<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by wisp</i>
<br />David
Your argument shows that Einstein' old 1905 SR is wrong, because it clearly doesn't explain the Hafele-Keating experiment.
This shows that when the old SR is fully tested using an earth-based experiment it turns out to be false.
To get round this Einstein changed the rules to use a common reference frame, but gives no reason why.
What happens when the newer SR gets fully tested in space, away from earth?
Will that too, turn out to be false?
wisp
- particles of nothingness
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, I can’t say that I’m the world’s best expert on this subject, but I have been working on studying it for several years and I’ve discussed it with several professors who realize the clock paradox of SR theory is unresolvable under the terms of SR theory.
There was a book written by H.A. Lorentz in 1895 in which he predicted that atoms moving through the “ether” or through fields undergo electrodynamic changes caused by forces they experience on them when they move through or are “forced” through the fields. This basic idea was recently proven to be correct when NASA sent up their tether experiment a few years ago. The earth’s magnetic field caused a “drag” force on the tether and it snapped and fell behind the space shuttle. So, this proves that “free space” isn’t so free and unrestricting of motion through it, because the fields of space can affect the electrodynamics of atoms moving through the fields and can cause a “drag effect”, just as if the atoms were being forced to travel fast through air or water.
In the Lorentz theory thought experiments, he used two relatively moving inertial systems, however, one was stationary in the “ether”, while the other was moving through it. The one that moved through it experienced a slow-down in the internal harmonic oscillation rates of its atoms, and Lorentz concluded that this represented a slow-down in the “time” rate or the clock “tick” rate of the moving atoms, with the assumption that the atoms themselves represented fundamental “atomic clocks”. He got the “atomic clock” idea from something Maxwell had written in the 1870s. So it was Lorentz, not Einstein, who invented the concept of “time dilation”.
10 years after the Lorentz book was published, Einstein came along and in his attempt to get rid of the “ether”, he decided that the time rate slowdown of the moving Lorentz system was due only to the “relative motion” of the system, relative to a “stationary” system on which Einstein himself was a “stationary” observer. So Einstein’s “moving” system and “moving” clock was not moving through fields or an ether, but just moving “relative” to the other system, the one he fixed his own mind as being stationary within. And this is how Einstein modified the Lorentz theory when he wrote his 1905 special relativity theory, and this is why the theory is wrong and how Einstein wound up with the clock paradox. Because, anyone else could fix their own mind as being stationary with the other system, and then it would be the Einstein system (the K system) that appears to be the one that “moves”, while the K’ system (the one we can fix ourselves within) becomes the “stationary” one.
Also, Einstein provided no real physical reason why the “moving” clock in his theory slowed down, and in the Einstein theory, both systems are actually moving relative to each other, with neither system being absolutely “stationary” or moving absolutely, and with all fields, acceleration, and “ether” being removed from his theory. So, he provided no real reason why one clock would slow down and the other one would not. Plus he made the mistake of assuming that all kinds of clocks would slow down at the same rate as atomic clocks when moved, even balance wheel clocks, but this is incorrect.
Whenever an atomic clock actually does slow down today, when moved in various experiments, this basically proves the Lorentz theory, not the Einstein theory. The so-called “ether” might be local fields or even just the local gravity field of an astronomical body. Motion through it seems to have an effect of causing the internal oscillation rates of the moving atoms inside atomic clocks to slow down.
Later, by around 1911, Einstein stopped using balance wheel clocks in his thought experiment and he switched over to using atomic clocks as Lorentz had done, and today atomic clocks are thought of as being the only “true time” clocks.
The problem with the Michelson-Morley experiment was that it was conducted at the surface of the earth, with the earth carrying its own “local ether” through space with it, just as it carries its own atmosphere through space with it. I use the term “ether” while not meaning something that is required before light can move through space, but as something that regulates the speed of light to about “c” relative to the local “ether” through which the light is traveling. Strong gravity fields tend to slow down the speed of photons, while weak fields allow them to move faster.
