Silly Einstein

[Sparky]

Over the course of its mission, GP-B advanced the frontiers of knowledge and provided a practical training ground for 100 doctoral students and 15 master's degree candidates at universities across the United States. Over 350 undergraduates and more than four dozen high school students also worked on the project, alongside leading scientists and aerospace engineers from industry and government.

"a practical training ground" = Priesthood indoctrination for the cult.

[Aardwolf]

Well, that isn't the most convincing argument as one of the major features of science is supposed to be the ability to predict. Any experimental results without a theoretical model to compare them with are almost useless.

Which is why I qualified it with "this type of experiment". Its not even really an experiment, its just observation. And they are observing a large mass of noisy data to find a signal. And after "processing" they not surprisingly find it.

There is something else about this experiment that bothers me. According to this report from December 2008 the frame dragging effect was supposed to be observed with a 15% statistical uncertainty and 0.5% for the geodetic effect. The recent news release doesn't say anything about the uncertainties but if those remained 0.5% and 15% respectfully, then I'd say this experiment is pretty inaccurate. 15% can never be taken seriously by any self respecting scientist and 0.5% are, too, way off.

The effect they are looking for is minute. There is no way they are accurately measuring what they say with all the errors regarding orbits, distance, motion etc. Tiny errors here will swamp the effect they are looking for.

[Sparky]

There is no way they are accurately measuring what they say with all the errors regarding orbits, distance, motion etc. Tiny errors here will swamp the effect they are looking for.

It has been pointed out to me that distance measurements are, at best, 5% error rate, with that going quickly up to 30%.

We really have no idea how far any object is from us once the distance gets into the 30% or greater error rate range. And if redshift is being used, well that has been falsified.

If we measure a distance using parallax with a 5% error, will that object have a measurable redshift that we could compare with?

[Aardwolf]

There is no way they are accurately measuring what they say with all the errors regarding orbits, distance, motion etc. Tiny errors here will swamp the effect they are looking for.

It has been pointed out to me that distance measurements are, at best, 5% error rate, with that going quickly up to 30%.

We really have no idea how far any object is from us once the distance gets into the 30% or greater error rate range. And if redshift is being used, well that has been falsified.

If we measure a distance using parallax with a 5% error, will that object have a measurable redshift that we could compare with?

Getting the distance right was the least of their problems.

Satellite orbits are not the accurate calculations that the mainstream makes them out to be. The satellite would have required a number of orbital adjustment just as every satellite does because of anomalous orbital drift. How did these affect the gyroscopes? Potential fudge 1.

The gyroscopes had 2 inherent anomalous drifts. These needed to be removed from the data and they were exponentially greater adjusments then the effect they were looking for. Potential fudges 2 & 3.

During the mission there were something like 127 other anomalies/errors that may or may not have had an effect on the data. Potential fudges 4-130.

This is why I say the measurement is highly suspect. They were explicity looking for an effect and they found it. Otherwise it would have been a very expensive failure.

If someone paid me £500m to find the effect of someone dropping a pebble in the Atlantic off the coast of Florida and detecting it off the coast of Portugal, believe me, I would find it in the data.

[Goldminer]

If someone paid me £500m to find the effect of someone dropping a pebble in the Atlantic off the coast of Florida and detecting it off the coast of Portugal, believe me, I would find it in the data.

That's easy, it's just the EPR "spooky action at a distance."

[Goldminer]

. . . This category would, amongst other things: accommodate his [Einstein's] claim that "in every inertial frame the speed of light is a constant, regardless of the motion of its source" since there is no source [= environment] in the inertial frame of empty space with a velocity to "take on";

I would go Rothwell Bronrowan a bit further with Einstein's silly statement here: In any and every inertial frame where there is a light source or sources, they are at rest with that frame. If they are in motion, they are not in the frame; they belong to another frame! In an unaccelerated frame, light radiates outward, spherically centered upon where the source was when the light was emitted. Einstein's statement is superfluous.

[Aardwolf]

Isn't that quote actually the opposite of what Einsteins second postulate actually says;

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Einstein has defined this postulate within an inertial frame of reference, so to then add "state of motion of the emitting body" at the end makes no sense. It only makes sense if he if refering to an inertial frame of reference moving within absolute space. He specifically says that c is independent of the state of motion of the emitter. To measure c in all directions from an emitter would require that c surely be dependent of the state of motion of the emitter.

If Einstein truely meant for this to be interpreted the way it has been, then why does it need the second part, its superfluous. He could have just wrote "As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c".

Here's a simple thought experiment;

We have 3 points A,B & C in a line. We have a ship X travelling from A to C via B at 0.9c. A to B is 5 light years and B to C is also 5 light years so A to C is 10 light years. Ship X is carrying a lamp and at point B there is also a lamp. The circuit to power these lamps is not completed until ship X passes point B whereby they will both momentarily flash as it passes by on its way to C.

Now, I am absolutely certain that observers at point A and C will see both lamps flash at exactly the same time when the light reaches them from both lamps. This proves that light motion is independent of the motion of the source, however, observers aboard the ship (under special relativity, time dilation etc.) experience an entirely different reality because they will try to detemine light is propagting at c in all directions around them. Obviously there cannot be 2 realities so all special relativity amounts to is an observer only reality, not an actual reality, hence there is no need for time dilation etc. as it can all be resolved easilly just calculating the delay in the propagtion of light to the observers.

[Goldminer]

Isn't that quote actually the opposite of what Einsteins second postulate actually says;

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Einstein has defined this postulate within an inertial frame of reference, so to then add "state of motion of the emitting body" at the end makes no sense. It only makes sense if he if referring to an inertial frame of reference moving within absolute space. He specifically says that c is independent of the state of motion of the emitter. To measure c in all directions from an emitter would require that c surely be dependent of the state of motion of the emitter.

If Einstein truly meant for this to be interpreted the way it has been, then why does it need the second part, its superfluous. He could have just wrote "As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c".

First, lets get straight what an “inertial frame of reference” is: We refer to“inertial frame of reference” as all physical objects that are at rest with each other, and are at rest with an arbitrary, usually orthogonal, set of three reference axis meeting at an origin. None of these objects are subject to any sort of acceleration. They do not move in relation to each other. As a group, they can and do move in relation to other “inertial frames of reference.”

We can refer to any and every emitter as the origin of an “inertial frame of reference,” as long as it is not subject to any form of acceleration. The light wave front expands away from this emitter/origin spherically at the speed of light. As you state “To measure c in all directions from an emitter would require that c surely be dependent of the state of motion of the emitter;” and this is well documented to happen in our domain here on Earth. (For all intents and purposes, we are at rest with all emitters here on Earth and including the Sun, however at times our relative speed with various planets do approach measurable “relativistic speeds.”)

To truly understand this discussion, a single high intensity, short pulse of light must be considered. This creates a hollow expanding shell of light, centered upon the source emitter. The “shell” of light is not exactly a part of the source inertial frame, since it is expanding in all directions. However, all observers in the source inertial frame, fixed at a given distance from the source, will all see the flash at the same time. For the sake of this discussion, let's make the given distance 10 feet. Light travels about a foot per nanosecond.

Now, let's consider a group of observers in a moving frame of reference, whose origin was at the source origin when the flash occurred. This moving frame of reference is moving at one half the speed of light. These observers just so happen to cluster around the same place in space that the observers in the source frame do at ten feet and ten nanoseconds from when the source pulse was emitted and are observing the expanding sphere at places corresponding to where the observers in the source frame observe at this time and place.

If you follow this scenario closely, you will understand that observers in both frames observe the same size sphere at the same time and distance from the source. This abrogates Einstein's problem with simultaneity as well as his problems with time and distance.

The other thing that happened while the sphere was expanding for ten nanoseconds is that the moving observers' origin has moved five feet past the source origin. Thus five units must be added (in the direction of travel) to each moving observer's coordinates when they are measured in the moving coordinate system. This is how the “transform” really works as opposed to the Voigt “Galilean” transform. Please note that some moving observers are approaching the on coming sphere head on, some are transverse to the sphere, and some are traveling in the same direction as the expanding sphere. The moving observers will see the source flash five feet beyond where the source really is at this time and distance.

Here's a simple thought experiment;

We have 3 points A,B & C in a line. We have a ship X traveling from A to C via B at 0.9c. A to B is 5 light years and B to C is also 5 light years so A to C is 10 light years. Ship X is carrying a lamp and at point B there is also a lamp. The circuit to power these lamps is not completed until ship X passes point B whereby they will both momentarily flash as it passes by on its way to C.

Now, I am absolutely certain that observers at point A and C will see both lamps flash at exactly the same time when the light reaches them from both lamps.

You are right on at this point in your scenario except that you have introduced two sources which are in separate reference frames. A,B, C and the lamp at B are in one frame; X and the lamp on X are in a different frame. Now we have two spheres of light each expanding as centered upon each respective source. Observers at A will see the initial flash at X as red shifted. C will see X's flash as blue shifted. Where as each A and C will see the flash at B to be unshifted.

This proves that light motion is independent of the motion of the source,

Actually, It doesn’t. Hopefully I have explained above how light expands in a sphere centered upon where the source was when the light pulse was emitted.

however, observers aboard the ship (under special relativity, time dilation etc.) experience an entirely different reality because they will try to determine light is propagating at c in all directions around them. Obviously there cannot be 2 realities so all special relativity amounts to is an observer only reality, not an actual reality, hence there is no need for time dilation etc. as it can all be resolved easily just calculating the delay in the propagation of light to the observers.

The observers at X see their own light unshifted, they see the light from B as red or blue shifted depending upon whether they are receding or approaching B.

[Aardwolf]

I'm afraid I cant accept that there will be any difference in either the time it takes light nor the shifting of the light between the 2 flashes observed by A or C. As a single flash of light at and only at point B there wouldn't be any shifting.

To me that means that both flashes propagated as spheres from point B. The momentum of ship X has no effect at all. Why would it?

My point is that light doesn't propogate equally from all light sources if that source is moving through empty space. If moving at 0.5c it will track light ahead of it by 0.5c and move away from the light emitted behind by 1.5c. Now I understand that relativitists will be screaming at me that this is incorrect but in my example it's the only answer. Light cannot reach points A & C from X at different times to light from B. I believe this partly stems from a misinterpretaion of Einsteins 2nd postulate. If I am incorrect then why did Eistein say "...that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

[Aardwolf]

For a bit more clarity (I hope!) I think I should point out a contradiction in what you have posted.

You state that I was correct in stating that the light received by observers at A & C from the flashes at X & B will be seen at the same time (notwithstanding the red/blue shifting disagreement which we'll leave for this example).

However, you also say this "...all observers in the source inertial frame, fixed at a given distance from the source, will all see the flash at the same time."

As you state X is in its own frame. Let's say X was not alone, ahead of X is ship W and behind X is ship Y. Now they are 5ly ahead of and behind X respectively, and they are travelling at the same speed so are included in X's reference frame. Now, according to your statement the light from X will reach W & Y at at the same time. Relativity as currently interpreted says it must.

So we have a problem. After 5 years has passed the light from point B will reach Point A & point C at the same time. We know and you agreed that the light from X will also reach Point A & C (although shifted) at this time. However, according to X's frame the light should also be reaching W which is 4.5ly past A and ship Y which is 4.5ly past C. How can this be possible?

[Plasmatic]

Goldminer have you seen Altons view of this topic? Heres one post on it but there are others:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3730&p=40810&hilit=alton#p40810

[Aardwolf]

Goldminer,

From the post mentioned by Plasmatic you stated this;

2. Light (and all EMR) does propagate from the source spherically, centered upon the source. This is obvious by the fact that at-rest with the source observers are the only ones who see light waves undistorted by aberration and spectral Doppler shift.

This doesn't prove that the light propagated equally over the same period of time. The at-rest with the source observers are moving at the same speed so any shifting of the light would be reshifted back once observed so all observers will see the same light. That doesn't prove they received it at the same time.

Say for example in my example ship X was also sending out radio pulses every second. Ahead of the ship the pulses would be spaced only half a light second apart but when ship W ahead receives them, because it is also moving away from them at 0.5c, its reception of them would be every second. Behind ship X they would be spaced 1.5 light seconds apart but as ship Y is moving towards them at 0.5c they would also be received every second. Just because all observers receive the pulses every second exactly it doesn't mean they must be receiving them at the same time.

[Goldminer]

I'm still trying to frame a simple response to your two previous posts, Aardwolf. Have patience. I appreciate your opinions, believe me.

Goldminer,

From the post mentioned by Plasmatic you stated this;

2. Light (and all EMR) does propagate from the source spherically, centered upon the source. This is obvious by the fact that at-rest with the source observers are the only ones who see light waves undistorted by aberration and spectral Doppler shift.

This doesn't prove that the light propagated equally over the same period of time. The at-rest with the source observers are moving at the same speed so any shifting of the light would be re-shifted back once observed so all observers will see the same light. That doesn't prove they received it at the same time.

.


A group of observers will see a given pulse of light at the same time if they are the same distance from the source at the time the expanding sphere of the pulse reaches that distance. This is true whether the observers are moving with the source or stationary with it. Proving the fact gets us into clocks and all. Let's just say these problems are solved. GPS works, and it doesn't require STR.

Say for example in my example ship X was also sending out radio pulses every second. Ahead of the ship the pulses would be spaced only half a light second apart but when ship W ahead receives them, because it is also moving away from them at 0.5c, its reception of them would be every second. Behind ship X they would be spaced 1.5 light seconds apart but as ship Y is moving towards them at 0.5c they would also be received every second. Just because all observers receive the pulses every second exactly it doesn't mean they must be receiving them at the same time.

You lost me here, Aardwolf. One thing that would make things simpler for me is if we just use feet and nanoseconds for our distances.These distances you are using take up too much of my imagination. Light travels about a foot per nanosecond. We can shrink everything down to earth sized proportions that way.

So, anyhow, If, as you state in the above paragraph, you have all your observers in the X frame, along with the source, so why is the spacing between pulses anything but one second? Are you hiding some other observers in some other frame of reference that see the 0.5 and 1.5 duration for the silence between pulses? (We must assume your pulses themselves must be shorter than one second, since if they are longer than one second, there would only be one continuous pulse.

It is just the distance from the source to the observers that determine whether a given pulse is received at the same time by each, whether they are in motion with the source or not.

I am still working on my answer to your earlier posts..

Goldminer have you seen Alton's view of this topic? Here's one post on it but there are others:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... ton#p40810

Plasmatic, did you notice my two posts below the one you reference here?

[Plasmatic]

Sure didn't Goldminer.I knew your post were ringing a bell! I did a search of Altons post but only read the ones he entered to find the similar context. So you are indeed familiar....Sorry .

[Goldminer]

:D Sure didn't Goldminer. I knew your post were ringing a bell! I did a search of Altons post but only read the ones he entered to find the similar context. So you are indeed familiar....Sorry .

You have no reason to apologize. I just was fishing for criticism of my thoughts there!