"Relativity" Speaking

Clarence Darrow

17th March 2006 - 12:23 PM

And it turns out that Special Relativity is a separate case of General Relativity, back to the drawing board. theory geeks.

While you were creating a chalk dust storm, the rest of the physics community was busy inventing the transistor, integrated circuits, rocket ships and nuclear reactors, all of which you had postulated before couldn't possibly work.

Still in the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" mode are you?

Any guilt when you pick up your paychecks?

Ibeltimes

17th March 2006 - 01:48 PM

Einstein-s theory on relativity it is just mathematical equations,but not the truth.It is like Ptolemy-s theory,but just Nickolaus Copernicus has right.It is well known that next generation find almost the right understanding of phenomenas.The real science it is developed in the future,many old theories was wrong.A real physicist do not admit the postulates,especially here.But we must recognize Einstein-s contribution to be here.[FONT=Times]

celsosavelli

17th March 2006 - 02:44 PM

Clarence Darrow Posted: Mar 17 2006, 12:23 PM

I agree that it is better to do something, based on what we have at hand, as a box of matches, and use some of them to have some little faint light to guide us, than having nothing and remain "cursing" against the darkness. Maybe, because the light is not as good as we would like to have, we are misguided as if through shadows and fearing ghosts that are mainly in our imagination. Newtonian model was not "perfect", and in any way it helped very much as foundation for new things and a new science. Newton provided just the light of one small match lit on against so great darkness condition. Quite like ending the Medieval Days of Inquisition, of mixing religion with science: the clear case of Galileo Galilei.

I agree that Einstein's theory on relativity it is just a THEORY, based on some mathematical equations (some quite "magic, Harry Potter's spell") that have provided being of some usefulness. It is like Newton's contribution: it is not the truth. It is quite like a "FAITH" of a "DOGMATIC RELIGION", as those some have, as if we should be part of some "Science Sect" or "esoteric/spell faith".

I agree it is like Ptolemy's theory, that was useful for some (little) time. Then it caused true SCIENCE "collapse", deviating out of the unbiased PROGRESS. Science became INTELLECTUALLY immobilized (alike that): slavered to quite like DOGMAs from such "tentative concept". But just Nickolaus Copernicus did right, making so great measurements of planets position, without a telescope, that allowed him to prove, mathematically, the planets were orbiting our sun according some elliptic pathway. It had a PROFOUND IMPACT, breaking RELIGIOUS DOGMA and OLD SCIENCE slavered to it, as Galileo Galilei demonstrated while trying to face "wises": quite like Theologians as if travestied into scientists, having NO REAL DATA to support their believes, besides some very old sacred books. We can guess Newton's model is quite based on Copernicus measurements, as it evidenced the great importance of GRAVITATION, ruling on orbit parameters, and thus coherent with the simplified FIRST LAW OF GRAVITATION.

If we break some kind of "intellectual slavery" (maybe slavery is too "strong word", mental inertia?), the next generations will find almost and SEE and REASON according a better understanding of phenomenas.

The real science can't progress if immobilized by intellectual bias and "faith", that just a THEORY is the REAL WORLD, and the REAL TRUTH. For sure, in future, we are to discover (as COPERNICUS+GALILEO did) that many "old and nowadays" theories were not "perfect", and as such they had to be IMPROVED. Einstein didn't replace Newtonian model, for almost all practical applications of SCIENCE, as in our day-to-day lives. Only is some limited applications, the new THEORY have shown to be like a match lit, than we remain cursing darkness. A real physicist should not have pride (even because of being of Einstein's family and community and society and political preferences, etc.). Thus they believe that silly MODELS, only SPECULATIONS about TRUTH, are quite like "SACRED immovable BELIEVES", that make their mind and actions be "immobilized". They need to understand SCIENCE must be FREE in its EVOLUTION, PROGRESS: without BIAS/DOGMAS. As if using POWER to keep them, as Catholics tried that with science (Galileo...).

In any way, Einstein's contribution will be evaluated by two group: those of more sensate scientists. Maybe in future half will be those who are sure that a given CUP is HALF "FULL" with water... and other will state it is only HALF "EMPTY". In any way we are to discover that it was not sensate to be like others that stated the CUP was FILLED UP and facing other group stating the CUP was FULLY "EMPTIED".

It will be like when we evaluate, "nowadays", NEWTON's contribution: without "passion, patriotism, pride, group-isms, religion, power, politics, etc." because, with time, all such factors "faded away", becoming into nothing. Because they, in fact, are not important for Science progess. Maybe we give too great importance, now, on silly "human grounds", as our social judgments of being more wises, as have more wises/learned scientists. Silly Medieval ideas and concepts, to guide "science, physics".

SAVELLI

Viktor Moroz

17th March 2006 - 03:50 PM

Dear Good Elf,

To criticize me you should understand me, if you understand me, and, I hope, Einstein’s theory too, it is simple for you to show my mistakes in my five points comment.
Please let me know even short name of experiment where speed of light was measured as distance divide by time in different moving system of reference?
Thank you
Viktor

Guest_ivo

17th March 2006 - 06:04 PM

if Einstein was right, then time does not exist, and speed is not what we think of it. if you move away with half the speed of light, light would only have an impact of half a light speed on your machine, if you are to believe the logics of time/space continuity. but if this is not true, how are you willing to prove this? not by some bogus interpretations by some scientists that copy Einstein's theories. what u need is something that can prove it, and this is not what i see right now. i know Einstein understood why, but he just couldn't find a way of writing it up. so, how long will it take for someone to understand and be able to prove it by explaining it on paper? please don't come cry at my door with that "frame of reference" or "relativity" ***, cuz it doesn't explain anything. period.

Viktor Moroz

17th March 2006 - 07:56 PM

Dear Guest_ivo,

I could ask you, what I have to explain you, and could ask you to give me vocabulary for this explanation, but any "vocabulary" is "frame of reference" for explanation, and you already refuse it. This means: for you does not have sense to ask something, and for me - to explain something.
Don't cry, relax and enjoy yourself.
Good luck.
Viktor

commonsense

17th March 2006 - 09:21 PM

The Speed of light controversy seems to still go on. The problem is that there is a problem with understanding the difference between "speed" an omnidirectional scalar and "velocity" a directional vector.

Vectors compound like vectors. It is the expectation that light is a vector and thus should compound with other vectors that is causing the confusion. Michaelson and Morley's experiment failed because it demonstrated that light is a scalar and is omnidirectional.

Einstein's genius was to accept that the speed of light is a constant and moved on. Even today, however, physicists speak of the "speed" of light a scalar term, but act and experiment as if light was a vector.

I heard a nice definition to help distinguish between speed a scalar and velocity a vector.

A car moving at 60 mph has a speed of 60 mph. A car moving NE at 60 mph has a velocity of 60 mph. The difference is that the velocity has a direction the speed is omnidirectional.

This speed of light problem is basically a problem of numbers. Physicists do not pay enough attention to mathematics. There are two kinds of numbers in mathematics;
scalar numbers which we use in arithmetic and learn in kindergarten are omnidirectional numbers. Everybody uses them but, few recognize that they are omnidirectional. If direction is not specified, we assume that these numbers have no direction, when in fact they have any or all directions.

Vectors were discovered/invented by William Rowan Hamilton, in 1843, when he developed Quaternions. Quaternions consist of three vectors " i,j and k" and a scalar "1". the square of a scalar is a positive, 1^2 = +1. The square of a vector is negative: i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = - 1.

Quaternions caused a lot of controversy because of this negative square. Maxwell adopted quaternion vectors for his equations but complained that when he had a displacement in the "-z" direction and a force in the "-z" direction, (dropping a ball) he expected a positive energy and got a negative energy.

The problem is and was that Maxwell, got exergy (energy out) not energy. Hamilton's rules for vectors let's you know the direction of the work (negative for work out - exergy, and positive for work in-energy).

Scalar signs tell the direction in or out. in or out are omnidirectional directions.

vectors are unidirectional, scalars are omnidirectional.

Hamilton's Quaternions were displaced by J. Willard Gibb's Vectors, where i^2 =j^2 =j^2 = +1. This rule makes Gibb's vectors non-associative; (ii)j does not equal i(ij).

Thus the non-quaternion mathematics commonly used in science lacks: Closure, associativity and Inverses.

Einstein's Interval is often given as (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2).

This is another case of not recognizing that the Cosmos understands the differences between scalars and vectors. here "time" is said to be imaginary, thus the minus sign associated with "ct'.

A quaternion point in "space-time is denoted by: p= ct + ix + jy + kz.

The square of this point is

^2 = ((ct)^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)) + 2(ct)(ix + jy +kz)

P is a quaternion and p^2 is a quaternion. If c^2 = (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)/t^2 then P^2 is also a quaternion but the scalar part is zero and the quaternion is a vector only: p^2 = 2ct(ix + jy + kz).

This shows that Einstein's Interval is incomplete and leaves out the vector term.

We need to bring back quaternions for the sake of our mathematics and science.

A Friend of Quaternions

commonsense

17th March 2006 - 09:25 PM

The Speed of light controversy seems to still go on. The problem is that there is a problem with understanding the difference between "speed" an omnidirectional scalar and "velocity" a directional vector.

Vectors compound like vectors. It is the expectation that light is a vector and thus should compound with other vectors that is causing the confusion. Michaelson and Morley's experiment failed because it demonstrated that light is a scalar and is omnidirectional.

Einstein's genius was to accept that the speed of light is a constant and moved on. Even today, however, physicists speak of the "speed" of light a scalar term, but act and experiment as if light was a vector.

I heard a nice definition to help distinguish between speed a scalar and velocity a vector.

A car moving at 60 mph has a speed of 60 mph. A car moving NE at 60 mph has a velocity of 60 mph. The difference is that the velocity has a direction the speed is omnidirectional.

This speed of light problem is basically a problem of numbers. Physicists do not pay enough attention to mathematics. There are two kinds of numbers in mathematics;
scalar numbers which we use in arithmetic and learn in kindergarten are omnidirectional numbers. Everybody uses them but, few recognize that they are omnidirectional. If direction is not specified, we assume that these numbers have no direction, when in fact they have any or all directions.

Vectors were discovered/invented by William Rowan Hamilton, in 1843, when he developed Quaternions. Quaternions consist of three vectors " i,j and k" and a scalar "1". the square of a scalar is a positive, 1^2 = +1. The square of a vector is negative: i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = - 1.

Quaternions caused a lot of controversy because of this negative square. Maxwell adopted quaternion vectors for his equations but complained that when he had a displacement in the "-z" direction and a force in the "-z" direction, (dropping a ball) he expected a positive energy and got a negative energy.

The problem is and was that Maxwell, got exergy (energy out) not energy. Hamilton's rules for vectors let's you know the direction of the work (negative for work out - exergy, and positive for work in-energy).

Scalar signs tell the direction in or out. in or out are omnidirectional directions.

vectors are unidirectional, scalars are omnidirectional.

Hamilton's Quaternions were displaced by J. Willard Gibb's Vectors, where i^2 =j^2 =j^2 = +1. This rule makes Gibb's vectors non-associative; (ii)j does not equal i(ij).

Thus the non-quaternion mathematics commonly used in science lacks: Closure, associativity and Inverses.

Einstein's Interval is often given as (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2).

This is another case of not recognizing that the Cosmos understands the differences between scalars and vectors. here "time" is said to be imaginary, thus the minus sign associated with "ct'.

A quaternion point in "space-time is denoted by: p= ct + ix + jy + kz.

The square of this point is : p^2 = ((ct)^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)) + 2(ct)(ix + jy +kz)

P is a quaternion and p^2 is a quaternion. If c^2 = (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)/t^2 then P^2 is also a quaternion but the scalar part is zero and the quaternion is a vector only: p^2 = 2ct(ix + jy + kz).

This shows that Einstein's Interval is incomplete and leaves out the vector term.

We need to bring back quaternions for the sake of our mathematics and science.

A Friend of Quaternions

Montec

17th March 2006 - 09:36 PM

Hello all

My understanding of SR and GR for the EM spectrum is thus.

SR deals with translations of physical quantities/measurements to/from different frames of reference. The only absolute given by Einstein is the speed of light ©.
1) If you have a ship traveling at 1/2c relative to another observer (positive 1/2c is toward the observer) then the light will be blue shifted. It should be noted that it does not matter who is actually moving at 1/2c the light will still be blue shifted. If the relative velocity is -1/2c (moving away from each other) then the light will be red shifted. It also does matter who is emitting the light.
2) There is also a time dilation for the ship traveling at 1/2c relative to the speed of light itself. This means that any light from any direction will be blue shifted for an observer on board from the time dilation. Any light emitted from the ship will be red shifted from the time dilation.

For light, the above two statements will govern light between two different frames of reference but since light is a vector that travels in space-time then aberration of light comes into play. Aberration of light is when the optic axis is offset (in the direction of motion) in order for the photon to travel parallel to the optic axis when the instrument (eye, telescope, etc.) is in motion. I believe there is also a function for light emitted from a moving object that may involve the polarization of the emitted light.

GR deals with space-time itself and accelerating forces. Mass warps space-time so light bends to follow the warp or you can say gravity causes a gradient based acceleration which in turn causes a gradient based time field which causes the light to bend. However you look at it, light will be blue shifted heading towards a mass and red shifted heading away from a mass.

Aristotle

18th March 2006 - 05:52 AM

I agree with Viktor.
There has yet to be a *direct* determination of the speed of light
in a moving frame of reference. A direct determination means simply
knowing the distance covered in a measured interval of time.

If this is done and is found in agreement with Einstein, I will
call my self a relativist.

A.

Good Elf

20th March 2006 - 06:04 AM

Hi Montec, Viktor, aristotle et al,

QUOTE (Aristotle Posted on Mar 18 2006+ 05:52 AM )

If this is done and is found in agreement with Einstein, I will call my self a relativist.

Here is a reference to a "direct" measurement of the speed of light (distance divided by time). The way to see that it does not depend on which way you are moving is to do the experiment in two (or more ) directions ... in the direction in which the Earth is rotating (W -> E) and "against" the direction the Earth is rotating (E -> W), or even North to South. Be sure to do it in the one frame of reference, that is the distances are fixed in that one (almost) inertial frame (except for the trivial acceleration due to gravity... relative to this simple experiment it can be "ignored").

Focault's Method: Measuring the Speed of Light

QUOTE ( Foucault 1850+)

Foucault produced a measurement of 298,000 km/second (185,167 miles/second), which is shockingly close to the modern measurement of 299,792 km/second (186,282 miles/second), keeping in mind that the latter figure applies only in a vacuum; light travels more slowly in air.... Interestingly, in 1926 scientist Albert Michelson made a more refined version of Foucault’s apparatus. Using the best equipment available in his day, Michelson measured the speed of light at 299,796 km/second (186,285 miles/second), amazingly impressive for a mechanical measurement.

It gave a quite good result for the age in which it was done and even better for the later Michelson result by the same method. Viktor and Aristotle, time to "fess up".

Wikipedia: Léon Foucault

Cheers

Viktor Moroz

20th March 2006 - 03:15 PM

Hi Good elf,
1) you are good "priest-of-relativity", but it is a little bit early confess to you.
You mention measuring speed of light by method of rotating mirror in one frame, but this is half of experiment: the same ray of light should be measured in at least second inertial frame.

2) Please let's note in those experiments we see finite speed of light, and you ignore my fourth point about infinite four-velocity of light: even if we get complete experiment then we do not have theory for the Einstein's postulate:

3) we have salad with inconsistent ingredients: classical mechanics and, i am sorry again, physical meaningless Lorentz' transformation, because inverse Lorentz' transformation give us acceleration of time in stationary frame against delay time in moving frame, but, you know, choice of moving or stationary frame is arbitrary and we lost physical symmetry.

Thank you for your time,
Viktor

Montec

20th March 2006 - 08:40 PM

Hello all

From my understanding SR and GR the "consistency of the speed of light" is valid. Some people have problems understanding that when you measure the speed of light you are doing so in a relativistic environment. That is to say the numerical speed of light is based on the circumstances under which the measurement was taken.

To further clarify, the numerical measurement of the speed of light © for a person traveling at 1/2c or for a person in a strong gravity well will not be the same as for a person traveling at 0c or in a weak gravity well. This is because the rate of time is dependent on both velocity and gravity, both of which have been proven true.

As a corollary the distance traveled in space is the same no matter what your reference.

Good Elf

21st March 2006 - 01:40 AM

Hi Viktor, Aristotle and Montec,

QUOTE

1) you are good "priest-of-relativity", but it is a little bit early confess to you.
You mention measuring speed of light by method of rotating mirror in one frame, but this is half of experiment: the same ray of light should be measured in at least second inertial frame.

I will never ask anyone to believe anything that cannot be proven with a direct experiment, in that sense I am no "priest" and nothing I say has any greater "authority" than the "elf" I profess to be. If you do not believe in elves then do not believe in me but you can check everything I say against tests that have been done or could be done in all my posts. I am confident with that claim and I usually give references where it is possible. Otherwise I supply a "Gedanken Experiment" but always based on what is known.
I would say this Viktor that this experiment has been done. Has it been done with this specific apparatus (Foucault's Method)?... probably not but it has been done with moving "clocks" aboard Jetliners traveling east and west around the earth. Of course there is a component to do with General Relativity there but the experiment was very successful. The agreement was very good verifying both the Special and General Theory simultaneously.
October 1971, Hafele and Keating
Other interesting and thoughtful tests of General Relativity
I would also point out that the constancy in the velocity of light in all moving inertial frames is the basis of the GPS satellite navigation system. To get a "fix" six or more simultaneous inertial platform readings are needed to obtain accurate positions on the Earth Surface. A dozen or more (declassified) Special and General Relativity corrections all based solely on Einstein's Theories are required to make a reading with accuracies of only a few centimeters. Without special and general relativity the positions of all coordinates would drift "aimlessly" by as much as 10 Kms per day.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

1) you are good "priest-of-relativity", but it is a little bit early confess to you.
You mention measuring speed of light by method of rotating mirror in one frame, but this is half of experiment: the same ray of light should be measured in at least second inertial frame.

I will never ask anyone to believe anything that cannot be proven with a direct experiment, in that sense I am no "priest" and nothing I say has any greater "authority" than the "elf" I profess to be. If you do not believe in elves then do not believe in me but you can check everything I say against tests that have been done or could be done in all my posts. I am confident with that claim and I usually give references where it is possible. Otherwise I supply a "Gedanken Experiment" but always based on what is known.
I would say this Viktor that this experiment has been done. Has it been done with this specific apparatus (Foucault's Method)?... probably not but it has been done with moving "clocks" aboard Jetliners traveling east and west around the earth. Of course there is a component to do with General Relativity there but the experiment was very successful. The agreement was very good verifying both the Special and General Theory simultaneously.
October 1971, Hafele and Keating
Other interesting and thoughtful tests of General Relativity
I would also point out that the constancy in the velocity of light in all moving inertial frames is the basis of the GPS satellite navigation system. To get a "fix" six or more simultaneous inertial platform readings are needed to obtain accurate positions on the Earth Surface. A dozen or more (declassified) Special and General Relativity corrections all based solely on Einstein's Theories are required to make a reading with accuracies of only a few centimeters. Without special and general relativity the positions of all coordinates would drift "aimlessly" by as much as 10 Kms per day.
2) Please let's note in those experiments we see finite speed of light, and you ignore my fourth point about infinite four-velocity of light: even if we get complete experiment then we do not have theory for the Einstein's postulate:

Classically the four-velocity of light itself is not defined. I understand your point and I think it can be defined as a frame of reference in which there is no time component (infinite time dilation) thus velocity cannot be determined from within that frame.
Four- velocity, momentum and acceleration

QUOTE

3) we have salad with inconsistent ingredients: classical mechanics and, i am sorry again, physical meaningless Lorentz' transformation, because inverse Lorentz' transformation give us acceleration of time in stationary frame against delay time in moving frame, but, you know, choice of moving or stationary frame is arbitrary and we lost physical symmetry.

The symmetry is restored if you consider which frame has undergone "physical" acceleration. The way in which you compare clocks must also be defined within the framework of synchronized clocks. I have written extensively on this full topic recently here...
The altering of time, Is it possible for someone to do so? Good Elf : Ref 1
The altering of time, Is it possible for someone to do so? Hexa... then Good Elf's answer
read forward to the end of page 46 of this recent thread.
You will also find an interesting link showing that time dilation occurred in a scout rocket test using a cesium clock in the second link "way above" in this post.

Cheers

Good Elf

21st March 2006 - 08:34 AM

Hi All,

'Relativity' Speaking (PhysOrg)
I think this article is very good ... but it is only a start. I have been saying this on this site for 2 years and elsewhere a lot longer. Incredibly no one believes me (...or for that matter... Einstein).

The first point made in the article is this one...

QUOTE ('Relativity' Speaking+)

Many are taught that if the difference in the speed of the reference frames is small enough, then whether or not two events happen at the same time no longer becomes a matter of perceptual difference. But, as his American Journal of Physics article indicates, it doesn’t matter how small the ratio of velocity to the speed of light. As long as the ratio is not zero, simultaneity is relative, and our third observer will typically never view the two events as taking place at exactly the same time.

This is clearly where those bad teachers are corrupting the minds of the young and impressionable with foolish notions based on a lack of real understanding. It is also important to stress here that an inertial frame of reference extends out to infinity and quite clearly the propagation times around that inertial frame of events must be taken into account. Without that understanding it is impossible to see or understand that different observers will not observe the events simultaneously, nor even in a strict causal sequence, and will need to correct those readings to have synchronized clocks agree within the frame on events.

Even the "observed" sequence of events in the one inertial frame can depend on the simple proximity to the sources. Much of what is seen in relativistic systems are optical effects. For example one surprising feature of this optical phenomenon is that an object receding at nearly 100% the speed of light can never be "observed" traveling (without some other axillary phenomenon like Hubble Expansion) above a mere 1/2 the speed of light. Purely an optical effect but it is not an illusion. Equally surprisingly is an approaching object traveling at nearly the speed of light will have an optical velocity much higher than the actual speed of light. In both cases a number of suitably placed observers, positioned along the path in a single inertial frame of reference, of any such projectile, will be able to compare notes after the projectile passes and confirm that the velocity was actually below the speed of light.
The next important point that is made is this....

QUOTE ('Relativity' Speaking+)

In 1905, Einstein made two plausible assumptions,” says Baierlein. “He assumed, first, that the laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving frames of reference and, second, that the motion of the source of light has no effect on the speed of light itself.... “I’m suggesting that some of the textbook writers go back and see how Einstein actually derived his results. Instead of assuming that all observers measure the same speed for light, it is better to start with a plausible assumption that light operates independently of its source. If you do this, you set up something that is easier to believe.”

This is another classic place in which the errors are apparent. It is in the way it is expressed to the young mind in a way that is not actually "sensible". It further states that...

QUOTE ('Relativity' Speaking+)

the phrase “the constancy of the speed of light” meant that the velocity at which a light source is moving has no bearing on the speed of the light that emanates from the source. The speed of light is constant, regardless of how fast or slow its source happens to be moving.

Einstein got it right and while teachers have not said anything wrong... they sometimes want people to believe something almost "mystical" about the nature of relativity. I would say there is a similar tendency to be found when discussing Quantum Theory as well. I think it is a form of intellectual "snobbery" that has gotten out of hand. I have discussed this point elsewhere (especially the way in which that article on how a proto-type Quantum Computing device "works better when switched off")... if that is not a misleading way of putting the real reasons for this process I will eat my beanie.

There is also the "confusion" regards the nature and magnitude of the Time Dilation effect. This is a confirmed phenomenon. It is not "symmetric" in the way many have reported. The dilation will occur irrespective of direction and is a result dependent on "relativistic acceleration". This misunderstanding comes from not realizing that Special Relativity is a special case of General Relativity. The "simple" statement that "moving clocks run slow" does not tell the entire story since this can appear to be the case when you apply "Special Relativity" formula blindly. In the end it is only the "accelerated" clock that loses the "ticks". It also connected to the misconception that space travelers have an upper limit placed on their velocity. This is not the case. Because the Laws of Physic is the same in all frames and because of "Time Dilation" there is no upper limit to the "internally computed velocity". The speedometer inside a relativistically traveling spacecraft has no upper limit ... it should be calibrated from zero to infinity. The only problem with this effect is the traveler is being propelled into the future. Seen from inertial frames where the speed of the planets is small the spaceship and the occupants are almost "frozen in time" effectively on the wall of the expanding light cone, light itself "appears" to be traveling only slightly faster than the spaceship. This relatively slow pace of time in that frame "compensates" for the obvious sub-light speed of the spaceship as reckoned inside it's own frame. The effect is similar to "Star Trek" where they appear to travel along a tunnel and the stars flash by. Theoretically it is possible to travel the entire length of our Universe and back in a couple of hours "ship time". Unfortunately when you return, the Earth and our Sun would be both dead cinders floating in space since millions and maybe billions of years will have passed in that frame.

It is impossible to arrive at sensible conclusions without having a sensible view of Relativity (Special and General). Luckily science is not a matter of simple debate as it is with other disciplines. Science can test for Truth using a well contrived experiment and it is up to individuals to be guided by their conscience on the matter when they have the result. It then becomes a test of character.

Cheers

Viktor Moroz

21st March 2006 - 04:21 PM

Dear Good Elf!

First of all, I beg your pardon, if my words hurt you, I very sorry.

Secondly, let's me explain words "priest-of-relativity" or "priest-of-science" or religious behavior in science, which has main properties:

1) first reaction - it is charge in not understanding ( I am sorry, do you remember you first post?);

2) take responsibility to explain what is wrong, what is right understanding, without any doubt about yourself position;

3) "infinite" tolerance to contradictions own point and theory;

4) keep silent on inconvenient questions - this I saw before, not in current discussion, and I thank you so much for this discussion.

When I see religious behavior, I can play in "ping-pong", but do not like it:
to you I can say: "You defend relativity, because do not understand this theory, especially physical meaningless it";
to Montec:"From my understanding SR and GR the "consistency of the speed of light" is valid." - But from my - is invalid.
Montec:"Some people have problems understanding that when you measure the speed of light you are doing so in a relativistic environment."
- But "relativistic environment" is man imagination, not physical reality.
And so on, but I try say my understanding with short arguments, without outside links, and now I have to put some links.

a) to open mind and eyes on so called experimental verification of relativity please see work of Arteha S.N. "Criticism of the Foundations of the Relativity Theory" on http://www.antidogma.ru/index_en.html.

"Classically the four-velocity of light itself is not defined. I understand your point and I think it can be defined as a frame of reference in which there is no time component (infinite time dilation) thus velocity cannot be determined from within that frame."

Thank you for confirmation my third point in first post, and try to hear yourself: reread this quotation again and again, and understand postulate about speed of light, and theory where "velocity cannot be determined".
The simplest question: not classically, inside theory - what is four-velocity of light???

c)"The symmetry is restored if you consider which frame has undergone "physical" acceleration."
We consider inertial systems - they have constant velocity to each other, and even we consider acceleration "before" inertial state, we have choice from two acceleration - negative and positive, it is arbitrary too.

Thank you
Viktor

mott.carl

15th October 2006 - 06:39 PM

the STR AND STRG are parts of a great theory that imply continuities of space-time,both lorentz transformations to explain the asymmetry of space and time near at speed of light,as transformations that appear as asymmetry of rotations of 2pi left-handed into to rotations -2pi right-handed,then the reversion is of the space-time that suffer brekdown associated at the opperator pt,but renormalized
by transformed the anisotropy and polarization of the light,in isotropic and homogeneous,through of the connexion of space and time at only one ENTITY,and that are generated by varying curvatures measuring the metric of that space-time,then pt is renormalized,but appear the multiples continuities of space-time with superparticles are derived to breakdown of mirror symmetry,being that particles and antiparticles are not symmetric,because the speed of light is not the same when directioned from left-handed and right handed.with it the velocity of light is not constant and limit,but has several values for the it constancy as well as
to limit.then there is torsion tensor with part anti -simmetric that generates the non-linear topologic quantic theory-having as sub-group-the non-linear fractioned
projective mobius transformations-then can to think the relativity and quantic mechanics unified through of 8-dimensions,with biquaternions as strctures of the relativity with anti-commutativity to the quantum that lead the asymmetry of electromagnetic of mawell through of non-linear equations.then the holes are encapsulated energy-that are antiparticles,that demonstrates the asymmetry of matter and space-time,with negative space-time curves lines conected positive space-time curvature lines=both the lines are semi-elliptics.then still 8-D has several asymmetries that are left-right handeness in that SPHERE-8,increase with more four dimension in toroidal manifold where is embbebed with two semi-lines elliptic space-time curvatures that if connect.then could obtain photons and anti-photons.then there are not antimatters,because some particles haven't in our continuity of space-time that see with 4-D,then occur breaks of supersymmetry,that are restured in infinities branes,but by those breaks of symmetry of pt=cpt appear membranes finites.then then the the space-time emerge in 4-D with two opposed subspace-subtime that through of the asymmetry left-right handed by rotations that unified space and time in space-time as an absolute entity.then the dark energy appear to compensate the lose of symmetry of matter.then will get a supercontinuity of space-time linked for neutralinos and others particles that there are not in our world.the HOLES in vaccum are energy fields with variables until to light,then the value of light speed depend of the frequency of dispersion and refrangibility of the light,that does appear tachionic fields without affect causality,because the topologic with its metric,imply in space-time with different index of curvatures that permit go to forward in space-time and backawrd in space-time throgh of non -linearity of the manifolds that permit topologic changes and shape geometrics before of the manifold own metric and others opperations of groups,beyond of the lie's algebra that contain all our mathematical-physical structure with properties of space-time emerging since the infinite until our 4-D world of low energy as placed by superstring theories,membranes and branes.

mott.carl

15th October 2006 - 06:54 PM

the STR AND STRG are parts of a great theory that imply continuities of space-time,both lorentz transformations to explain the asymmetry of space and time near at speed of light,as transformations that appear as asymmetry of rotations of 2pi left-handed into to rotations -2pi right-handed,then the reversion is of the space-time that suffer brekdown associated at the opperator pt,but renormalized
by transformed the anisotropy and polarization of the light,in isotropic and homogeneous,through of the connexion of space and time at only one ENTITY,and that are generated by varying curvatures measuring the metric of that space-time,then pt is renormalized,but appear the multiples continuities of space-time with superparticles are derived to breakdown of mirror symmetry,being that particles and antiparticles are not symmetric,because the speed of light is not the same when directioned from left-handed and right handed.with it the velocity of light is not constant and limit,but has several values for the it constancy as well as
to limit.then there is torsion tensor with part anti -simmetric that generates the non-linear topologic quantic theory-having as sub-group-the non-linear fractioned
projective mobius transformations-then can to think the relativity and quantic mechanics unified through of 8-dimensions,with biquaternions as strctures of the relativity with anti-commutativity to the quantum that lead the asymmetry of electromagnetic of mawell through of non-linear equations.then the holes are encapsulated energy-that are antiparticles,that demonstrates the asymmetry of matter and space-time,with negative space-time curves lines conected positive space-time curvature lines=both the lines are semi-elliptics.then still 8-D has several asymmetries that are left-right handeness in that SPHERE-8,increase with more four dimension in toroidal manifold where is embbebed with two semi-lines elliptic space-time curvatures that if connect.then could obtain photons and anti-photons.then there are not antimatters,because some particles haven't in our continuity of space-time that see with 4-D,then occur breaks of supersymmetry,that are restured in infinities branes,but by those breaks of symmetry of pt=cpt appear membranes finites.then then the the space-time emerge in 4-D with two opposed subspace-subtime that through of the asymmetry left-right handed by rotations that unified space and time in space-time as an absolute entity.then the dark energy appear to compensate the lose of symmetry of matter.then will get a supercontinuity of space-time linked for neutralinos and others particles that there are not in our world.the HOLES in vaccum are energy fields with variables until to light,then the value of light speed depend of the frequency of dispersion and refrangibility of the light,that does appear tachionic fields without affect causality,because the topologic with its metric,imply in space-time with different index of curvatures that permit go to forward in space-time and backawrd in space-time throgh of non -linearity of the manifolds that permit topologic changes and shape geometrics before of the manifold own metric and others opperations of groups,beyond of the lie's algebra that contain all our mathematical-physical structure with properties of space-time emerging since the infinite until our 4-D world of low energy as placed by superstring theories,membranes and branes.the gravity must be part of these strings with loops and reasonance,and the structure deformed of space-time with high of curvatures,with warps that permit flow chaotics,but the gravitons deformed by continuities of space-time with distortions that imply space-time run in contrary directions two,withnon-linear graviton maintained the asymtotic with low degrees of freedom.then could to think in that WORLD OF TWELVE-DIMENSIONS that can opperates with tri-quaternions with 10-d of space-and opposed two semi-dimension that is the TIME THAT CURVE THE SPACE-TIME IN THE BREAKDOWN OF 2pi ROTATIONAL TRNSFORMATIONAL,LINLING WITH NOM_ORIENTABLE WITH DOUBLE REVERSING ON ITSELD BUT AS OTHER DIMENSION OF MEMBRANE-A MOBIUS STRIP WITH TWO REVOLUTIONS.THEN IN 12-D THE NON-COMMUTATIVITY,NON-ASSOCIATIVITY AND NON_DIFFEOMORPHYSM ARE TRANSFORMED BY SYMMETRY OF HYPERCOMUTATIVITY-RESTAURING PT,BY-ASOCIATIVITY WITH DOUBLE METRIC WITH REVERSION AND INVERSION TO THE CONNECTIVITY OF METRIC OF RIEMMANN ASSOCIATED TO THE CLIFFORD'ALGEBRA WITH SUB-ALGEBRAS forming complete rings.
a.carlos motta

Pentcho Valev

9th February 2007 - 07:47 AM

BURSTS OF CONSCIENCE IN EINSTEIN'S CULT

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0406/0406104.pdf :

"The constancy, or otherwise, of the speed of light" Daniel J. Farrell & J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics,University of Hull,Hull HU6 7RX, England. "Since the Special Theory of Relativity was expounded and accepted, it has seemed almost tantamount to sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper of 1911 [1] that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential.....Moreover, photons of low energy travel at 'c' while photons above a threshhold energy can have varying values, faster than 'c', which are proportional to their energy.....For accepted cosmological theories to be valid, it is required that the universe is composed of 5% ordinary matter, 25% dark matter and 70% dark energy. It seems more realistic to believe in a varying speed of light via the mechanisms discussed above, rather than invent abstract conceptions simply because they happen to balance familiar cosmological equations."

One day conscience in Einstein's cult will be fully restored and Einsteinians will draw all the consequences of Einstein's 1911 discovery that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential. They may even discover that this is equivalent to c'=c+v, where c' is the speed of light as measured by an observer, c is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. For the moment bursts of conscience die down as soon as Einsteinians realise what money-spinner they are going to lose. There is nothing clearer than Einstein's prediction: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev

21st February 2007 - 08:00 AM

HYPOCRISY OR WHY THEORETICAL SCIENCE DIED

http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnb...asp?UpdateID=41
"A Crisis in Fundamental Physics...Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was proposed in 1981."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
"Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein’s insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

Has the author of the two texts (Lee Smolin) ever seen the close relation between them? Surely he has.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

mott.carl

21st February 2007 - 11:01 AM

dear GOOD ELF

there is a reason mathematic or of physics structure to speed of light to be constant and limit to all the events that carry energy?

the pair electron-positron that iof transform in photons are generated by the time-dilatation and contraction of space,but imply that the spacetime mesure only in a direction is asymmetryc,then the dilatation of time and contraction of space are
symmetric-equation of dirac for the electron ans the "sea of dirac",and the dysgram of feynman to the time symmetryzing the antiparticles as particles travelling for backward in time,because the space without the time is asymmetric.IS IT?

i wrote some thing above.gives your vision

mott.carl

22nd February 2007 - 11:03 AM

dear good elf

how could create a non-linear quantic mechanics to adapt it the GTR? appear
that occur a violation of gauge scale transformations to superstring,the that imply
in a non-linear quantic theory?

congratulations

mott.carl

23rd February 2007 - 11:11 AM

the time is scalar or a bi-vector?

Pentcho Valev

16th April 2007 - 06:16 AM

WHAT EINSTEINIANS DID TO THE PHYSICS WORLD

In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein states and relativity hypnotists often confirm that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. In a different chapter (Appendix 3 in his "Relativity") Einstein states that THE FREQUENCY VARIES WITH THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL and relativity hypnotists often worship Einstein for this statement but, in accordance with Einstein's implicit instruction, never mention in their worships, alongside THE VARIABILITY OF THE FREQUENCY, THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT as well. The rule is more than strict:

When the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, don't even think of the variability of the frequency!

When the frequency varies with the gravitational potential, don't even think of the variability of the speed of light!

And the physics world does not think. Even the elementary formula

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

cannot make the physics world consider the variability of the speed of light and the variability of the frequency simultaneously.

Why is the rule so strict? The physics world does not but relativity hypnotists do know that, if the two variabilities are considered together, even a scientist whose rationality has been destroyed would be able to suspect that the following predictions of Einstein are very very serious:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

rpenner

16th April 2007 - 07:18 AM

Pentcho Valev is referring to Chapter 22 of Albert Einstein's popular science book: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. (1920). This is a popular science account of what has already happened in the scientific journals at that time, and is only a first stab at trying to bring Relativity (both SR and GR) to the public.

QUOTE (Albert Einstein+1920)

The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/100.html (emphasis added)

This last phrase describes Pentcho Valev well. A much better place to learn about Relativity is from a graduate level university textbook. One of the most popular is Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. It's even recommended by the University of Sofia, in translation.

QUOTE

Ч. Мизнер, К. Торн, Дж. Уилер, Гравитация, том 1-3, Мир, Москва, 1977.

http://theory.phys.uni-sofia.bg/courses/gravity

In such textbooks, Relativity is put in a single consistent world-view. The speed of light in vacuum is an absolute constant, when locally measured. This is the principle of Local Lorentz Invariance, and regardless of what Pentcho Valev claims, has been demonstrated to hold to very high precision.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072

In the curved space-time of GR, time is not an absolute even for the top and bottom of a building. This is the origin of all the effects Pentcho Valev mentions. That is SR is a local approximation to the apparently true theory of GR -- in exactly the same manner that a flat road map of a city is approximately true even though an accurate map looks like a globe.

But lets look at what Einstein wrote 87 years ago:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Ч. Мизнер, К. Торн, Дж. Уилер, Гравитация, том 1-3, Мир, Москва, 1977.

http://theory.phys.uni-sofia.bg/courses/gravity

In such textbooks, Relativity is put in a single consistent world-view. The speed of light in vacuum is an absolute constant, when locally measured. This is the principle of Local Lorentz Invariance, and regardless of what Pentcho Valev claims, has been demonstrated to hold to very high precision.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072

In the curved space-time of GR, time is not an absolute even for the top and bottom of a building. This is the origin of all the effects Pentcho Valev mentions. That is SR is a local approximation to the apparently true theory of GR -- in exactly the same manner that a flat road map of a city is approximately true even though an accurate map looks like a globe.

But lets look at what Einstein wrote 87 years ago:
In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

Since it has often been contended by opponents of the theory of relativity that the special theory of relativity is overthrown by the general theory of relativity is overthrown by the general theory of relativity, it is perhaps advisable to make the facts of the case clearer by means of an appropriate comparison. Before the development of electrodynamics the laws of electrostatics and the laws of electricity were regarded indiscriminately. At the present time we know that electric fields can be derived correctly from electrostatic considerations only for the case, which is never strictly realised, in which the electrical masses are quite at rest relatively to each other, and to the co-ordinate system. Should we be justified in saying that for this reason electrostatics is overthrown by the field-equations of Maxwell in electrodynamics? Not in the least. Electrostatics is contained in electrodynamics as a limiting case; the laws of the latter lead directly to those of the former for the case in which the fields are invariable with regard to time. No fairer destiny could be allotted to any physical theory, than that it should of itself point out the way to the introduction of a more comprehensive theory, in which it lives on as a limiting case.

So while Newton completely replaced Aristotle, SR and Newton agree on many things to high precision and GR and SR agree on many things to high precision.

Indeed, in the diagram (adapted from Okun), both QM and GR are seen as only partial answers for a theory of physics that encompasses all current observations.

CODE

+ The Voyage of Discovery
| GR--------STR
| |\ |\
| | \ | \ 1/c
| | ?=========QFT ^
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NG-|-------NM | G <--+
| \ | \ | \
| \| \| h
| NQG========QM
+
| Newtonian Mechanics (NM)
| + Finite speed of light (1/c != 0)
| = Special Theory of Relativity (STR)
|
| NM + (G != 0) = Newtonian Gravity (NG)
| NM + (h != 0) = Quantum Mechanics (QM)
|
| STR + h = QM + 1/c = Quantum Field Theory
| STR + G = NG + 1/c = General Relativity
| NG + h = QM + G = Newtonian Quantum Gravity
+

Fig 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340

Pentcho Valev's ambition is to move all of science backwards prior to the invention of thermodynamics, but science builds observation upon observation and as such is inherently progressive. Pentcho Valev is over 80 years too late to shut the barn door. Indeed, if you ask Pentcho Valev what experiments refute Local Lorentz Invariance, he will have nothing to give you. He disagrees with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic propagation, Special and General Relativity and the Second Law of thermodynamics for reasons unrelated to their utility or agreement with experiment.

Pentcho Valev

17th April 2007 - 07:22 AM

QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 16 2007, 07:18 AM)

Pentcho Valev is referring to Chapter 22 of Albert Einstein's popular science book: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. (1920). This is a popular science account of what has already happened in the scientific journals at that time, and is only a first stab at trying to bring Relativity (both SR and GR) to the public.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/100.html (emphasis added)

This last phrase describes Pentcho Valev well. A much better place to learn about Relativity is from a graduate level university textbook. One of the most popular is Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. It's even recommended by the University of Sofia, in translation.

http://theory.phys.uni-sofia.bg/courses/gravity

In such textbooks, Relativity is put in a single consistent world-view. The speed of light in vacuum is an absolute constant, when locally measured. This is the principle of Local Lorentz Invariance, and regardless of what Pentcho Valev claims, has been demonstrated to hold to very high precision.

Some day you will have to give your own definition of "locally measured". Read carefully what your masters say (but don't forget they say ANYTHING). Then start with "In my understanding, "locally measured" means....". Avoid references - just demonstrate your own capacity for understanding and giving precise definitions.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev

8th May 2007 - 04:17 PM

WHERE THE GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR COMES FROM

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

rpenner

8th May 2007 - 05:27 PM

It's funny how you are trying to make an appeal to authority to prop up an argument that all my purported reasoning is just a blind for a slavishly invalid appeal to authority and yet, your authorities are blindingly weak and ridiculous.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

This is a much better "authority" than your personal websites and internet posts -- it is a world-class review article of experiments and has 299 numbered references covering every area of relativity.

QUOTE

2.1.2 Tests of local Lorentz invariance
Although special relativity itself never benefited from the kind of “crucial” experiments, such as the perihelion advance of Mercury and the deflection of light, that contributed so much to the initial acceptance of GR and to the fame of Einstein, the steady accumulation of experimental support, together with the successful merger of special relativity with quantum mechanics, led to its being accepted by mainstream physicists by the late 1920s, ultimately to become part of the standard toolkit of every working physicist. This accumulation included

the classic Michelson-Morley experiment and its descendents [186, 237, 141, 46],
the Ives-Stillwell, Rossi-Hall, and other tests of time-dilation [136, 229, 103],
tests of the independence of the speed of light of the velocity of the source, using both binary X-ray stellar sources and high-energy pions [44, 5],
tests of the isotropy of the speed of light [50, 227, 159].
In addition to these direct experiments, there was the Dirac equation of quantum mechanics and its prediction of anti-particles and spin; later would come the stunningly successful relativistic theory of quantum electrodynamics.

In 2005, on the 100th anniversary of the introduction of special relativity, one might ask “what is there to test?”. Special relativity has been so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its validity is rarely challenged, except by cranks and crackpots. It is ironic then, that during the past several years, a vigorous theoretical and experimental effort has been launched, on an international scale, to find violations of special relativity. The motivation for this effort is not a desire to repudiate Einstein, but to look for evidence of new physics “beyond” Einstein, such as apparent violations of Lorentz invariance that might result from certain models of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity asserts that there is a fundamental length scale given by the Planck length, L_Pl = √(hG/2πc³) = 1.6×10^-33 cm, but since length is not an invariant quantity (Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction), then there could be a violation of Lorentz invariance at some level in quantum gravity. In brane world scenarios, while physics may be locally Lorentz invariant in the higher dimensional world, the confinement of the interactions of normal physics to our four-dimensional “brane” could induce apparent Lorentz violating effects. And in models such as string theory, the presence of additional scalar, vector, and tensor long-range fields that couple to matter of the standard model could induce effective violations of Lorentz symmetry. These and other ideas have motivated a serious reconsideration of how to test Lorentz invariance with better precision and in new ways.

A simple and useful way of interpreting some of these modern experiments, called the c²-formalism, is to suppose that the electromagnetic interactions suffer a slight violation of Lorentz invariance, through a change in the speed of electromagnetic radiation relative to the limiting speed of material test particles (c_0, made to take the value unity via a choice of units), in other words, c != 1 (see Section 2.2.3). Such a violation necessarily selects a preferred universal rest frame, presumably that of the cosmic background radiation, through which we are moving at about 370 km/s [167]. Such a Lorentz-non-invariant electromagnetic interaction would cause shifts in the energy levels of atoms and nuclei that depend on the orientation of the quantization axis of the state relative to our universal velocity vector, and on the quantum numbers of the state. The presence or absence of such energy shifts can be examined by measuring the energy of one such state relative to another state that is either unaffected or is affected differently by the supposed violation. One way is to look for a shifting of the energy levels of states that are ordinarily equally spaced, such as the Zeeman-split 2J+1 ground states of a nucleus of total spin J in a magnetic field; another is to compare the levels of a complex nucleus with the atomic hyperfine levels of a hydrogen maser clock. The magnitude of these “clock anisotropies” would be proportional to δ≡|c²-1|.
...
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/fig_2.html
...
Astrophysical observations have also been used to bound Lorentz violations. For example, if photons satisfy the Lorentz violating dispersion relation ....

Mattingly [182] gives a thorough and up-to-date review of both the theoretical frameworks and the experimental results for tests of LLI.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/

This is another review article, focusing on Local Lorentz Invariance, with 281 references all seeking answers to the question, "Is the speed of light in vacuum always locally measured to be c?"

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

2.1.2 Tests of local Lorentz invariance
Although special relativity itself never benefited from the kind of “crucial” experiments, such as the perihelion advance of Mercury and the deflection of light, that contributed so much to the initial acceptance of GR and to the fame of Einstein, the steady accumulation of experimental support, together with the successful merger of special relativity with quantum mechanics, led to its being accepted by mainstream physicists by the late 1920s, ultimately to become part of the standard toolkit of every working physicist. This accumulation included

the classic Michelson-Morley experiment and its descendents [186, 237, 141, 46],
the Ives-Stillwell, Rossi-Hall, and other tests of time-dilation [136, 229, 103],
tests of the independence of the speed of light of the velocity of the source, using both binary X-ray stellar sources and high-energy pions [44, 5],
tests of the isotropy of the speed of light [50, 227, 159].
In addition to these direct experiments, there was the Dirac equation of quantum mechanics and its prediction of anti-particles and spin; later would come the stunningly successful relativistic theory of quantum electrodynamics.

In 2005, on the 100th anniversary of the introduction of special relativity, one might ask “what is there to test?”. Special relativity has been so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its validity is rarely challenged, except by cranks and crackpots. It is ironic then, that during the past several years, a vigorous theoretical and experimental effort has been launched, on an international scale, to find violations of special relativity. The motivation for this effort is not a desire to repudiate Einstein, but to look for evidence of new physics “beyond” Einstein, such as apparent violations of Lorentz invariance that might result from certain models of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity asserts that there is a fundamental length scale given by the Planck length, L_Pl = √(hG/2πc³) = 1.6×10^-33 cm, but since length is not an invariant quantity (Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction), then there could be a violation of Lorentz invariance at some level in quantum gravity. In brane world scenarios, while physics may be locally Lorentz invariant in the higher dimensional world, the confinement of the interactions of normal physics to our four-dimensional “brane” could induce apparent Lorentz violating effects. And in models such as string theory, the presence of additional scalar, vector, and tensor long-range fields that couple to matter of the standard model could induce effective violations of Lorentz symmetry. These and other ideas have motivated a serious reconsideration of how to test Lorentz invariance with better precision and in new ways.

A simple and useful way of interpreting some of these modern experiments, called the c²-formalism, is to suppose that the electromagnetic interactions suffer a slight violation of Lorentz invariance, through a change in the speed of electromagnetic radiation relative to the limiting speed of material test particles (c_0, made to take the value unity via a choice of units), in other words, c != 1 (see Section 2.2.3). Such a violation necessarily selects a preferred universal rest frame, presumably that of the cosmic background radiation, through which we are moving at about 370 km/s [167]. Such a Lorentz-non-invariant electromagnetic interaction would cause shifts in the energy levels of atoms and nuclei that depend on the orientation of the quantization axis of the state relative to our universal velocity vector, and on the quantum numbers of the state. The presence or absence of such energy shifts can be examined by measuring the energy of one such state relative to another state that is either unaffected or is affected differently by the supposed violation. One way is to look for a shifting of the energy levels of states that are ordinarily equally spaced, such as the Zeeman-split 2J+1 ground states of a nucleus of total spin J in a magnetic field; another is to compare the levels of a complex nucleus with the atomic hyperfine levels of a hydrogen maser clock. The magnitude of these “clock anisotropies” would be proportional to δ≡|c²-1|.
...
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/fig_2.html
...
Astrophysical observations have also been used to bound Lorentz violations. For example, if photons satisfy the Lorentz violating dispersion relation ....

Mattingly [182] gives a thorough and up-to-date review of both the theoretical frameworks and the experimental results for tests of LLI.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/

This is another review article, focusing on Local Lorentz Invariance, with 281 references all seeking answers to the question, "Is the speed of light in vacuum always locally measured to be c?"

8 Conclusions and Prospects
As we have seen, over the last decade or two a tremendous amount of progress has been made in tests of Lorentz invariance. Currently, we have no experimental evidence that Lorentz symmetry is not an exact symmetry in nature.

But even if it was shown to be not always strictly true, that doesn't mean your emitter theory "wins by default."

Pentcho Valev

9th May 2007 - 07:00 AM

QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+May 8 2007, 04:17 PM)

WHERE THE GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR COMES FROM

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Now it is clear why relativists hate Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) so fiercely:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...5863cbd34?tvc=1
Tom Roberts:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
"You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when he published GR in 1915.... [later] I see I over-spoke, and realize now that it is not any approximation, and is not valid for any physical situation."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

iseason

9th May 2007 - 09:07 AM

My question is simple .

If I split an atom, I get more mass than I started off with.Is the measurement of the mass in the universe based on it's current state or what would exist if it were broken down to it's common denominators?

Cheers
Iseason

Pentcho Valev

18th May 2007 - 07:10 AM

RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS ABOUT THE PHOTON MASS

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...28e668a90057feb?

On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:

"Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."

A curious person asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why not?"

John Baez replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer?"

John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

rpenner

18th May 2007 - 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+May 18 2007, 07:10 AM)

The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer?"

John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring, boring."

Not only are you commiting the error of appealing to authority, but you are making up the quote of what the authority said to try and make your point. (On the plus side, John Baez is clearly a better authority to make up quotes for than Tom Roberts of Lucent.)

It's like saying to the guy next to you at the Internet Cafe: "The law demands you pay me 100 dollars because you didn't say "Bless you" when I sneezed!" The law says no such thing and you should be jailed for trying to bully people with made-up-laws.

Do we know what Baez would say? Baez hosts the writings of Steve Carlip on his page, and Steve Carlip says:

QUOTE

General Relativity
Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book Relativity: the special and general theory he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity.

The problem here comes from the fact that speed is a coordinate-dependent quantity, and is therefore somewhat ambiguous. To determine speed (distance moved/time taken) you must first choose some standards of distance and time, and different choices can give different answers. This is already true in special relativity: if you measure the speed of light in an accelerating reference frame, the answer will, in general, differ from c.

In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalisation is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers.

If general relativity is correct, then the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames is a tautology from the geometry of spacetime. The causal structure of the universe is determined by the geometry of "null vectors". Travelling at the speed c means following world-lines tangent to these null vectors. The use of c as a conversion between units of metres and seconds, as in the SI definition of the metre, is fully justified on theoretical grounds as well as practical terms, because c is not merely the speed of light, it is a fundamental feature of the geometry of spacetime.

(emphasis added) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...d_of_light.html

In John Baez's own writings, it is clear he agrees with Carlip.
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2001-06/msg0033327.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...7908f55d872d128

But authority is no reason to hold a physics opinion, experiments are. Here is an article I thought I had lost forever:
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
Special Relativity is consistant with these 13 experiments, which collectively demolish previous ways of thinking about space and time and light and mass and energy and momentum and electromagnetism.
General Relativity is consistant with those 13 experiments and many others.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

General Relativity
Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book Relativity: the special and general theory he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity.

The problem here comes from the fact that speed is a coordinate-dependent quantity, and is therefore somewhat ambiguous. To determine speed (distance moved/time taken) you must first choose some standards of distance and time, and different choices can give different answers. This is already true in special relativity: if you measure the speed of light in an accelerating reference frame, the answer will, in general, differ from c.

In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalisation is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers.

If general relativity is correct, then the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames is a tautology from the geometry of spacetime. The causal structure of the universe is determined by the geometry of "null vectors". Travelling at the speed c means following world-lines tangent to these null vectors. The use of c as a conversion between units of metres and seconds, as in the SI definition of the metre, is fully justified on theoretical grounds as well as practical terms, because c is not merely the speed of light, it is a fundamental feature of the geometry of spacetime.

(emphasis added) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...d_of_light.html

In John Baez's own writings, it is clear he agrees with Carlip.
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2001-06/msg0033327.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...7908f55d872d128

But authority is no reason to hold a physics opinion, experiments are. Here is an article I thought I had lost forever:
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
Special Relativity is consistant with these 13 experiments, which collectively demolish previous ways of thinking about space and time and light and mass and energy and momentum and electromagnetism.
General Relativity is consistant with those 13 experiments and many others.

CODE

Legend:
A: the theory agrees with experimental results
D: the theory disagrees with experimental results
N: the theory is not applicable to the experiment

1: Aberration,
2: Fizeau convection coefficient;
3: Michelson-Morley;
4: Kennedy-Thorndike;
5: Moving sources and mirrors;
6: De Sitter spectroscopic binaries;
7: Michelson-Morley, using sunlight
8: Variation of mass with velocity;
9: General Mass-Energy equivalence;
10: Radiation from moving charges;
11: Muon decay at high velocity;
12: Trouton-Noble;
13: Unipolar induction, using moving magnet.

Pentcho Valev

26th May 2007 - 06:48 AM

EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT MAY INTRODUCE AN ALGEBRAIC SPEED OF LIGHT

Recently Tom Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, launched a fierce campaign in defense of some mysterious "geometrical" speed of light:

Tom Roberts on sci.physics.relativity: "They ASSUMED all this, and ASSUMED space is Euclidean, and ASSUMED time is universal and flows "equably". All these ASSUMPTIONS are no different in principle from the geometrical assumptions of SR, so the fact that light travels with speed c in vacuum in SR is no different in principle from those ASSUMPTIONS of Newton et al. That's why there is no "cause" for the universality of c in SR, just as there is no "cause" for Newton's first law -- both are _GEOMETRY_, not "causality" or "physical mechanisms". The only difference is historical: Newton et al did not describe it this way, even though this is the natural way to describe it today. So if you insist there be some "mechanism" to make the vacuum speed of light be c in all inertial frames, to be consistent you should also insist on some "mechanism" to make light travel in straight lines. And assuming you can do the latter, then whatever "mechanism" you come up with will also apply to the former. But to date nobody has done so -- geometry simply is not a "physical mechanism"......It's just that you cannot get your head into "SR space" where the speed of light is geometrical..... I repeat: in SR the speed of light is no more determined by some "physical mechanism" than are the straight lines of classical mechanics. BOTH are determined by the geometry. <shrug>"

It seems Tom Roberts is fighting against other relativity hypnotists who want to renounce the space-time continuum and possibly other idiotic corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light and introduce some "algebraic physics":

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279 "The Other Einstein" Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein." These writings look beyond his struggles with the unified field theory to "the other possibility [which] leads in my opinion to a renunciation of the space-time continuum, and to a purely algebraic physics." What Einstein is saying is that the smoothness of space is an illusion and the fundamental description of space will be in terms of algebra and not geometry."

Clearly relativity hypnotists have finally taken notice of what Divine Albert confessed at the end of his life:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

mott.carl

26th May 2007 - 04:25 PM

is possible that the smoothness be not property of the space,and neither of time,with it the spacetime is segmented,and might have a topologic changes,to the
evolutions of the happenings in the spacetime.then spacetime is not continuos?
then at start thence,will obtain the breakdown of PT,that lead us the violation of the
global invariance of lorentz.
the speed of light would follow the geometric pathway ,that is the conformal field
invariance of c,but the changes of lenght and time would be non-isometrics to
differents observers in the curvatures of spacetimes( with any gravitational fields,
just the speed of light would a pseudo-euclidean geometry,elliptic,as variations
of the hyperbolic rotations group,are the observer into or out of the curvature,in that the object observed whether meet.

what is RT purely algebric?

WHO'S TOM ROBERTS?

Turya

27th May 2007 - 09:46 AM

QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+May 26 2007, 06:48 AM)

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Light has not "speed". It is one of the greatest misconception in the whole history of science. It is the root of modern confusion. Mixing kinematic domain with radiation was leading towards "Grand Illusion". Sometimes it looks so nice, even so "metaphysical", but in the end only an illusion.

[QUOTE]Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."[QUOTE]
Quite right. Really cannot. Moreover, e.g. gravitation is neither "acceleration" nor "geometry". Beyond both "Newton" and "Einstein".

One wave cosmodynamics, in fact one non-linear wave stereodynamics seems to stay behind dynamics of all cosmic systems on all "visible" levels.

Regards

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.