The Lorentz transforms form much of the backbone of Relativity. Despite the fact that they seem to be the basis for Relativity they are in fact not fundamental in themselves. The Lorentz transforms are derived.
The Campbell’s experiment in Australia. (I am suspicious of Eddington’s data)
The Hafele – Keating Experiments
The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. (I am suspicious because the Earth’s rotation is too fast for the small measured deviation. And there is a Newtonian explanation that works well).
Gravitational Lensing
The required re calibration of the magnetic field in a cyclotron in order to keep a particle on its path.
Any competing theory will most likely find that this information will falsify (Whatever that means) it.
From my perspective there is enough “confirming” data to take Relativity seriously. Additionally, I do not know how to overcome the derivations of the transforms. That is to say what fundamental assumption does one dismiss in order to obtain alternative theories?
If I can come up with one single case that relativity (or any theory) would incorrectly predict, then the theory is certainly incorrect. The Twins Paradox was proposed for that purpose, but just happened to be a flawed proposal of a paradox. The only formulation of certain truth is the total lack of alternatives.
Any experiment can only tell you that the hypothesis has not (yet) been proven wrong, assuming the experiment didn’t prove it wrong.
Experiments begin with prior assumptions (things “probably true by past experience”) which are then formulated into a hypothesis for a new proposed relationship, a new theory. When the theory successfully predicts the result, you know that the experiment didn’t prove the theory wrong. But the problem is that many differing sets of prior assumptions could have predicted the same result. So the experiment isn’t telling you which of the many possible sets of assumptions was the correct one, if any.
Relativity presumptions provide for more accurate measurements than Newtonian physics did. But were the presumptions in Newtonian physics correct? Better measurements tells you that the former was not correct, or at least not good enough, but they don’t tell you if the better one is correct either, only that it yields better measurements, for whatever reason, perhaps less incorrect, perhaps totally incorrect but aberrantly happens to cancel out its errors and produce good results.
The Lorentz-Einstein presumption is that “Light will be always observed to travel at the same speed (in a vacuum)”, “An observer has only one eye - one perspective” (a serious flaw), and the most fundamental concepts in all science concerning the consistency of behavior. But what do we know about observations? We know that magic tricks are made from the presumption that what you see is what is there, when it really isn’t the entire story. Observations are limited and the mind presumptuous.
The Stopped Clock Paradox reveals a situation wherein the very most fundamental assumption in all of science and physics come in conflict with Special Relativity Theory. If we accept SRT, we have to logically reject the foundation upon which it was founded. It is revealed due to the fact that an observer actually has the opportunity to have two perspectives, “eyes” with which he can better discern the actual situation despite the magic trick.
Now with that in mind, first look at this situation;
But before you get into the possible length contraction issues, let me modify the picture a bit so as to simplify the concern;
Now how does Lorentz handle that situation?
Logic demands one thing. Lorentz, another.
If you accept Einstein-Lorentz, you must deny Logic.
And if you deny logic, then you have already denied the basis for Lorentz experiments (Logic and math).
To get a better understanding of RM I will concede that the stopped clock paradox is true.
The reason that I put the phrase “confirming novel experiments” in quotations was to mock the expression. Clearly we cannot confirm a theory by experiment.
However of the 8 experiments mentioned all but item 6 falsifies Newtonian Physics.
The important question is :
How does RM deal with these experiments if it rejects the Lorentz transform?
Well the most important thing is to first realize that Relativity cannot be true regardless of what other things might be true.
That’s good to hear. Many people think otherwise; “Since the prediction came true, the theory must be true” - Not!!
Yes and the most common mistake is the thought that if Relativity isn’t true, then Newton physics is the only other option. I really don’t know why it is so hard for people to accept that sometimes none of the theories are right, they simply don’t know, and leave it at that.
Yeah, that’s the fun part, and not easy to accept if you haven’t first seen that Relativity cannot be true.
The surprising reality turns out to be that there really is an “absolute frame”. But that doesn’t mean that Newtonian physics is the answer to it. The problem is that Newton didn’t know to compensate for the fact that every observer is a part of the motion relative to an absolute frame. That frame is not easily found, but certainly can be found with very precise measurements and Logic. In effect, you get the “station clock” to stop.
The light that leaves the flashers truly doesn’t care where it came from nor to where it is going. The actual (“absolute”) speed that it travels couldn’t care less about observers. But it does care about the energy density (“affectance density”) of everything it encounters along the way. Space is never void of affectance or “energy”. And the more energy in the immediate space, the slower light will travel. That is what General Relativity is really all about. A gravity field is merely a gradient affectance field (a gradient in the energy in that space). And when the gravity field of Earth is moving with the Earth, the light in that field travels “with it”.
So what would really happen in the paradox situation is that 99.99 percent of the time (assuming extremely accurate measures), neither clock would stop… unless they are both extremely heavy. Both the station and the train are moving out of “center” as far as the light is concerned. And you don’t know which is moving faster than the other, but that can be discovered via a different experiment. After finding out where “absolute stillness” is, the problem of predicting when the light will reach the clocks is easy.
The first question is usually, “Why do relativity experiments come so close to being right on the mark?”
The reason is that light traveling the length of a traveling train will in fact take longer to traverse the length of the train. And also clocks really do move slower when traveling at high speeds relative to an absolute frame. And I haven’t confirmed it yet, but I have strong suspicion that the atoms literally elongate due to changes in what they call the “weak force” along the axis of motion. The actual cause of the weak force is altered. The combination of those effects, makes measurements pretty consistent whether you are moving or not.
Thus the traveling observer perceives no change, but in absolute reality is different. Experiments show that the clocks really do move slower (apparently). And experiments show that the traveling system cannot detect any notable changes.
So if the light seems to be traveling the same speed even though it “really” isn’t, how do you know that you are the one moving? The question is often asked, “How do you know that you are not dreaming?” You only know when the definitional logic never fails you.
RM is built upon Definitional Logic, Scientific Methodology, and Resolution Debating. When the end result of all of that forms an understanding that is;
consistent,
comprehensive, and
relevant to the concerns at hand,
you know that your understanding (“ontology”) is “truth” and not a mis-perception or a dream. Relativity failed that test.
Just terribly off cuff, but You may want to look at F. Seller’s ‘Recovering Lorentz’s Ether’, and the correspondence between Schroedinger, Einstein and von Neumann on the principle of Common Cause.
I’ll take a look at it. Affectance is quite similar to Lorentz’ aether, but has significant differences, one of which is the fact that affectance isn’t a theory, but an unavoidable logical deduction. Aether proposes that “maybe it is like this…”. Affectance proposes that “if 2+2=4, then it IS like this….”
I remember finding four serious errors in the Michelson-Morley experiment and thinking that it was one of the worst experiments for science to have claimed conclusive. The most offensive to me (many years ago) was their final proposition of proof of the antithesis by failure of the thesis, “because the hypothesis failed, we have proven the lack of aether” - Not!!
I probably can’t remember all of the issues with that experiment, but I do remember certain presumptions;
Light travels through aether in the same way that sound travels through air, thus will have Doppler effects - presumption.
Aether wind isn’t affected by the presence of Earths gravity field - presumption (and fatally flawed).
So the experiment wasn’t really proving anything, but their dubious afterthought concerning “aether drag” was getting close to the truth of it.
The affectance field close to a massive object such as Earth produces the effect known as gravity, but it also moves with the object and less so distant from the object. The mass is actually a product of the field, not the other way around. The mass doesn’t create a gravitational field, a gravitational field creates the mass. The affectance field out in space is flowing at a different, independent rate as it is on the Earths surface (especially in Michelson’s basement). So his effort to detect his aether wind would have failed, and did.
The bottom line is that they didn’t understand the complexities of affectance which are mathematically derivable without any experiment at all. They didn’t really know what they were testing for nor how to test for it.
In predicting the path and speed of light, there are the following basic concerns;
Original vector of the light
Regional Affectance density (field strength)
Photon Affectance density (intensity of the light)
Aligned Affectance field shift (causing Doppler type speed variance)
Transverse Affectance field shift (causing trajectory drift)
I am sorry but I cannot find the book either on the Barnes and Nobel site or on Amazon.
The principals in the correspondence have spectacular intellects, particularly von Neumann. (I might be colored in my view because von Neumann was a mathematician).
My little research on “Common Cause” also seems unfulfilling as I think that the SEP article on the subject implies that it is a failed concept.
Thanks for replying. I have read some of your posts and been very impressed.
Ed
Hi James,
I think that the Michelson Morley experiment was great in every regard.
The beauty of the experiment was that it was a failure in the minds of the experimenters. There was clearly no bias to find a negative result.
It has been replicated many times in an ever more precise manner by generally skeptical experimenters.
For the readers that are not familiar with the experiment you can Google Michelson Morley and go to:
It is a well written article. The only place that I can find some “wiggle room” is in the section on CMB.
You wrote: “because the hypothesis failed, we have proven the lack of aether” - Not!!
I do not feel that this is in fact not a true characterization of the situation. Any assumed existence of aether implies that there will be a measurable difference when traveling in different directions. (See the section entitled “Detecting the aether” in the Wiki article). In fact if the hypothesis is true then we must always be able to measure a difference in the velocity of light when traveling in different directions.
The Michelson Morley experiment falsifies this conclusion.
The reason that no one has considered gravity, at least in my mind, is because it is not relevant. (Good experimental physicists are very anal, and would not overlook such an obvious detail. This is not to say that every conceivable possibility has been considered).
For me the magnitude of gravity, Newtonian or Relativistic is almost unimaginably small. Furthermore it is acting virtually at right angles to the motion under consideration. As a final comment the gravity is symmetric in every position so the very nearly 0 amount would affect the outcome in ways that should cancel out the effects.
Just to get a first estimate on the magnitude of the force, f we know that
f = Gx(MEarthxMPhoton) / REarthxREarth
If the mass of the photon is conventionally 0 then f = 0 and is not a factor, if one imputes a mass for the photon from the Equations mcc = E = h/lc (where l is the wavelength of a standard “heavy” blue light) then MPhoton ~ 4.7 x 10^-37. Substituting the appropriate figures we get:
f = (6.67x10^-11)(5.97x10^24)(4.7x10^-37)/((6.38x10^6)(6.38x10^6)) OR f ~ 4.6 x 10^-35
This is an almost unimaginably small amount and as I said it is acting at (virtually) right angles to the motion under consideration. And as I said before the effects should cancel out in determining differences.
Thanks Ed
P.S.
I am a terrible writer and it takes many trial drafts before I can even make a post. Assuming that I can continue along this line, you will have to allow for the fact that there will be a considerable time lapse between posts.
James – If you wish to rebut my post that’s OK but at this point I would like to see how you deal with the relativistic magnetic corrections that are required for cyclotrons. Thanks Ed
That I very much agree with. Michelson was being honest (necessary in science). And I don’t think that it was he who claimed the antithesis must be true. The rest of the science community did that, but not after some other experiments as well.
That part tells me that you completely missed my point, showing that I too am a pretty poor writer, possibly worse.
What I was trying to say is that a gravitational field is made of something, a substance. That substance is more dense closer to the related mass and thus the gravitational force is stronger closer to the mass. But I wasn’t talking about the strength of the gravitational force upon the light, but rather the effect of the substance of which the gravity is made upon the light.
Consider the following “mass density” graph of a single mono-particle;
The mass density of a particle is based upon the Lorentz curve (which is something that I was hoping to possibly get your assistance in proving). And as you know, the Lorentz curve never extends out to reach zero. The part of that curve that is inside the sharp incline is called the “mass” or the “particle”. The portion of the curve that is outside the sharp incline is the “gravity field”. And in that depiction, the substance of the gravity field is being increased so as to see what affect it has upon the particle (a different issue for which the picture was made). It is that substance of the gravity field that extends out to other mass particles such as to cause “mass attraction” or the “force of gravity”.
As light travels through the substance surrounding the “mass”, there is only minuscule “gravitational force” affecting the path of the light. And I wasn’t referring to that tiny effect. My point was that the substance of that field travels with the mass particle (because the mass particle is actually made of that same substance, merely more concentrated). The mass (or Earth) is moving only because the substance of which it is made is moving and that includes the substance of its gravity field.
And then because that substance is moving with the particle, any light going through it experiences Doppler type of affects. Such an affect was the presumption of the aether wind experiment. And I am agreeing with that presumption on their part.
So the reason the experiment will always fail to show a “wind” is because they are too close to the mass where there is no wind because the “aether like substance” is moving with the Earth. It would be like trying to measure the wind outside by standing in a forest with a weather vane.
Lorentz speculated that also. It was called “aether drag”. Other experiments were then made on the hypothesis of aether drag, but because they didn’t know enough of what they were trying to measure, those experiments failed to show consistent results favoring the aether drag concept. The affectance (or merely “aether” in this case) isn’t being “dragged” but is moving in the same direction as the rest of the mass, the Earth.
That “substance” that I am referring to, of which a gravity field is made, is “Affectance”, which is very similar to Lorentz aether. And for such an experiment to work, all the following concerns must be addressed;
If any of those concerns are not controlled in the experiment, it is not a “controlled experiment” and thus will not produce reliable or valid results. The Michelson-Morley experiment negated any effect that all of those would have had. And thus showed what would be expected, “nothing”, no change detected, because anything that would have allowed for detection of a wind was already canceled out. In effect, he was trying to detect a wind in a forest.
One cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a wind in the sky by testing for it in the deep forest.
Since I am talking about an additional factor that is not being recognized and thus never mentioned in any of their experiments, could you be more specific so that I can see where things fit. Different experiments will inadvertently either leave out or compensate for the concerns of Affectance without knowing it or mentioning it.
But since you brought up a concern of magnetism, it is important to realize that James Maxwell’s “magnetic wave” is actually merely the electric potential wave being compressed. A magnetic field is merely a compressed electric field, as shown below;
Maxwell’s “magnetic field” is displayed as “PtA Compression”. That wave, as shown in the pic, will vary as an EMR pulse enters or leaves an affectance field, a mass/gravity field, or merely a change in polarity of an electric field. The compression and decompression requires a change in the field density (or polarity) as the pulse travels in order to cause change in compression (as would be commonly expected). So I have to see exactly what they were doing in order to give a “what was really going on” explanation.
Just to show you how religious sciencism has become, yet another “science” forum has refused any discussion of this paradox whatsoever. They discuss the Twins Paradox and a couple of others, because those can be resolved, but not the Stopped Clock Paradox. The report excusing the forbidding of the topic was simply, “It was denied because it’s just more relativity-denialist pseudoscience/flamebait.”
All hail to the Holy Word of Sciencism!! “Speak no evil”.
Yes, it is unbelievable how religious science has become. According to my theory and also because of that fact I often say that ideologies are modern religions. Therefore it is not surprising to me that this has happened and happens an will happen (until the time when science will be no science anymore, but to 100% the new religion, probably worldwide). Once every Westerner thougt religion was replaced by science, in the future every Westerner or even every human being will think the reverse.
Sorry for the delay. I am afraid that it might always be this way with me.
Anyway, an Aether with drag is interesting. Just some knee jerk reactions:
Is there anything like refraction and reflection?
Pure speculation - could this tie into dark matter?
I am sorry if this feels like I am talking down to you but –
Cyclotrons range from the small ones like the one Feynmann worked on at Cornell to the super collider at Cern.
They are basically circular tubes with many large electromagnets surrounding the tubes.
A charged particle is released into the tube and the electro magnets accelerate the particle to very high speeds.
The problem is that Newton mechanics dictate that the electro magnets have to reach certain strengths in order to keep the particle on track. But in real life the electro magnets must be recalibrated to a much higher strength as the particle approaches the speed of light. The amount of the calibration adjustment corresponds to the predicted gain in the relativistic mass.
How does RM deal with this?
I am also curious whether or not RM considers space (at least at the macro level) to be homogeneous and isotropic?
All I really want to know is if space looks the same for any coordinate system where r1 < |x, y, z, t| < r2, where r1 is big enough to exclude quantum effects and r2 is any finite number.
And my answer is that it depends on how you are “observing”. There is a difference in observing with a “single-eye” (measuring only from a single perspective) and a “double-eye” (measuring by looking at the situation from two perspectives).
All animals and birds have two eyes for a reason. They can see with two eyes what they cannot see with only one, “parallax”. They have more information with which to derive more accurate results. It is also like the audience having to sit at a particular angle to the magician for his trick to deceive them. If they are allowed to see him from behind as well as in front, they have more information with which to assess the “magic” involved.
From a single-eye perspective, relativity seems okay to accept, because information is being hidden. But the Stopped Clock Paradox forces a double-eye perspective because the results of the event are summed as clocks that have either stopped or not, regardless of either perspective. The stopped clocks offer the logical sum of both perspectives and thus remove potential deception of seeing the universe from only one perspective at a time (the foundational presumption of ). Einstein stated that “one cannot know” (similar to saying that a bird cannot judge distance). He was in error when he said that. A simple minded person cannot know, just as is the case for solipsism, magic, and other philosophies that presume the person to be non-thinking or irrational.
So “space will look the same” as long as you don’t think very much about what you are seeing. If you think about the SCP, you don’t make the same mistakes in presumption and thus “observe” differently. You don’t presume the Lorentz transformation because you already know that it isn’t reflecting reality. You don’t fall for the magic trick, even if it looks like a really good one.
Another example of the logic problem with the Lorentz single-eye presumption is seen in the following;
An observer with only one eye, sees as the top picture shows, with a single speed observed. An observer with two eyes, equally spaced from the motion also observes only one speed. But if the observer has two eyes and is NOT centered around the motion, he can observe two speeds, do the math, and get a different answer than the others.
Lorentz transformations don’t resolve that problem (I suspect).
Hi James;
I still want to know how RM explains the fact that cyclotrons need to adjust for the gain in relativistic mass.
It is OK by me if the answer is that at this time it is unresolved.
I also asked about whether or not space was considered homogeneous, and as I understood it you talked about many eyes. Would not anyone/everyone see empty space as homogeneous on a macro scale?
Thanks
Ed
P.S.
You are right about the drawings above. Based on the Lorentz transform, each eye should see something different - except for the second case. (That includes the eye looking at the drawings as they are presented).
Personally, I don’t have a problem with that statement.
But do realize that I had the “two eyes” as one observer. An observer with only one eye has limited information. An observer with two “equally separated from the motion” eyes, has limited information. But the observer with two “offset eyes” has more information. Both information theory and chaos theory would confirm that.
On a “macro scale”, observation void of logical reasoning is limited. Thus an observer cannot see of what a mass-field is made. He must deduce it. And his deduction will reveal that a mass-field (gravity-field, Affectance-field) has the property of extremely small “mass” because it cannot be truly homogeneous. And the less homogeneous it is, in terms of total EMR pulses and frequencies involved, the more mass it contains.
Space is an ocean of subtle motion, too small to detect. And what is being called “Cosmic Background Radiation”, CBR, is merely the local resonance of the subtle noise (detectable) that makes up “space”. That is why they detect it no matter what direction they look. Such resonance cannot be avoided, merely minimized. And that is related to the Double-Slit experiment results also.
The answer to that would require a couple of chapters in a book, but let me see if I can reduce it to some essentials. Please ask of each one individually before assessing a conclusion.
1.) First realize that in RM:AO there IS an absolute frame although seldom of any concern.
2.) Also that a mass particle is no more than a cluster of EMR noise, containing all possible frequencies of EMR.
3.) There is a “Maximum Rate of Change”, MCR, involved in causing the formation of mass particles.
4.) The amount of mass within a particle is a measure of the number of MCR occurrences
5.) When an EMR pulse encounters another pulse, the rate of change by the combination increases substantially.
6.) Thus when a particle encounters another particle, the number of MCR occurrences increases substantially.
7.) Due to the above, the “effective mass content” of a particle while encountering another will measure much higher.
8.) An “observer” is merely another mass and thus will experience greater mass from a particle in motion than at rest.
In that anime, the tiny green spikes represent the “MCR occurrences” wherein the affectance is changing at a maximum rate. The closer you get to the center of a particle, the more of those are present and reach a maximum density. In the vacuum of space they still exist, but are relatively sparse.
You could also think of it as a case of Doppler shifting. A particle moving relative to another will yield a higher frequency of encounter (as has been confirmed many times). So as two particles collide, the frequencies involved in the collision of their subtle EMR pulses is increased. For each MCR occurrence, it is totally impossible for propagation to take place until a sufficient amount of time has passed. Because more of such MCR’s occur during the collision, those parts of the “mass” literally cannot propagate. And that is the definition of inertia and resultant momentum.
And that MCR is also responsible for the speed of light being what it is.
