Mathematical Obscurities in Special Relativity

More
20 years 7 months ago #8830 by n/a10
Replied by n/a10 on topic Reply from ed van der Meulen
Thank you for your info.

Also Americans should learn other languages I think. I have a very friendly AI project that is extremely productive because we are building further on a view from the early Santa FE group. In those days in 1967 they were really famous. But the mathematical community took it over and now no one knows them.

My project is now promoting those true views. And I bring them here now. But it looks they aren't veery welcome. You can read them under
"news ....". I know that not all people here are glad with my postings.

I have an American member in my project and her man can read German. He has learned that. It's an extemely friendly project. Ana we email about al we are interested about. And more over you need only to havce brains and eager to learn.

When no one looks interested then I will soon leave this site again. I am very sorry for that. And then I go to another site, where the ideas are more welcome.

I don't post for nothing.

But you can use my site for promoting that book, If you like that.

have a nice evening.

Ed

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 7 months ago #9666 by kc3mx
Replied by kc3mx on topic Reply from Harry Ricker
This discussion has done a good job of demonstrating that modern science is unable to provide any good answers to the questions of the nature of time and space. Relativity seems to have enhanced our ignorance, not reduced it. David makes some good points that arise from the fact that relativity makes time and space incomprehensible because its makes these concepts more obscure rather than less obscure. The problem seems to be that Einstein substitutes a philosophy of time and space for a physical theory of time and space measurement. This is combined with a mathematical method that appears to be mathematically rigorous but is full of errors. But because the math is obscured by philosophical confusion and other obscure procedures, we are still unable to resolve the confusion which Einstein created. The issues are well known, but the resolution is obscure.

The real issue is that Einstein injects philosophical problems into physics. Then presents philosophy as physics and backs it up with an obscure and incorrect mathematics. The problem is that this conflation leads into obscurity and not physical understanding. The argument that physicists are the arbitrators of truth here is bogus since they are not qualified to judge arguments in philosophy. What is disturbing is that the mathematics is incorrect as has been shown by Herbert Dingle. It is dissapointing that science has become so infected with philosophy that this argument has not been correctly resolved.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 7 months ago #8842 by n/a10
Replied by n/a10 on topic Reply from ed van der Meulen
Hello Harry kc3mc.

You are very critical and I like that enormously.

The general time axis is also old, and Eistein not a stupid man, but very bright used it. Now we know time is a difficult notion. Like other notions as well

Great I didn't know of Herbet Dingle. Poincaré found it already in 1899. And then all that great men of the Early Santa Fe group in 1967. And we in our AI project. In any case we aren't alone Harry. And that's giving a good feeling.

Most philosophers think also they think superior. Isn't that great. For me this is great fun.

And I agree with you Harry much has gone wrong. I have learned from your posting.

Ed

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • 1234567890
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
20 years 7 months ago #9726 by 1234567890
Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from
<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 1234567890</i>
<br />
If the proper units and terminology were used, SR's postulate of a constant speed of light independent of source must result in contradiction with its second postulate, that physics is the same in all inertial frames, since the speed of light then would be c+v and c-v round trip measured inside an inertial frame moving at v relative to the vacuum.

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


Yes it is. Exactly.

And here’s how you can figure it out and prove what you just said. This is what allowed me to figure it out:

Think of a passenger on a moving train. The whistle blows and the passenger hears the same pitch of the whistle that the moving whistle is actually emitting.

But on the track ahead of the train, a stationary observer hears a higher pitch, and on the track behind the train, a stationary observer hears a lower pitch.

There are TWO completely different Doppler Effects at work here. And for the moving observer, one Effect cancels out the other Effect.

Most people think of the Doppler Effect as being only one kind of effect that produces either a redshift or a blueshift in the signal, but there are actually TWO completely different kinds of Doppler Effects, and by working out the physical conditions, on graph paper, then you can answer the question about why a moving observer on the train hears no redshift or blueshift in the whistle tone, and this will tell you that light speed can not possibly be regulated to “c” relative to all observers.

Get yourself some graph paper, and work out this puzzle. Make a simple drawing of the train and the moving observer on the train. And then add the stationary observer at the front and the stationary observer at the rear. You might need two different sheets of graph paper to do this, one for the two stationary observers, and the other for the moving train and moving observer.

I don’t have such an illustration drawn up at the moment, but I’m thinking about making one so I can post it on the internet.

This is a very interesting experiment, which I first noticed and puzzled about while riding on a train. When I got home I got some graph paper and I made drawings of the sound waves and their wavelengths, and I figured out exactly what physical process takes place that causes the moving observer to hear no pitch change. Solving this puzzle will show you that relative light speed is c + v and c – v for observers moving relative to what you call the “vacuum”. If you work this puzzle out on graph paper, you will find that the grid of the paper itself represents the metrics of the “air” in the puzzle and “the vacuum” regarding relative light speed when the same principle is applied to light.

I have a little more new information about the metrics of the “vacuum”, but I’ll tell you about that later.




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

If the speed of light is source independent then it is c relative to any observer moving at any velocity as long as the observers all referred to the vacuum frame to measure the flight path of the light. If inertial coordinates not at rest with respect to the vacuum
are used however, the speed of the light must be c + v and c-v with respect to the origin of the inertial observer because the space between the inertial observer and the photon becomes "mixed". This results in anisotropic effects inside different inertial frames because the detector of light from one direction inside an inertial frame would receive it with less energy than light from the opposite direction. So there should be different Doppler shifts of single photons inside an inertial frame, if their speeds are source independent. I.e., Einstein's two postulates contradict each other.

Only if light speed is source dependent can physics be the same inside different inertial frames. And I really think this is the case because waitresses in cafes, servers inside train cabins
moving at 52 miles per hour, and stewardesses on a 747 flying at
534 miles per hour can pour a cup of coffee right into a cup without
spilling a drop so it can't be all that difficult for light to move with a velocity dependent of its source.

Inertial coordinates are a system of coordinates, which can be represented by particles moving at a constant velocity through space, that are at rest with respect to each other. Physical interactions between these particles then should reveal the fact that they are at rest with respect to each other, else Nature's definition of the state of rest between particles would become more complicated. E.g., imagine a source and detector both moving at constant velocity represented by V or J or M or N or S or C or G or L or P or Q or any other letter of the alphabet. If light is independent of source velocity, the detector would think the source is moving relative to it even though they are at rest with respect to one another in the same inertial frame moving relative to a stationary vacuum, leading to an infinite number of definitions for rest. This would be unsatisfying on a philosophical level at least. And as mentioned previously, every day observations (events inside a car, a plane, or on an Earth moving at 30 km/sec through space - we should fall of the earth when we take a step
if we did not have the same motion as the Earth already) verify source dependence of events for particles, and since waves are the collective motion of particles in space- if they are source dependent then so are the waves they produce. So whether depicted as a wave or as a particle, the speed of photons should depend on the velocity of the source frame, i.e., it should be c+v and c-v in the two directions with respect to the vacuum.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 7 months ago #9349 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
OK c-v and c+v can be used to do calculating rather than maintaining the speed of light as a constant. So, what is gained in doing this?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 7 months ago #9352 by DAVID
Replied by DAVID on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>

Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />
SR's postulate of a constant speed of light independent of source must result in contradiction with its second postulate, that physics is the same in all inertial frames, since the speed of light then would be c+v and c-v round trip measured inside an inertial frame moving at v relative to the vacuum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The speed of sound is source independent. Sound speed doesn’t depend on the speed of the source. It depends on the material through which the sound waves travel.

If you consider that the “fields” of space, or, specifically, the “gravity fields” of astronomical bodies act as the “speed regulator” for light, then you will have the speed of light move at approximately “c” at the surfaces of astronomical bodies the size and mass of the earth.

If the bodies are more massive, the speed of light will be slightly slower at their surfaces (as explained in the 1911 Einstein gravitational redshift theory, and as shown in experiments by Shapiro).

In deep space, where the gravity fields are “blended”, the fields of deep space will regulate light speed to the motion orientation of those fields. For example, if the fields of the bodies inside a galaxy are revolving around the center of the galaxy, then light beams moving from star to star and star to planet will also revolve around the center of that galaxy, since their speeds are being regulated by the fields that are contained inside the galaxy. This is why we do not have to consider the revolution rate of the solar system when we aim radar beams at planets like Venus or Mars. This is why we don’t have to consider the galaxy revolution speed of the sun when we aim satellite dishes at satellites or distant spacecraft.

For more on this theory, go to Google and type in:

local ether Su

And you will find all the papers about this “local ether” theory that have been written by Professor Su.

I think the “vacuum” you are talking about is what Dr. Su calls the “gravity fields” of space. They travel with a body, near the body, but many are “blended” with the fields of other bodies in deep space.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.401 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum