that could cause its rate to change.

Acceleration, on the other hand, does place a physical force on a clock, and that can cause all kinds of clocks to either speed up or slow down.

I worked with all kinds of different clocks during my career, both mechanical and electronic, and I saw every one of them change rates, either speed up or slow down, when subjected to various kinds of forces.

Several years ago Peter Sellers played in a film, in which he was a dimwitted gardener. But the way he spoke to people was unusual, and he spoke in riddles and cliches. The result was, everything he said seemed to have a double meaning, and many people took what he said to be great mysterious “wisdom”. So he became famous as a “great philosopher” and a “great genius”. Only one person in the film finally realized he was something of an idiot-savant. Stupid in most ways, but a little intelligent in other ways. I think Einstein was like that. His statement about the temperature of moving bodies that I quoted earlier is a total paradox. It is meaningless nonsense. It actually says that the absolute temperature of both relatively moving bodies is colder than the other. I think that stupid statements like that, which Einstein made in several of his earlier papers, have been misinterpreted by people who think they have some kind of weird almost mystical meaning, when in reality, all they are, are stupid statements of a kind that a 6 year old child might make.

David - Your critique of Einstein as a Copy Cat does not comport with the different views the two men had about the subject for the remainder of their lives - Lorentz did not consider Einstein's work plagerism - he in fact argued against it, even though the transforms were the same.

Moreover what is wrong with continuing to think about a problem - sometimes it needs fine tuning - ever have a situation when you felt you had somethig nailed down only to find out it wasn't quite the way you though? It is to Einstein's credit that he revisted his own ideas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by altare</i>
<br />David - Your critique of Einstein as a Copy Cat does not comport with the different views the two men had about the subject for the remainder of their lives - Lorentz did not consider Einstein's work plagerism - he in fact argued against it, even though the transforms were the same.

Moreover what is wrong with continuing to think about a problem - sometimes it needs fine tuning - ever have a situation when you felt you had somethig nailed down only to find out it wasn't quite the way you though? It is to Einstein's credit that he revisted his own ideas
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lorentz and Einstein did have some differences, but Lorentz generally went along with Einstein relativity theory because it made the “Lorentz Transformation” famous. Lorentz himself could not make it famous, but Einstein’s use of it did, and so that gave Lorentz some degree of immortality, and, as an old man, he liked that.

He still always believed in an “ether”, and he said so in his 1920 book about relativity theory.

Einstein conned him into believing that “relative motion” alone could cause “time dilation”. Einstein conned a lot of people about that, and it is still believed today.

But Einstein knew by 1918 that just “relative motion” alone could not cause any clocks to slow down their tick rates, and that is why he revised his 1905 SR theory and added atomic clocks, acceleration, and gravity fields to it. He always pretended it was never flawed, but by 1918 he knew very well that it was very flawed. That’s why he changed it in his 1918 paper. That paper did not become available in the English language until the year 2002, so very few people have ever read it.

He knew by 1911 that the SR theory was flawed, and he knew by 1918 it was flat out wrong. But he never wanted to admit it. Thus, he perpetrated a lie in physics and that lie still stands today. Originally, in 1905, it was just a “mistake”, but after 1918 it became a “lie”, because by then he knew the 1905 theory was wrong, but he refused to tell everybody that it was wrong, and he pretended that it was not wrong.