Silly Einstein

[Goldminer]

Here is a link to some history of the correspondence between Einstein and one of Albert's dogged critics: Edouard Giullaume, who's lifetime ((1881-1959) was contemporary with Albert E's. In fact, they worked in the same patent office at the same time (Simultaneous serendipity). Edouard was the younger cousin of Charles Edouard Guillaume (1861-1936, ) who won the Nobel Prize in 1920 for his work on thermal expansion and the invention of "Invar" and "Elinvar."

Einstein claimed to not "understand" Edouard Guillaume's criticisms until December 1924, when Albert writes to Edouard: "Now I think I see what you are doing. You are observing a spherical wave." (!) That is what Guillaume's hypothesis was based upon, all along! Albert, of course, disses the concept of the expanding sphere/simi-sphere of light propagation. That idea ruins his magical spacetime.

Edouard was demonstrating that if t0=t'0, then t1=1 nanosecond for the surface of a sphere expanded to radius=1 foot and t'1=1 nanosecond for the surface of a sphere of moving observers seeing said sphere at said instant, expanded to radius=1 foot and so forth.

Not precisely in those terms, exactly of course. and Edouard got caught up in Einstein's rabbit trails of unnecessary contemplation of clocks, regulation, and epoch determination, confusing both of them.

Edouard pointed out that if the aether did have a directional flow, the expanding sphere would be an ovoid or ellipsoid, rather than a sphere.

If Albert were to acknowledge Universal Time, his theory would fall. (Of course, GPS and a number of other inventions work quite well upon the basis of Universal Time!)

[seasmith]

f Albert were to acknowledge Universal Time, his theory would fall. (Of course, GPS and a number of other inventions work quite well upon the basis of Universal Time!)

Goldminer,

For a GPS illiterate, (and from what i've read, the published explanations contains fudge-factors that rival those of 'precession'), would you kindly provide a brief synopsis ?
thanks, s

[Goldminer]

If Albert were to acknowledge Universal Time, his theory would fall. (Of course, GPS and a number of other inventions work quite well upon the basis of Universal Time!)

Goldminer,

For a GPS illiterate, (and from what I've read, the published explanations contains fudge-factors that rival those of 'precession'), would you kindly provide a brief synopsis ?
thanks, s

Here is a real good summary, I found it right at the top of my search!

Here are some sites detailing the GPS history of development, which will help you understand the clocking and timing techniques. If you spend some time learning this stuff, it may help understanding some of my posts. It may help in discovering Einstein's slight of hand, or you might prove to me that I am full of it.

By the way, the GPS timing system is a driven system; that is, its clocks are often corrected to keep them within tolerance.

There is a cure for illiteracy. There is apparently no cure for the arrogant, willfully ignorant. IMHO, you fall into the former group, not the latter!

[Goldminer]

Here is a link to some history of the correspondence between Einstein and one of Albert's dogged critics: Edouard Giullaume, who's lifetime ((1881-1959) was contemporary with Albert E's. In fact, they worked in the same patent office at the same time (Simultaneous serendipity). Edouard was the younger cousin of Charles Edouard Guillaume (1861-1936, ) who won the Nobel Prize in 1920 for his work on thermal expansion and the invention of "Invar" and "Elinvar."

Einstein claimed to not "understand" Edouard Guillaume's criticisms until December 1924, when Albert writes to Edouard: "Now I think I see what you are doing. You are observing a spherical wave." (!) That is what Guillaume's hypothesis was based upon, all along! Albert, of course, disses the concept of the expanding sphere/simi-sphere of light propagation. That idea ruins his magical spacetime.

Edouard was demonstrating that if t0=t'0, then t1=1 nanosecond for the surface of a sphere expanded to radius=1 foot and t'1=1 nanosecond for the surface of a sphere of moving observers seeing said sphere at said instant, expanded to radius=1 foot and so forth.

Not precisely in those terms, exactly of course. and Edouard got caught up in Einstein's rabbit trails of unnecessary contemplation of clocks, regulation, and epoch determination, confusing both of them.

Edouard pointed out that if the aether did have a directional flow, the expanding sphere would be an ovoid or ellipsoid, rather than a sphere.
If Albert were to acknowledge Universal Time, his theory would fall. (Of course, GPS and a number of other inventions work quite well upon the basis of Universal Time!)

I came to this same conclusion, independently several years ago, only to find that Edouard Guillaume had beaten me to the discovery by three quarters of a century. Nothing new under the Sun!

[Goldminer]

The following is a repost of Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:49 am, I finally figured out how to get the Wiki image to appear in the post:

In the so called "Galilean Transformation" wherein the Pre-STR mathematics are derived, what exactly is the "event"?

Hmmmm! In the latest diagram at WikiP, The "event" has been removed from the diagram! So, now what are they measuring? All they picture is a pair of empty Cartesian coordinate systems separating!

Here



They appear to be avoiding all the contradictions that Steve Waterman brought up concerning the silly lines out to the so-called "event!" (Pictured as "P" in his diagram.)

Here



So, anyway, my question is: What happens at the event? (the one pictured at "P" in Waterman's diagram?)

And what's up at WikiP?

Earlier versions of the "Galilean transformation" page at Wikipedia had a diagram similar to the Waterman diagram. Now the Wikip. has no "event" with which to transform. Nevertheless, the "Authors" go ahead and somehow produce Einstein's silly transformation world with the non-informative diagram!

.

[Goldminer]

If Albert were to acknowledge Universal Time, his theory would fall. (Of course, GPS and a number of other inventions work quite well upon the basis of Universal Time!)

Goldminer,

For a GPS illiterate, (and from what I've read, the published explanations contains fudge-factors that rival those of 'precession'), would you kindly provide a brief synopsis ?
thanks, s

Here is a real good summary, I found it right at the top of my search!

Here are some sites detailing the GPS history of development, which will help you understand the clocking and timing techniques. If you spend some time learning this stuff, it may help understanding some of my posts. It may help in discovering Einstein's slight of hand, or you might prove to me that I am full of it.

By the way, the GPS timing system is a driven system; that is, its clocks are often corrected to keep them within tolerance.

There is a cure for illiteracy. There is apparently no cure for the arrogant, willfully ignorant. IMHO, you fall into the former group, not the latter!

I have mentioned earlier in this thread that setting clocks at a distance from the source, even when at rest with the source, causes the distant clock to be set to a later epoch time than the master clock. In order to be accurate to nanoseconds, the distance between master clock and the clock being "set" must be known so that the transit delay can be added to the broadcast time. Pinging the master clock reveals the distance. If the distance is changing between clocks, there is always some ambiguity.

More than you want to know about "computer time"

[Goldminer]

There are no "laws of physics". Humans make laws. In physics there are hypotheses and theories. At the end of the day each individual can decide which one to believe, and thus think s/he has found the "laws", but that's each person's opinion. The declaration that "these are the laws of physics" is an attempt on the part of the declarer to silence opposition and stymie open minded thought and discussion. The declarer is trying to narrow down the realm of investigation and discussion to what s/he thinks and likes.

Don't write this in the sand, chisel it in stone!

[Goldminer]

The following is a repost of Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:49 am, I finally figured out how to get the Wiki image to appear in the post:

In the so called "Galilean Transformation" wherein the Pre-STR mathematics are derived, what exactly is the "event"?

Hmmmm! In the latest diagram at WikiP, The "event" has been removed from the diagram! So, now what are they measuring? All they picture is a pair of empty Cartesian coordinate systems separating!

Here



They appear to be avoiding all the contradictions that Steve Waterman brought up concerning the silly lines out to the so-called "event!" (Pictured as "P" in his diagram.)

Here



So, anyway, my question is: What happens at the event? (the one pictured at "P" in Waterman's diagram?)

And what's up at WikiP?

Earlier versions of the "Galilean transformation" page at Wikipedia had a diagram similar to the Waterman diagram. Now the Wikip. has no "event" with which to transform. Nevertheless, the "Authors" go ahead and somehow produce Einstein's silly transformation world with the non-informative diagram!

I have collected a number of these "Galilean Transform" diagrams, from around the internet, and from my point of view, they all indicate the the authors of them are not quite sure exactly what they are supposed to be drawing. Some of their diagrams are just stark like the one above taken from Wikipedia; others have added vectors and "objects" for which the authors vaguely try to form explanations.

All are ambiguous, since none really take into consideration the sphere of light expanding around the source of said light, which logically must be located in one or the other frames. I believe they are confused because within each frame all "objects" (mathematically speaking; points) must be fixed in relation to that frame's origin.

One of the frames must violate this rule, since the whole idea of the diagram is to present the expanding sphere, and then depict where various "observers" in either frame would encounter said spherical wave front. It seems to me that this "rule" may be violated by diagramming several concentric spheres around the "source;" which is placed conveniently at the origin of one frame. Each radius sphere represents the wave front at a given time after a single pulse is emitted from the source.

If both origins, even though their respective frames are moving apart, can coincide for an instant at t=t'=o, then so can any two observers (one from each respective frame) coincide with a particular point at a given expansion time on the wave front. (and still remain fixed to the respective origin within said frame.) While it is not hard to imagine the concentric spheres in the source frame, it is hard to imagine the fleet of observers in the opposite frame tracing out each sphere in the source frame. This is because the spheres are not concentric in the opposite frame (they are however of identical radius at each given time of expansion.) Nevertheless, no skewing of the rectilinear axes, slowing of time, or shortening of lengths is necessary!

.

[Goldminer]

By the way, I am truly seeking honest criticism of my thoughts here on this thread and the recent posts I have made on the Relativity Linear Thread: Here. A little feed back Positive or Negative would be very helpful to me!

These threads do not belong to me, they are owned by the Tbolt Forum, to whom I am very grateful!

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

I have not been an avid reader of this thread. I am not entirely uninterested, but that my thoughts and time are focused in other areas. Also, I must admit that I am more than a little fed up with trying to disprove what I consider to be a failed paradigm, although I do realise there are other schools of thought regarding the perceived success of relativity. Still, dinosaurs were successful for millions of years, let's hope relativity has a somewhat shorter purview.

...since none really take into consideration the sphere of light expanding around the source of said light...

Anyhow, the point of my post in to warn about being too attached to your "sphere of light". I understand your point of view and it is not my intention here to contradict your opinion. The thing is that the authors of relative motion and light signal diagrams almost invariably consider light as a ray. Furthermore they often allow all observers observational access to all points of all rays regardless of where the assigned/intended observer may be - remember that for light to remain at a constant speed for all observers, both time and distance must alter ad hoc regardless of what may be occurring elsewhere in the universe. I fear that to gain the full benefit from these relativity thought experiment diagrams you must embrace the magic light ray and abandon your common-sense.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

I have not been an avid reader of this thread. I am not entirely uninterested, but that my thoughts and time are focused in other areas. Also, I must admit that I am more than a little fed up with trying to disprove what I consider to be a failed paradigm, although I do realize there are other schools of thought regarding the perceived success of relativity. Still, dinosaurs were successful for millions of years, let's hope relativity has a somewhat shorter purview.

...since none really take into consideration the sphere of light expanding around the source of said light...

Anyhow, the point of my post in to warn about being too attached to your "sphere of light". I understand your point of view and it is not my intention here to contradict your opinion. The thing is that the authors of relative motion and light signal diagrams almost invariably consider light as a ray. Furthermore they often allow all observers observational access to all points of all rays regardless of where the assigned/intended observer may be - remember that for light to remain at a constant speed for all observers, both time and distance must alter ad hoc regardless of what may be occurring elsewhere in the universe. I fear that to gain the full benefit from these relativity thought experiment diagrams you must embrace the magic light ray and abandon your common-sense.

Michael

Aye, thanks for the comment!

The "expanding sphere" cannot be seen by any one detector. In other words, I agree with you. Those that make such claim are confused by the very fact that they are trying to imagine what happens when their observer is at a distance from the wave front. No detector can detect the wave front until it gets to the detector! Once the actual situation is properly understood, there is no need for "time on a nonexistent fourth axis," simultaneity problems, or any of the other confusion!

Actually quite the contrary, the latest experiments with lasers, short powerful pulses and such indicate that while the speed of light is the measured "vacuo" 299,792,458 meters per second, between the source and detectors at rest with said source. The speed is merely c+v directly approaching or c-v directly receding from the source with moving detectors,(detecting the wave front) in concert with detected blue shifted spectra on approach and red shifted spectra on recession.

Detectors on a grazing trajectory find a gradually changing spectral shift from blue to red, along with a gradual slowing speed of light as they pass the source. This is due to the "rays" intercepted from the source arriving at changing angles as the detector passes by the source, in combination with the vector addition and subtraction necessitated by the angels involved with said "rays."

The MM interferometer did not measure the speed of light between "frames of reference" since the source of the light was right on the interferometer. The purpose for which the experiment was designed, was to measure the direction and speed of the aether relative to the interferometer. If anything is ad hoc, it is Einstein's presumption that the speed of light is a constant between a source and a detector when the distance is changing between them.

If those who invented the so called "Galilean Transform Diagram" had given it additional thought, they would realize that it did not include the emissions from the source, and only applied the trivial transform of the source itself from one frame to the other; which is a non sequitur, since a source, being a physical object; cannot be in both frames, i.e. both moving and stationary. The source and the emissions from it are proximal to the source "frame."

Moving detectors can be given a "frame of reference" but the "frame of reference" cannot be reified and claimed to have magical powers of space distortion and time distortion. Moving detectors detect the exact same wave front that an at rest with the source detector
detects, at the same time and place.

[Goldminer]

Moving detectors can be given a "frame of reference" but the "frame of reference" cannot be reified and claimed to have magical powers of space distortion and time distortion. Moving detectors detect the exact same wave front that an at rest with the source detector
detects, at the same time and place.

In other words, the "moving detector" just "stops by" the same wave front that the "at rest with the source detector" sees, for a quick look. If it is moving with the wave front propagation, it gets a longer look, (red shift) if it is traveling against the wave front propagation, it gets a shorter look (blue shift).

Einsteinians leave the location of the source of emission out of their discussion, it interferes with their fantastical story.

[Goldminer]

Page 4 of this thread has a discussion of Einstein's "Light Clock" Gedanken, wherein a "photon" bounces back and forth between two mirrors. (And shows up in the fantasy "moving frame" as a diagonal path of multiple mirrors!)

Here is a cheap experiment that you can do to convince yourself that 100 years of silliness has transpired!

I purchased some (just because they were a dollar each) "laser pointers" in the "pet section" of a "Dollar Only" store, and found a couple of vanity mirrors in a second hand store. Total outlay: $6 US phoney notes.

Maybe you want to see for yourself!

As you move past the mirrors (placed perpendicular to your movement,) you can see the near mirror move to the opposite direction of your movement, and pass by the further mirror. Only when you are in line with both mirrors, can you see the multiple images of the laser light! It should now be obvious that there are not multiple mirrors in the "moving frame" and they do not become diagonally placed.

(You can imagine an imaginary diagonal track on an imaginary invisible surface in your "moving frame," but there is no "photon" that "moves" in your frame at an angle from the laser beam between the mirrors! You only see the same laser beam when lined up with the mirrors that you see when you are stopped at the alignment of the mirrors.) The difference is, you only see the light for an instant.

No matter how fast you move past the mirrors, they will always be perpendicular to you, (when you are in line with both mirrors) and the multiple images of laser light will only appear to be sunk into the faces of the mirrors as you pass the alignment. No diagonal "photons!" You only see two mirrors, no matter how fast you go!

Count 'em! You know how many you purchased!

To Do: Video of experiment, with pleasant young woman (Maybe the one from my string theory?) walking by mirrors and witnessing the downfall of the Special Theory of Relativity! What background music to choose?

This:


Not this:


Multiple images in the mirrors, not multiple mirrors!

[Sparky]

Total outlay: $6 US phoney notes.

If you or anyone else is being overwhelmed by these worthless and messy things, I'll pay for the shipping, to me, of any package over 10lbs, just to help rid the world of this filth.

Oh, how much did each pointer cost?...

[Goldminer]

Total outlay: $6 US phoney notes.

If you or anyone else is being overwhelmed by these worthless and messy things, I'll pay for the shipping, to me, of any package over 10lbs, just to help rid the world of this filth.

Oh, how much did each pointer cost?...

I trade fraud notes for scarce heavy metal, which it seems requires more of the worthless stuff than ever to obtain. (It'd be worth your time to see how this fraud works . . . )

As I mentioned in the post above, the pointers were only a buck each, found in the pet section of the local Dollar Store! It is fun to frustrate the kitty with the laser spot!

Later, I stopped at the local glass shop, and the workers in the back donated two 1 foot square tiles of mirror which they retrieved from the trash. They are interested in the experiment, too. The cost of this experiment is decreasing with every inquiry.

When you switch the pointer on, the multiple images appear, provided you are almost right in line with the beam. Much to either side of the beam the images are not seen. When you switch the pointer off, the images disappear.

If the image were "photons," how come they don't just keep "bouncing back and forth." Hint: It's because the beam is made of waves which keep diverging. When the beam switches off, the last of the waves diverge out of sight. (Notice how each repetitive image in the above scene decreases in size: This is caused by the increasing size of the expanding sphere, of which the part reaching your eyes is an ever decreasing proportion thereof.)

(The comment line is open, by the way!)