Links to Ronald Hatch’s papers. Despite the .ru domain, it’s mostly in English. They’ll give you actual equations related to MLET – and actual falsifiable predictions based on MLET!
Unfortunately for the theory, one of those predictions (in “Relativity and GPS”), one of those predictions was that “the amount of geodetic precession measured on the Gravity Probe B experiment will be one-third greater than that predicted by the general theory.” It was actually off by 0.07±0.28 percent. (Also, MLET doesn’t allow black holes or gravitational waves, both of which are pretty well supported by observation.)
Here’s one example, right in your post. “They see the speed as distant.” What does that even mean? It has absolutely no meaning in any sense at all. “They see the speed as distant.” I’ll eat a bug if you can make that sentence intelligible.
Look: simple case. The one geezer1 described. You’re moving at .6c away from me, and another object is moving .6c away from you in the same direction.
Can you add the two velocities? geezer1 got 1.2c, the Newtonian answer. Can you work out the Einsteinian answer?
I want to revise my statement about math with a quote:
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.”
(source: In A. Sommerfelt “To Albert Einstein’s Seventieth Birthday” in Paul A. Schilpp (ed.) Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Evanston, 1949.)
This shows that even Einstein was not able to be sure that the mathematical treatment went of the rails or not.
If he couldn’t understand it and we are left to trust that what an equation pops out when even he fails to have any concept of what is going on anymore, then he is taking it on faith.
I also want to revise another statement, I said that someone in the other thread said Special Relativity makes sense and that I wasn’t talking about any respected scientist.
Well now I say that all of them say that!
You see if Special Relativity is based on the assumption that every observer will experience light moving at C and does not explain how…
And since the assumption is based on a statement that must be false, illogical.
The only way that could be if it explained how something not just counter intuitive but actually impossible can possibly be true, but SR does not address it.
It just assumes an obviously false thing is true.
And before you say measurements say it is true, read my arguments about if we measured sound in the same fashion with the same expectations and made the same assumptions.
Counter intuitive is boiling water freezing faster than room temperature.
Impossible is something having a definitive position in space at any instant while having the same velocity to all observers regardless of how they move.
If the latter is to be claimed it better not take 109+ years before it is explained!
None of the contortions of Relativity try to explain it, and if they did it wouldn’t have been an axiom of Relativity, it would have been explained.
So if none of the contortions of space (length), time, mass, and simultaneity explain it, then if you accept SR you should be engaged in the search how to solve this issue!
Even IF I am wrong, the theory is hugely missing a support structure on which it it based that simply is not there!
I have not made a great number of slips that would confuse anyone AFAIK, but yes that is one.
Although I thought you would have guessed I meant different
“They see the speed as different.”
I would have thought the context would make that easy to understand.
I am so glad you are perfect and never type the wrong word, personally I will often type thing when I mean think and have to notice these disconnection from autonomic action and thought/intent.
I do not have the equations, so no. (obviously I could look them up but I would not know how to use them)
I can give you the correct non specific answer, the transformations involved and admit that it seems to make sense generally.
As long as I understand how it works, what do the numbers matter? They only apply to a specific velocity and it is a widely applicable theory that accounts for effects from electron drifts of a snails pace to the effects of velocities of a particle moving indistinguishably than C.
Only the magnitude changes, not the direction or anything of any importance to the paradox.
I said I have found how to prove his theory wrong.
And that is where I will stand on that assertion until someone gives me an answer rather than criticism.
That is a very very different thing.
And I do not need to be able to answer your mathematical question.
Ok, the correct answer which involves adding the velocities in a Newtonian manner is 1.2 C obviously, but that does not allow for the various transformations.
Now I know what these transformations do, just not how much they change it, except that it is enough to give a velocity of less than C, which is all that matters.
Thank you for making that point.
Yes, I fully agree, but that does not mean I am actually wrong, does it?
You are talking about a social convention, or maybe even an issue of probability of me being correct.
But it does not address IF I am actually correct.
It is POSSIBLE that a correct idea will come from an intelligent armature, or honestly even an unintelligent one.
Or at a very low probability enough monkeys chained to type writers for long enough.
Or found in the value of Pi if you convert numbers to letters…
Hence it is possible, and the fact that you and plenty of other people have used every disingenuous distraction other than to tackle the question.
This makes me and no doubt others question why no one seems to want to look at the thought experiment and solve it according to SR.
You’d be better off doing the math, showing an equation, obscuring what is going on until it is confusing and I can’t tell what you are saying and I can’t follow it.
I will be unable to find the flaw in your math and even IF I could most people would assume you were right since they can’t or won’t bother.
Try that one, you won’t be as convincing as clearly saying what will happen in plain words, but it will effectively tie it up the thread in enough confusion even I might not be sure.
So with math, or words why not address it?
Maybe you are slightly too intellectually honest to do a fake intentionally confusing math workup?
And I know QM Shit, not pretending I know it to a fully professional level but I have read all the common experiments and I understand it, enough to propose an experiment that could be performed. (doing the experiments requires equipment I do not have)
But isn’t the point that they aren’t able to see what is happening either?
Provided they aren’t just perverse.
Still, they are silent.
And even though I don’t have a college education, I can stump you at minimum.
If you go into the other thread (also in IMHO about light the Relativity) you will learn that when I first gained an interest in physics I would get all the books out of the library and read them, they cut me off at 100 books at one time.
So you can be assured, I have read many books on many different subjects in physics.
I have gaps in areas that have interested me less, but SR is not one of those.
Math has no significance and even if I did use it I would be reluctant to for reasons I have stated many times.
It will turn most readers off, add nothing to the logical inescapably and become cumbersome.
And with all the comments no one has offered math for these!
Which give you some idea of the percentage of people who will bother it follow it.
Probably none. As I have said many times checking my numbers/equations is as hard as just doing it anyway.
So those that want it can do it (they will have to anyway to not take mine on faith) and my providing math would only help those at an intermediate math skill where they could vaguely follow it but not do it.
BUT IF SOMEONE CAN NOT DO THE MATH FULLY THEMSELVES THEN THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE LIKELY TO FAULT MINE.
sorry for shouting.
But there is no way that me providing the math will help, rather it would hurt!
Because if I provide the equations and the person can’t see the error but suspects I made one, it isn’t as convincing as:
They work out the equation themselves, now they know I have devilishly introduced some hard to spot issue.
Far more convincing if they aren’t influenced by my obviously faulty thinking right? And do it themselves!
So please put math to bed, and shoot it in the head.
Unless you want to provide the math which despite the fact I will not be able to follow if you don’t explain every step and the reason for those steps, at least math can be there for those who want it.
And IF you can’t do the math while you are demanding it then you are being a real hypocrite, though you would not be alone.
You might as well ask me for the problem in Manadrin when it comes to my ability to provide it, and that would be more useful.
I made a coil based on my research into the aether and found that it create an effect that most people can feel, even people walking by with no expectation that they should walk into anything, that and possibility of feeling anything exists, that has happened twice
While I have had about 19 people in a row all say they could feel it and some far beyond and level producible by imagination.
Only ever 3 or 4 in a row who haven’t felt it.
I have had really really reluctant sceptical people report feeling it, and some ‘believers’ feel nothing.
So it seems that my research into the aether has had me discover a coil (and more) that seems to make someone who had witnessed these experiences see no likely probability other than it to be a genuine discovery.
And my research has shown ‘Chi’ and various other names given to other/similat/identical forms of non-physical energy discovered by seemingly every indigenous culture is just moving aether relative to matter in various ways.
This would suggest that there is a cross over between these things and QM, and virtual particles etc… Which is probably related to dark energy/matter and the Higgs boson too…
At any rate I am perfectly aware that this isn’t the audience for that, which is why I decided not to bring it up, though I went into it in the other thread in one post.
Still no matter how woo-woo you find that to be, it doesn’t change anything.
It doesn’t change anything that even though I am not into equations, I have made money (for a short time a system I made worked till the currency pair changed) not just quickly but turning $40k (I think it was less actually) into 300k in a day, and the best single account went from $700 to $130,000 in a week or 2.
So am I a flaky new agey energy woo-woo?
A brilliant trader than made a great system system and powerful money management system?
A guy who doesn’t understand SR?
A back yard fringe scientist working on the bleeding edge of science?
Fat or thin, I’ve been both.
Is my hair curly or straight? kinda both.
And if you are getting my point.
None of this matters in any way, these are just distractions because you are unable to answer my question.
2 sensors are required to measure the velocity of light in this manner.
But when there are only 2 sensors going to both clocks relying on those sensors to give the correct velocity for light, but the clocks experience time to move differently.
Then the expectation of one frame can’t be met.
And then even if time dilation was magically removed, the moving frame still sees the distance to be further but completed (without TD) faster than the speed of light.
Unless some argument is brought in, say width expansion instead of length contraction could this maybe be possible by increasing the separation between the censors in the lab frame. (width relative to motion, but it would be the length of the rig increased)
Now you could get the 2 agreeing SR is saved if the width contraction was made to be large enough.
BUT it is then incomplete as is and then it becomes in fairness the Lorentz-Einstein-mythoughts theory as it includes a new transformation.
I would still not believe in it though.
But that would still mean you should not ignore me based on arguments that I am too lowly to dare bother to tell the ‘President of science’ about this.
Heck, Newton might very well have been a homosexual and a murderer.
And let’s face it, he was no beauty.
But so what, this is about truth only, not who I am.
But I have concluded that everyone is either too stupid, too intellectually dishonest (AKA brainwashed by SR and authority) to be be helped. I quit.
OR a few read my posts, agreed (to some degree), but said little or nothing.
They probably weren’t convinced anyway.
I will not reply to any more crap, say whatever nonsense you like.
I will assist anyone who has a genuine question though regarding the experiment or anything provided it is genuine.
I can reply to the crap with sensible reasoned answers, but that is giving it too much credit. And time.
Until you fly over peoples heads (Wright bros.), you will never make most believe, and some will still disbelieve.
How would rotating an object make it easier to visualize the doppler effect and length contraction than straight-line motion? What kind of phenomena are you assuming to exhibit simultaneity?
If you’re going to keep the observations orthogonal, what difference does it make if it’s a rotating sensor or not?
So you think time dilation and length contraction exists, but it’s not dependent on c, and that the fact that all the experimental data proving it matches the results of the numbers predicted as predicated on c is… coincidental?
A bit hypocritical to cry foul of academic integrity and appeal to authority and then turn around and drop this one, no? Plus I highly doubt that the “aether” Wilczek promotes is the same stuff that you seem to imply.
incomplete thought - I meant to basically say that the entire article is a cut and paste from stormfront - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t928728/ - the OP has yet to show his work on any of his ‘thought’ experiments.
Also, don’t quote entire other message board posts (that you did not make) in your reply. You can link to the post for reference or as a cite, but don’t quote it yourself. I have taken the whole quoted part out of your post.
There are 4 kinds of motion the thought experiment works with, Rotation, Vibration, linear acceleration and more weakly with linear velocity.
But Vibration is hard to imagine with velocities near C.
Linear acceleration is fine, but it only allows the moments that the anomaly occurs to a one shot (one instant) unless you increase the number of clocks and sensors.
Put a kid on a Ferris wheel and you can watch them go bay all day, put them on a train and you will only see them go by once without turning the train around.
Only that rotation rubs the observation in your face longer.
Not co-incidental, rather extremely obvious.
The same conclusion could be reached with sound if we did the same experiments and held the same observations.
I have repeated that so many times I feel very reluctant to repeat it so please search for it rather than having me repeat it, search for “sound”.
Additionally the speed of light has been found to exceed the regular speed of likt and everyone agrees with an astronomical observation of a radio wave, but that reference was deleted from my post for some reason (I copied a post from elsewhere) so I’ll have too find a source that works since I’d rather not link to the site because it happened to be on a racist forum.
Not at all, I was just trying to show that length contraction makes sense even if I believe that the aether moves with the earth which invalidates Lorentz reason for proposing length contraction and time dilation, while showing why I still think it is pretty reasonable.
And so when mentioning him should I have refereed to him as a schizophrenic Bum or a respected scientist?
Since he is the latter I will mention that.
I am not saying that credentials don’t matter at all, only that they don’t matter absolutely.
Or only matter if you have to take someone on faith.
But when straight-forward logic is involved, I honestly don’t care about if it comes from the schizophrenic itinerant, or the tenured professor.
Or if it is found from reversing beetles tracks.
As to what he implies, he implies 2 slightly separate things. One thing he calls motion of the void I would term motion of the aether since nothing can’t move.
And later where he mentions aether he refers to condensates which is a slightly different concept but also compatible with my understanding.
I readily agree he is not precisely and overly referring to the classic “lumiferious” aether, but then again neither can I, though mine carries light in some form and he would never say that unless he wanted to lose his job.
I made another version to send, in the event this clarifies anything:
The gist of this experiment is that we will let light travel between 2 sensors (A and B), each sensor will send a signal to two highly accurate clocks, one clock is time dilated from acceleration (General Relativity’s equivalence of gravity and inertial force - G-force) and the other in sitting in the lab, the censors and the clock to be time dilated are rotated with care to have the clock somehow experiencing the same time dilation as the censors.
The idea is that both clocks see the light to be at C because they see they receive the same signals, the sensors are in the same separation of the.sensors so they agree on the distance but disagree on the time.
But actually the time dilated frame actually sees the light (assumed to be from a source at rest with respect to the lab) move further since the light isn’t taking the most direct path due to the perpendicular motion involved.
Hopefuly this picture helps clarify:
Inline image 2
Actually, this experiment would imply something else interesting, if being subjected to gravity and resisting it is equivalent to acceleration, and acceleration causes time dilation…
Then a dropped clock that is dropped in a gravity, the moment it is let go of (weightlessness when falling) it is no longer feeling acceleration and hence should no longer be effected by time dilation from gravity. After all if gravity is a distortion of space, by going with it you aren’t really accelerating, you are accelerating by standing still.
But wait, there is more…
If you decide somehow that sensor A and sensor B trigger inline with the time dilated frames expectation of measuring C then you may think that if we placed stationary censor A2 as close to being in precisely the same location as A as we can get and B2 as close as we can get again to B, then surely now the expectation of the stationary frame should be met.
But Only if B2 which is fractionally behind censor B actually detects the photon before B does!, in other words if the photons detection in space depends on your state of motion The single photon travels back to be detected when B needs it later! Now we have lost simultaneity between different frames in the same location!
And if you decide that the stationary frame should measure the light slowed, then we have just decided that any time you have 2 co moving objects separated at any distance, all the space between them will be time dilated.
And it gets worse.
If you decide that it is perfectly ok for light to seem to be slow for the time dilated observer because he is accelerating and that causes objective and absolute time dilation that all can agree on… then let’s just waive a magic wand and make it disappear momentarily.
It must still detect the speed of light to be faster than expected since it is going a longer distance in the same time.
Ok, now the vibration version probably needs no explanation, it doesn’t rotate, it vibrates.
For the linear one, we take a train, paste the sensors on to opposite windows, one clock is on the train and the other is in the middle of the track, brushes used to take the signals from the sensors.
Additional considerations are possible of course, the clock in each frame could be split in 2, one at each end with each set in sync when together in the middle, then moved out to the censors symmetrically, but that doesn’t do anything but clean up delays that apply to both sides while causing potential simultaneity arguments.
I have ignored SR’s symmetrical inertial reference frame time dilation because that slows things down mutually for each frame since it is relative.
But I do have objections to that one too.
Additionally I am aware that the speed of light being constant is just an axiom of Relativity and that it is not addressed by SR.
But if the speed of light can be shown to be impossible, then the axiom is false and there is nothing to it.
I would also add this, If you expected the speed of sound to vary with the way the earth moved through space…
And if you assumed that a vehicle approaching you honking it’s horn should be emitting 'faster sound than one driving away honking it’s horn.
And If you assumed when driving in a car (windows up) that the speed of sound would be effected by the motion of the car when measured in the car.
You may assume the speed of sound were constant also.
As far as I can tell (I am am amateur),but I can’t see how Lorentz contractions of time or space can help light that is slowed by motion without heaping problems even more on light going the other way.
And if you say there is no light equivalence to air (no entrained aether) then why does the mirror in this experiment need to move to be moving relative to light of all things?
If quantum particles don’t prefer the laboratory frame, they do they obviously pop in the laboratory frame any more than a random distribution of all possibile velocities between stationary and C?
I really did not intend to retype this, but I have, I was going to paste another version I had previously written.
While largely redundant and too long, I will include it in the event it clarifies anything.