Relativity Refutation

[Masanov]

Now, it's a relief to the eye.

[swansont]

Swansont will also be able to get a handle on this and explain also.

 

 

I can't view the original page, and there's a serious language barrier here.

[swansont]

If you move after light impulse with the speed c/2' date=' you approach it with the speed c/2, and relative speed is c/2 also. In the same way, if someone moves after the light impulse at an angle alpha with the speed [c*cos alpha'], you receive the relative speed [c*sin alpha]. If someone denies relative speed, than v should be zero.

 

In special relativity, the relative speed of light is always c for any inertial observer.

 

I don't follow any of the rest of the argument. I suspect any problem is because of a misapplication of the theory.

[Masanov]

illustration in the following picture: Einstein experiment with a light pulse that moves at an angle alpha... .

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/4

 

 

In Einstein experiment the spaceship moves with the speed c*cos aplha. And the light pulse, that was shot ouside the spaceship at an angle alpha to the direction the spaceship moves, moves in the spaceship up a perpendicular line [imath](beta=90^o)[/imath].

 

If in the expression [imath]\sqrt {1 - \frac {v90^2}{c^2}} [/imath]we change V90 for c*cos aplha we receive:

 

[imath]\sqrt {\frac{c^2 - (c cos{\alpha})^2}{c^2}};[/imath]

 

[imath]\sqrt {\frac{c^2 (1 - (cos{\alpha})^2)}{c^2}}[/imath]

 

[imath]\sqrt {\frac{1 - (cos {\alpha})^2}{...}}[/imath]

 

[imath]\sqrt {\frac{({\sin{\alpha}})^2}{...}}[/imath], which is sin {\alpha}.

 

t relative/t absolute =[imath]sin{\alpha}[/imath] !!!!

 

If we leave this speed c*cos alpha unchanged, but from the very beginning shoot the pulse at another angle, we would have another time.

 

And Tom Mattson said, that this Maxwell expression "sin alpha" should be used at any direction. Would you pls show me the reference book where this was stated, or where the experiment with three light pulses and three angles beta was already discussed. In postulates and in the theory of relativity it was never stated that Maxwell "sin alpha" should be used without proofs and in all directions (yes, it was once mentioned without proofs whith relativity of distances, but with parallel mirrors it was clear that the spaceship speed was c*cos alpha and Maxwell expression there was sin alpha).

[swansont]

Einstein experiment with a light pulse that moves at an angle alpha... .

 

...

If we leave this speed c*cos alpha unchanged' date=' but from the very beginning shoot the pulse at another angle, we would have another time.

[/quote']

 

 

"Einstein experiment"? Does this refer to the Michelson Morley experiment, and sending light out in different directions, other than 0 and 90 degrees? You don't get different times for the round trip of the light pulses, if you have properly analyzed the problem.

[Masanov]

It refers to the famous Einstein experiment with parallel mirrors, where these mirrors have to move c* cos alpha to catch the light pulse, that was shot outside the spaceship by someone not moving with the speed of this spaceship (and mirrors). We catch light pulse and it moves along perpendicular line up and down, up and down, ... In the long run Einstein makes out this expression [imath]\sqrt{1-(\frac{v90^o}{c})^2}[/imath]which really is sin alpha. Other pulses that cannot be caught strictly along perpendicular line (acc. to Tom) also have this time T*sin alpha as a requirement. Not T* sin alpha/sin beta, but without this [imath]sin{\beta}[/imath] amendment. And this is a requirement!! Discussed above times beta1, beta2, beta3 are not required, though they are possible. The theory of relativity never stated her requirements, only postulates.

I would like all of you to return to the discussion of three separate times for 3 light impulses at angles beta1, beta2, beta3 to one observer, who moves in the spaceship. Distance to pulse1 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta1, to pulse2 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta2, to pulse3 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta3. In acc. with postulates the times along these 3 distances should be different. (Acc. to Tom) sin beta1=sin beta2 = sin beta3, as a requirement to use Maxwell's "sin alpha" in all directions. Who invented this reqirement? To state sin beta1=sin beta2 = sin beta3 is wrong.

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/3

Relativity is ... derived from the requirements that Maxwell's equations take on the same form in every inertial frame and that the speed of any light pulse is determined by any inertial observer is c. And the results do apply to a beam that is directed at any angle relative to the line of motion of the observer.

[swansont]

Sounds like the "light clock" explanation.

 

If the distances are equal in the rocket frame, then the time the light pulse takes to travel will be equal as well, because you can turn the experiment into a Michelson interferometer, and you don't get a phase shift as you rotate that device.

 

If you get a different answer, you haven't applied the theory correctly.

[EL]

You are confusing the propagation of light with that of sound in air.

Moving towards a light source will not make the light appear any faster.

[EL]

Why?

 

You may at most experience a doppler shift if you are moving fast enough.

[EL]

Then what is that magical cause of that magical shift of that frequency of that Doppler man?

Is the frequency shift proportional to the speed of the observer relative to the source?

On what physical phenomenon does that relative velocity fall' date=' is it the frequency of light by any chance?

How exactly is the frequency of light affected by that relative velocity, is it by casting spells to deform the scales of time and length or could it be for the simplest of all reasons?

 

If you align two sensors collinearly to any of the three pulses, you will find that the light waves will pass the two sensors at an interval that is equal to (distance-between-sensors/c).

[EL]

You forgot to specify that the interval you mention is a time-interval.

Your sentence and your claim was too difficult for you to understand, so how do you expect him to get a point you did not even make?

 

Your assumption of "relative speed" of light is already wrong.

[EL]

Why is it wrong?

Anyone is free to make whatever assumption they wish as long as it is verified to be true or falsified by proof.

Did you post any proof that falsified his assumption?

I did not see one' date=' so where?

 

That is not what Einstein assumed. Tom Mattson had already quoted what the postulates were.

Yes, yes, we know what Professor Einstein had assumed, and perhaps that was what he was precisely arguing to be false. Do you expect him to succumb and genuflect to an assumption he is refuting? Get serious, please.

Is this a debate or a circus?

 

I would say that to disprove a theory' date=' you either

1. show an observation in which disagrees with the prediction of the theory or

[/quote']

[EL]

The software that implemented Einstein's equations in the Patriot anti-missile defence proved an efficiency of less than 5% against the scud missiles, and that horrible failure was the first of its kind.

There is a lot of hush, hush around losing exploration robots on Mars caused by the wrong assumptions of relativity.

 

2. show somehow that the theory's original postulates are incorrect.

[EL]

The OP was never given the chance to do that' date=' which he was obviously trying to do.

 

What you are doing is attempting to derive relativity using different assumptions

(I don't even know what your postulates are),

and then claiming that your results are different from Einstein's.

[EL]

His fundamental assumption was that the second postulate of SR is unfounded.

Then he proceeded by trying to justify his assumption, but no one discussed the intricate details of what he said because of obvious incompetence.

I could neither understand his refutation proof nor your refutation of his refutation.

You may all proceed with your game, but I see no serious debate here.

 

Maxwell's equations do not go further than modelling the characteristics of a classical Aether, which is in a modern sense taken to be the QFT where Spinors are the best way to describe each and every vector in the set as it evolves. This means that if the source of light remained stationary relative to the histories of the expanding spherical electromagnetic waves, The wave-front must move away from the source such that dr/dt = c.

Albert Michelson in his famous experiment designed a most funny device that had the source and the observer stationary in the local frame and co-moving in the non-local frames, which must result in a zero-frequency shift and a zero fringe-shift not 0.4 fringes as predicted erroneously.

 

This means that in that particular case, in which the source and the observer are co-stationary, the speed of light must be only c, homogenously and isometrically.

Professor Albert Einstein's assumption was wrongly founded on such empirical results of a stationary state endorsed by Maxwell's calculations. I may not envy the professor for such an error in which the most intelligent may fall. Only the humble, meticulous, pedantic and academic mind can find such an error exactly as the English Language Grammatical Corrector who works for a publisher excels over any gifted writer while revising what was wrote before publishing for grammatical and spelling mistakes.

The wrong assumption was that the speed of light, that is constantly "c" in the reference frame of the stationary source, was invariant regardless of the state of motion of the observer, and was not even close to the case of when the source moves relative to the histories of the expanding wave while the observer moves relative to the same.

The consequences of such an error was a horrible deformation in the time-scales and the length-scales known as "Time dilation" and "Length contraction", then the consequence of the horrible deformations of scales was known as the twin-paradox, the black-hole, and the big bang.

 

The circus is still on, so do not miss the laughs.

 

EL

[blike]

This thread is dangerously close to being moved to psuedoscience. You all can add your closing comments (responses to El), then I'll move it.

[Spyman]

I could neither understand his refutation proof nor your refutation of his refutation.

Well, at least You understand that You don't understand, but still You fail to understand that -

You don't understand the Theory of Relativity . . .

 

And why are You and Masanov pecking on mezarashi, who was only trying to help and explain ?

 

Moving towards a light source will not make the light appear any faster.

That is the point in the Theory of Relativity You fail to understand.

[EL]

Well' date=' at least You understand that You don't understand, but still You fail to understand that -

You don't understand the Theory of Relativity . . .

[/quote']

[EL]

Bold words, especially when you may certainly have nothing to say or present to backup those bold words.

Well, else than a hunch.

 

And why are You and Masanov pecking on mezarashi' date=' who was only trying to help and explain ?

 

That is the [b']point[/b] in the Theory of Relativity You fail to understand.

[EL]

I am not interested in picking on any one.

I only care to give a fair chance to every one to express his free opinion first without oppressing her or him.

You yourself seem to be full of yourself.

Would you care to explain for us the energy-momentum tensor:

T_uv (vacuum) = p_v * g_uv

 

And how to express the same equation as a spinor?

If not, then would you kindly at least show us a rigorous derivation of Lorentz Transformations and the physical cause behind time-dilation and length-contraction?

 

I will not hold my breath, though.

 

EL

[EL]

It refers to the famous Einstein experiment with parallel mirrors' date=' where these mirrors have to move c* cos alpha to catch the light pulse, that was shot outside the spaceship by someone not moving with the speed of this spaceship (and mirrors).

[/quote']

[EL]

Mr. Masanov, I was defending your right to express yourself, but I feel obliged to correct you when you are in error. The mirror-clock was never a physical experiment, it was a gedunken (Thought Experiment).

A set of two parallel mirrors will continue to reflect light (hypothetically, neglecting energy losses) indefinitely.

When the light ray is normal to the planes of the two mirrors we call that light clock a proper-time clock, which is founded on the fact that the speed of light is constant in vacuum and relative to the two co-stationary mirrors.

You seem to have no problem with that, since you claim that Professor Einstein was concerned with light at 90 degrees of arc, like Albert Michelson did.

Now for any spaceship to fire a light pulse at an angle inclined on the surface of one mirror, and catch up with the reflected light ray at the third angle of the triangle, then the path of light must be longer than the pass of the ship allowing it to move at a velocity less than c to accomplish the mission.

 

I would like all of you to return to the discussion of three separate times for 3 light impulses at angles beta1' date=' beta2, beta3 to one observer, who moves in the spaceship. Distance to pulse1 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta1, to pulse2 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta2, to pulse3 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta3. In acc. with postulates the times along these 3 distances should be different. (Acc. to Tom) sin beta1=sin beta2 = sin beta3, as a requirement to use Maxwell's "sin alpha" in all directions. Who invented this reqirement? To state sin beta1=sin beta2 = sin beta3 is wrong.

[/quote']

[EL]

There seems to be a requirement from other posters to you, Masanov.

The obvious conflict cannot be in the calculations, which is exhausting you and us to follow.

They told you that the second postulate of SR is that light has a constant speed in vacuum as observed by all inertial frames of reference, which forces time dilation and length contraction to be consistently and verifiably acceptable.

That is why you would be "barking up the wrong tree" unless you prove that the second postulate itself is an unnatural postulate that contradicts with empirical reality.

 

Good Luck.

 

EL

[swansont]

[EL]

Why is it wrong?

Anyone is free to make whatever assumption they wish as long as it is verified to be true or falsified by proof.

Did you post any proof that falsified his assumption?

I did not see one' date=' so where?[/quote']

 

No, you have to verify by experimental evidence.

 

[EL]

The software that implemented Einstein's equations in the Patriot anti-missile defence proved an efficiency of less than 5% against the scud missiles' date=' and that horrible failure was the first of its kind.

There is a lot of hush, hush around losing exploration robots on Mars caused by the wrong assumptions of relativity.

[/quote']

 

 

Sorry, but conspiracy nonsense is not going to fly. Patriot missiles - you think the failure was in the relativity? Sheesh. And confusing meters and feet is relativity of a different kind.

 

GPS, by the way, works just fine, and uses relativity.

[EL]

Dear Swansont,

I am new on this SFN forum and I would like to begin, nicely.

Please check this paper first and then we may proceed.

It is not mine, but it has merit.

Try to understand it before posting any hasty responses, please.

<http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm >

EL

[timo]

I am new on this SFN forum and I would like to begin, nicely.

I think I can give you a few hints on how to achieve that:

- Leave your inappropriate "Get serious, please. Is this a debate or a circus?"-arrogance at the login button.

- Try to stay on topic (ok, flaming is kind of on-topic in this thread ). Just because you´ve seen spinors in relativistic quantum mechanics doesn´t say it has anything to do with this thread.

- If you are adressed by someone, ignore it or give a serious reply. Asking someone to to some mathematical conversions before you consider him relevant enough to bother isn´t appropriate. Especially when the conversion doesn´t make any sense and the equation doesn´t even compute (see next point).

- Do have a bit of knowledge about what you are talking about or if not: Admit it at least.

- You shouldn´t respect people because they have that "blabla Expert" sign under their names but because they are members of this forum (or in the wider sense: because they are people).

 

 

 

About that text you mentioned: Well, I simply didn´t want to read all that crap and parsed to the points that seemed to have physics in it. First interesting point was this:

Consider a rest frame in which' date=' as a stick passes by at constant speed, two knives simultaneously (in the rest frame) leave marks on the stick. If, in the rest frame, the distance between the knives is L, the marks on the stick will be a distance γL apart when viewed in the stick’s frame. This distance (γL) is length-contracted down to the distance L in the rest frame, in accordance with Lorentz transforms. The example is trivial and can be found in textbooks.

 

What if the knives are somewhat more decisive and, instead of just leaving marks on the stick, cut it up so that a part of the stick remains trapped between the knives? How long will be this part? Its length cannot be γL since γ > 1 and the knives are only a distance L apart. But the length of the trapped part cannot be L either since, once measured to be γL in the stick’s frame, it must remain so in that frame despite the fact that the relative speed of the two frames has become zero (the proper length does not depend on the relative speed). In a sane science this would be called reductio ad absurdum and the premise producing the contradiction (Lorentz transforms) would be rejected. Luckily (for relativists), there is no such nuisance as reductio ad absurdum in the relativity cult. [/quote']

Do I need to say more?

 

Ok, I´ll do so:

- It took me quite some time to even figure out what the author was saying. Of course, smart people who can prove a hundred year old very established theory wrong do not need to bother about trivialities like drawing sketches of what´s going on, talking about geometries like how the rod is oriented relative to it´s motion (ok, you can asuume it´s parallel if you look at the results) or even providing the reader with some math. Good scientific work is carried out on pure intuition alone and math is for the losers that can´t figure out what´s going on otherwise.

 

- So the part of the part of the stick that´s stuck between the knifes is supposed to remain there. How´s that? Do the knifes move away with the stick? Well, in this case I really can´t see any problem. Does the part cut out stop it´s movement because the knifes do not follow the stick´s movement? Well, the rest of the passage hints towards this option... everyone who considers the stick´s frame of reference an inertial one anymore raise hands, please! *Looks around*. Guessed so.

 

EDIT: I had some passage about the sticks original frame of reference in here but I removed it because I had some doubts about the validity of my arguents and I´m very tired atm, so I can´t double-check it.

[swansont]

- It took me quite some time to even figure out what the author was saying. Of course' date=' smart people who can prove a hundred year old very established theory wrong do not need to bother about trivialities like drawing sketches of what´s going on, talking about geometries like how the rod is oriented relative to it´s motion (ok, you can asuume it´s parallel if you look at the results) or even providing the reader with some math. Good scientific work is carried out on pure intuition alone and math is for the losers that can´t figure out what´s going on otherwise.

[/quote']

 

 

I'm not sure, either, but I suspect the author has assumed that simultaneity is absolute, and thus comes up with the contradiction.

[swansont]

Please check this paper first and then we may proceed.

It is not mine' date=' but it has merit.[/quote']

 

No, not really.

 

Try to understand it before posting any hasty responses' date=' please.

[/quote']

 

 

I tried, but it isn't very good. It's tough when the author doesn't understand the theory he's critiquing. He's upset that Einstein didn't feel a need to postulate the form of a linear transformation? The Einstein uses the variable x' in more than one context? And it looks like he confuses math and logic.

[CPL.Luke]

plus mathmatically the distance l between the two knives from the sticks inertial frame of reference is gamma L, so when the two objects come into the same reference frame the two distances will be equal

[Spyman]

Bold words' date=' especially when you may certainly have nothing to say or present to backup those bold words.

Well, else than a hunch.[/quote']Maybe You should read Your own post again and then compare it with mine...

 

(Qlue: I said as much as You and have as much to back me up.)

 

Again:

If you chase the light pulse and catch it up with, its relative speed becomes 0.

Moving towards a light source will not make the light appear any faster.

You can NOT refute a theory if neglecting the rules of the theory !

 

(Or without proving experimentally that it's wrong.)

 

I am not interested in picking on any one.

Then You should start with the first poster' date=' then the second and so on...

 

(And not jump directly on the one thats seems to be easiest to argue against.)

 

I only care to give a fair chance to every one to express his free opinion first without oppressing her or him.

Did You and Masanov give mezarashi a fair chance ? (No.)

 

You yourself seem to be full of yourself.

LOL

 

Would you care to explain for us the energy-momentum tensor:

T_uv (vacuum) = p_v * g_uv

 

And how to express the same equation as a spinor?

If not' date=' then would you kindly at least show us a rigorous derivation of Lorentz Transformations and the physical cause behind time-dilation and length-contraction?[/quote']No Way !

 

(But maybe You can explain for us how Masanov will experimentally prove he is able to catch up with the speed of light so it's relative speed will become zero.)

 

I will not hold my breath, though.

I won't either.

 

 

enough`s enough now, before this degenrates into a slanging match about further trivia such as avatars and the like, let me make something clear, No ones doing themsleves any favors getting off topic, least of all Masanov.

Good words YT, hopefully this EL-guy will also read and understand them...

 

So, I am done with this thread now, my point is that they behaved unfair and unpolite to mezarashi, which from my view, from reading several posts by him/her, seems to have a lot more knowledge than them.

[Masanov]

This thread is dangerously close to being moved to psuedoscience. You all can add your closing comments (responses to El), then I'll move it.

Why, I am in complience with Isaac Newton view on space and time, it's not that dangerous. I applied postulates as was suggested to three pulses of light, proving there should be 3 different times for one observer of these three pulses... I did never state that when trying to catch the light pulse I gonna change absolute speed of this pulse and make it bigger. You confuse it with relative speed...

So if Einstein had proposed this experiment with 3 pulses, he would have applied his postulates and received 3 times. Maybe he knew this case and was worrying about possible scandals, nevertheless, only now we have come to this discussion. And it is not a pseudo science, when you try resurrect Newton's view on absolute space and time. In any case a discovery of something new from the old past cannot bring any harm.

Anytime, write to me rainbow-calendar@hotmail.ru

I appreciate your reaction, it was good. Nice.

[swansont]

Why' date=' I am in complience with Isaac Newton view on space and time, it's not that dangerous. I applied postulates as was suggested to three pulses of light, proving there should be 3 different times for one observer of these three pulses... I did never state that when trying to catch the light pulse I gonna change absolute speed of this pulse and make it bigger. You confuse it with relative speed...

So if Einstein had proposed this experiment with 3 pulses, he would have applied his postulates and received 3 times. Maybe he knew this case and was worrying about possible scandals, nevertheless, only now we have come to this discussion. And it is not a pseudo science, when you try resurrect Newton's view on absolute space and time. In any case a discovery of something new from the old past cannot bring any harm.

Anytime, write to me [email']rainbow-calendar@hotmail.ru[/email]

I appreciate your reaction, it was good. Nice.

 

Newton was wrong about absolute space and time, and from what I can decipher, you are using relative and absolute speed differently than everyone else.

 

Without proper definitions, I don't know what you mean by recieving the 3 pulses 3 times. If you send out 3 pulses, it's entirely possible that they will return at 3 different times, depending on the setup. However, the phase difference between the pulses won't change as you move into a different reference frame, so if they are set up to e.g. constructively interfere, then they will do this in the rocket and observer frame. If you get a different answer, you haven't applied the theory correctly.

[Masanov]

In special relativity' date=' the relative speed of light is always c for any inertial observer.

 

I don't follow any of the rest of the argument. I suspect any problem is because of a misapplication of the theory.[/quote']

 

http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/01

Pulses shot at different alpha angles... from the point of the observer... are moving along relative distances at angles beta, which are different. Saying that these all pulses have the same relative speed C, you try to say that pulses are touching the circle simulteneously as is shown at

http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/6

Show pls at which points pulses 2 and 3 touch the circle along beta or alpha direction?

[swansont]

http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/01

Pulses shot at different alpha angles... from the point of the observer... are moving along relative distances at angles beta' date=' which are different. Saying that these all pulses have the same relative speed C, you try to say that pulses are touching the circle simulteneously as is shown at

http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/6

Show pls at which points pulses 2 and 3 touch the circle along beta or alpha direction?[/quote']

I didn't claim they would hit the circle simultaneously. As drawn, they won't, in whatever frame of reference that is. The circle center has to be the point of emission.

 

However, the circle that is seen by the spaceship is not a circle as seen in another frame of reference.

[Masanov]

I didn't claim they would hit the circle simultaneously.

You said: relative speed should be C

In special relativity' date=' the relative speed of light is always c for any inertial observer.[/quote']

The circle center has to be the point of emission.

emission of pulses, yes; and the circle is like finish line not a light.

 

Three observers, looking through viewports.

[study pls the picture (paramount quality is for later times)]

http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/7

Black observer can understand the theory of relativity, because the light pulse which he sees moves perpendicular to the direction of the spaceship's movement. His time is T90= [imath]

\sqrt{1-(\frac{v90^o}{c})^2}

[/imath], or T sin alpha. Grey observers do not see through their portholes this perpendicular direction pulse and the theory of relativity should be explained to them using some other pulses and alpha angles, that is why their times should be different from T90, that is Tbeta2=T90(alpha2)/sin beta2, and Tbeta3= T90(alpha3)/sin beta3.

So, Einstein's relative time in the spaceship depends upon positions of the observers in this spaceship, and what is really stunning upon the turn of their head, or eyes! You [are an observer] turn your eyes to the right - you have time B, to the left - time A, turn backwards - time C.

 

This discovery of new times' formulas is sensational and must not be hushed down.

[swansont]

This discovery of new times' formulas is sensational and must not be hushed down.

 

Misapplication of relativity is actually rather mundane.