Einstein on Relativity

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

Some notes of Special Relativity analysis.

I'm about half way through Einstein's 1920s book Relativity, The Special and the General Theory. I have been aware of several issues with Relativity for a while, but reading his words (translated into English) is very instructive.

The entire edifice of Special Relativity is built on the premise that c + v and c - v do not exist. Time dilation and length contraction are both invoked to save this idea. That is it. There is nothing else to the theory, except relational considerations in mechanics, which Ernst Mach, and many before him, had already noted quite thoroughly (James Bradley, the 18th century astronomer, noted relative considerations in mechanics, and stated that it was well-known in his time (early 1700s)). Andre Assis has done an excellent job of elucidating this in recent years. http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/

I think the central mistake is that Einstein conflates the propagation time of light from an event to an observer with the actual time of an event. Essentially, he just makes the measuring rods for distance and time elastic to eliminate the measurement differences. Craziness.

Einstein then conflates velocity, which is a description of relative motion between two bodies, with an absolute value. He states that the length of a 1 m rod travelling at v in the direction of its length is the square root of 1 - v2/c2 of a metre. He then notes that if v = c, the result is 0, and concludes that this indicates a limit of velocity for any body. But velocity compared to what? Velocity is relative, of course.

Imagine that body X moves away from observer O at 0.75c. This is allowed. Now imagine a body Y moving away from the same observer O, also at 0.75c. This is allowed. But if X and Y are moving in opposite directions away from O, then the velocity of X compared to Y (imagine an observer moving with X, for example) is 1.5c. This is not allowed. If relativists wish to retain c as some kind of limit, then they must also introduce an absolute frame of reference (e.g. ether or some medium) AND place a limit of 0.5c compared to the medium on all bodies.

Einstein attempts to bypass this issue by claiming time is also affected by velocity. But this returns to the conflation of the propagation time of light from an event to an observer with the actual time of an event. Of course from either X and Y in our example above one cannot measure relationships between the other if the signal by which we make observation (in this case light) has a velocity equal to, or slower than, the relative velocity of the bodies.

Consider another example along the same lines of reasoning as Einstein makes. Imagine an observer at point M, midway between A and B on a straight line. The observer is blind, but has good hearing. They observe the occurrence of an event at either A or B by the sound emitted. If stationary in relation to A and B, and a sound was emitted from both A and B simultaneously, the observer would "observe" these events simultaneously at M.

Now imagine the observer moves towards A during the time the sound propagates from A and B. The sound from A would reach the observer first, obviously. Who would ever conclude from this that the events were not simultaneous, just because the observer advanced along the path of signal propagation toward A and away from B? This confuses observation of an event with the event itself.

The attempted correction by Special Relativity was a concern for c + v and c - v. Whether c is constant or not actually turns out to be a misguided misdirection in this case. In our calculations v relates only to the change in position (given by vt) of the observer relative to the source, and hence the timing of their observation. We could just as easily say there were two stationary observers, one at M and one at M - vt (i.e. closer to A than B). Both observe the event timings differently, but that doesn't make the event timings dependent on the position of the observer!

I'm currently looking at the experimental results of Fizeau, which Einstein mentions as corroboration of his idea – that should be interesting.

Anyway, I haven't really sat down to work through my initial reactions (noted above). Any criticisms of these initial thoughts welcome.

[Goldminer]

I believe you have gotten it exactly right. I have been trying to get these ideas across in various forums for at least 15 years.

Two of the threads here at the Thunderbolt form are Silly Einstein and Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation).

I have found that even those people skeptical of Albert's thesis fail to embrace this obvious logic. It's too simple to be accepted. I have left these threads alone since my attendance at the 2013 EU conference. I was advised by certain people there, of whom I have the highest respect, to ESAD.

[Corpuscles]

Hi ZenMonkeyNZ

After a long absence from the forum I am just popping in to congratulate you.

Possibly the most elegant and succinct refutation I have read.

Mathematics is a great tool, but a lousy instructor!, ironically of logic!

Especially when pushed towards the boundaries of the esoteric, which of course it cannot breach.


Some folk think we have "electricity" all worked out because we have discovered plasma state... still can't work out whether the Sun is anode or cathode or build a workable testable circuit. The aether of the ancients and the recent greats Newton thru Faraday to Tesla... they acknowledged it... Einstein did too (read his Leiden Lecture)
but the world wanted Mathematical control.
Only to decide nothing works without the Higgs field= Aether.

[querious]

But this returns to the conflation of the propagation time of light from an event to an observer with the actual time of an event

Absolute velocity either doesn't exist or can't be measured, as far as we can tell, and as you noted.

The reason SR is celebrated is because it extended this idea to the "actual time (or distance) between events", which doesn't exist in any objective sense either. Only the "space-time interval" is real, and all observers will get the same answer for it.

[scowie]

The combined electromagnetic fields of all the earth's charged particles create a localised absolute reference frame as far as light is concerned, a kind of pseudo-ether. These fields entrain all light, including that from moving sources, making it move at a fixed speed with respect to the non-rotating centre of the earth. This is what the Michelson & Gale experiment showed us — effectively a sagnac experiment that uses the earth's rotation. From our own frame of reference, earth's rotation means that light moves faster in a westerly direction than it does in an easterly direction. Because that experiment showed that light does not have a constant speed with respect to the observer you almost never hear about this experiment in mainstream science — it proves Einstein wrong. It only came to my attention when I read an anti-relativity book: Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories by Al Kelly (I highly recommend it!)

[saul]

Some notes of Special Relativity analysis.


I think the central mistake is that Einstein conflates the propagation time of light from an event to an observer with the actual time of an event. Essentially, he just makes the measuring rods for distance and time elastic to eliminate the measurement differences. Craziness.

How do we measure how far apart two events are in space and time? The trouble is that "actual time" and "actual distance" are not as clearly understood concepts as you would wish. If we choose to use an electromagnetic oscillator as our canonical clock, and then to use the round trip travel time of light in vacuum between locations as our indicator of distance (electromagnetic distance), the rest of special relativity follows. It you have another idea, well lets hear it Cheers -- saul

[querious]

Some notes of Special Relativity analysis.


I think the central mistake is that Einstein conflates the propagation time of light from an event to an observer with the actual time of an event. Essentially, he just makes the measuring rods for distance and time elastic to eliminate the measurement differences. Craziness.

How do we measure how far apart two events are in space and time? The trouble is that "actual time" and "actual distance" are not as clearly understood concepts as you would wish. If we choose to use an electromagnetic oscillator as our canonical clock, and then to use the round trip travel time of light in vacuum between locations as our indicator of distance (electromagnetic distance), the rest of special relativity follows. It you have another idea, well lets hear it Cheers -- saul

^^^^^ EXACTLY ^^^^^^

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

Some notes of Special Relativity analysis.

I think the central mistake is that Einstein conflates the propagation time of light from an event to an observer with the actual time of an event. Essentially, he just makes the measuring rods for distance and time elastic to eliminate the measurement differences. Craziness.

How do we measure how far apart two events are in space and time? The trouble is that "actual time" and "actual distance" are not as clearly understood concepts as you would wish. If we choose to use an electromagnetic oscillator as our canonical clock, and then to use the round trip travel time of light in vacuum between locations as our indicator of distance (electromagnetic distance), the rest of special relativity follows. It you have another idea, well lets hear it Cheers -- saul

Good question. Metrology is the study of measurement, and exploring the notion of measurement is fairly fundamental to science. Here is my take on it . . .

If you have a standard rod as a measure of distance, you could analogously ask: how do you measure the actual distance between two bodies when the rod varies in length depending on its temperature, the pressure/density of the medium, and so on?

Stated assumption: a recorded measurement, and the property being measured are two entirely different things. The history of the development of science is instructive in that space and time (along with the notion of force) are the fundamental concepts upon which the physical sciences were developed. These concepts are required to distinguish and investigate motion, with force being both the agent of change and a measure of resistance to change (mass). If space and time are not taken as unchanging properties, then all measurement becomes relative.

To standardise our measurement of length/distance a standardised rod is said to be a certain length given standard environmental conditions (e.g. for a physical rod we might have a standard that is 1m long at 0°C and at some standard pressure, moisture content, etc). If we know the temperature of the rod, pressure of the medium, etc., we can adjust our physical reading to estimate very closely the actual distance as dictated by our standard. What we DO NOT DO is assume the distance (space) was somehow contracted because the measuring rod was hotter than 0°C, was in a low pressure environment, and so on. Instead we assume the physical measuring device (the rod) is malleable and subject to environmental change, and if we want to be precise we adjust the measured reading according to these external conditions.

In the same way, we do not assume time or distance have altered when we measure the speed of light travelling through a dense medium, but instead multiply our reading by a ratio related to the known effect of that type of medium on the speed of light (1/n, where n = index of refraction).

Now imagine our standardised rod measured the distance between two bodies at 0°C and found it to be exactly 1m, and then another measurement was taken at 100°C and a lower pressure. When we find that the second measured reading is slightly less than 1m we can either say the rod has expanded slightly, or we can say that space has contracted slightly. Mathematically it doesn’t matter, but physically stating that the rod changes is intuitively correct, simpler and more physically consistent – for if we use another measuring device, such as a pulse of light, we would find no noticeable difference in the measured distance (unless the refractive index was different enough), and if we used another rod of a different material we might find the measured reading is even lower again. In all these cases space does not change relative to the material/method of measurement, but we say that our methods of measurement are affected by the different states of the system they occupy.

In a similar way, mathematically we can describe the bodies of the universe as orbiting around the Earth, or we can say the Earth is rotating. It doesn’t matter. But we prefer the physically sensible description. Likewise, time dilation and space contraction in Relativity are mathematically acceptable, but physically nonsense. So when you say: the rest of SR follows, yes and no. It follows mathematically, but it is based on physically unreal premises (that the velocity of light is the primary constant, and space and time are relative).

Sorry for the rambling nature of this, but this is really only touching on this issue.

[querious]

Some notes of Special Relativity analysis.

I think the central mistake is that Einstein conflates the propagation time of light from an event to an observer with the actual time of an event. Essentially, he just makes the measuring rods for distance and time elastic to eliminate the measurement differences. Craziness.

How do we measure how far apart two events are in space and time? The trouble is that "actual time" and "actual distance" are not as clearly understood concepts as you would wish. If we choose to use an electromagnetic oscillator as our canonical clock, and then to use the round trip travel time of light in vacuum between locations as our indicator of distance (electromagnetic distance), the rest of special relativity follows. It you have another idea, well lets hear it Cheers -- saul

Good question. Metrology is the study of measurement, and exploring the notion of measurement is fairly fundamental to science. Here is my take on it . . .

If you have a standard rod as a measure of distance, you could analogously ask: how do you measure the actual distance between two bodies when the rod varies in length depending on its temperature, the pressure/density of the medium, and so on?

Stated assumption: a recorded measurement, and the property being measured are two entirely different things. The history of the development of science is instructive in that space and time (along with the notion of force) are the fundamental concepts upon which the physical sciences were developed. These concepts are required to distinguish and investigate motion, with force being both the agent of change and a measure of resistance to change (mass). If space and time are not taken as unchanging properties, then all measurement becomes relative.

To standardise our measurement of length/distance a standardised rod is said to be a certain length given standard environmental conditions (e.g. for a physical rod we might have a standard that is 1m long at 0°C and at some standard pressure, moisture content, etc). If we know the temperature of the rod, pressure of the medium, etc., we can adjust our physical reading to estimate very closely the actual distance as dictated by our standard. What we DO NOT DO is assume the distance (space) was somehow contracted because the measuring rod was hotter than 0°C, was in a low pressure environment, and so on. Instead we assume the physical measuring device (the rod) is malleable and subject to environmental change, and if we want to be precise we adjust the measured reading according to these external conditions.

In the same way, we do not assume time or distance have altered when we measure the speed of light travelling through a dense medium, but instead multiply our reading by a ratio related to the known effect of that type of medium on the speed of light (1/n, where n = index of refraction).

Now imagine our standardised rod measured the distance between two bodies at 0°C and found it to be exactly 1m, and then another measurement was taken at 100°C and a lower pressure. When we find that the second measured reading is slightly less than 1m we can either say the rod has expanded slightly, or we can say that space has contracted slightly. Mathematically it doesn’t matter, but physically stating that the rod changes is intuitively correct, simpler and more physically consistent – for if we use another measuring device, such as a pulse of light, we would find no noticeable difference in the measured distance (unless the refractive index was different enough), and if we used another rod of a different material we might find the measured reading is even lower again. In all these cases space does not change relative to the material/method of measurement, but we say that our methods of measurement are affected by the different states of the system they occupy.

In a similar way, mathematically we can describe the bodies of the universe as orbiting around the Earth, or we can say the Earth is rotating. It doesn’t matter. But we prefer the physically sensible description. Likewise, time dilation and space contraction in Relativity are mathematically acceptable, but physically nonsense. So when you say: the rest of SR follows, yes and no. It follows mathematically, but it is based on physically unreal premises (that the velocity of light is the primary constant, and space and time are relative).

Sorry for the rambling nature of this, but this is really only touching on this issue.

Sounds like you like to say that YOUR state of rest is the standard by which distance is "real". That is an emotional preference and not based on reality.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that someone in relative motion to you will get a different measure of distance by using the exact same method, and neither one of you would be right or wrong, because neither one of you is "really" moving or at rest.

Which of the 2 postulates of SR do you disagree with?...

(1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference)

(2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

Sounds like you like to say that YOUR state of rest is the standard by which distance is "real". That is an emotional preference and not based on reality.

Distance (space) is what it is, irregardless of motion or any other state of the system. Just because one system is hotter or has a denser medium than another system we do not conflate measurement variations between them with actual distance (space) variations. If measurement is relative, then you must say that in a hotter system, space is expanded.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that someone in relative motion to you will get a different measure of distance by using the exact same method, and neither one of you would be right or wrong, because neither one of you is "really" moving or at rest.

You conflate the act of measurement with distance (space): someone in relative motion to you will get a different measure of distance by using the exact same method. It is not disputed that measure can vary according to observer conditions – that was exactly my point with the example of the standard rod at different temperatures/pressures. Hence my initial warning that the recorded measurement and the property being measured should not be conflated.

[scowie]

Relative motion has no effect on the length of a measuring rod, only on the speed of light. If you use the rod to measure distance (and not light) you would get the same result whatever the frame of reference (not counting changes due to temperature, pressure, etc.)

As for those postulates, you can keep the first one, as long as you don't use it as an excuse to ignore the various effective absolute frames of reference that exist in our environment that influence the behaviour of light, i.e. the non-rotating centre of the earth, and to lesser degrees, those of the Sun and the Milky Way.

The 2nd postulate on the other hand is a fallacy. The only aspect of the speed of light that is constant is it's velocity with respect to it's source at the instant of emission. After emission light is entrained by the electromagnetic fields of the current environment and encouraged to move at a constant speed with respect to those effective absolute frames of reference. The duration of this acceleration/deceleration of light depends on the EM field strengths in the environment. Down here on earth it is almost instantaneous. In deep intergalactic space light can travel towards us with "superluminal" velocities for billions of light years while gradually getting slowed towards c with respect to the intergalctic medium (hence the time dilation we see in type 1a supernova light curves).

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

The 2nd postulate on the other hand is a fallacy. The only aspect of the speed of light that is constant is it's velocity with respect to it's source at the instant of emission. After emission light is entrained by the electromagnetic fields of the current environment and encouraged to move at a constant speed with respect to those effective absolute frames of reference.

Yes, light definitely needs to be considered more carefully.

It is the bulk motion of the medium that dictates the relative motion of a physical wave like sound, and this can be instructive for light, too. When a car races towards you, and you are at rest compared to the bulk motion of the air (usually close to the motion of the surface of the Earth), the sound it emits does not travel faster than the speed of sound in air towards you (~1200 km/h). Likewise if the car races away from you the sound also travels at the speed of sound in air, compared to the bulk motion of the air, and does not propagate towards you more slowly. The apparent frequency of the sound changes, but not its propagation speed. Yet, if someone shouts something from the back of an aeroplane travelling at 800 km/h, the sound of their voice travels ~2000 km/h towards the front of the plane relative to the ground since the air in the plane has a bulk motion of 800 km/h in the direction of travel.

Light travelling in a true vacuum is a non-real limit. In reality light propagates through a medium, and its velocity is constant with regards to some aspect of that medium in an analogous way to sound in the air – although obviously the mechanisms of propagation differ.

[fractal-geoff]

Following this thread has been interesting right from the excellent assessment of the relativity theories on through.
Here are some of my thoughts…
We measure distance between 2 points but velocity or Spin require a frame of reference [usually more than 2 points in the frame of reference] so all movement of all types is relative to something.
If you label the corner of your “frame of reference box” X, Y & Z; each can represent an axis or physical dimension.
These dimensions are almost infinitely variable from almost infinitely small to almost infinitely large. If you add time to your ‘frame of reference box’ you can identify a ‘place @ a time’
Time is not variable. We use matching identical increments to observe the rate of change inside our “frame of reference” regardless of its volume. An empty ‘frame of reference box’ does not have a rate of change. Rate of change only applies to things that are real.
Real things have volume plus components of density.
The dense bits from any scales perception have components that are dense and large relative volumes that are empty [Galaxy, solar systems to atom scales].
Obviously in each scale the empty space isn’t actually empty but occupied by the electromagnetic waveforms of that scale.
Smaller denser waveforms come from smaller denser places in space.
If you are defining a real volume the description must contain the variable dimension components of X, Y, Z & (D) fractal density.
Rate of change then applies to all 4 of these variable dimensions.
I’ll let people suck that one up with osmosis over time

[jacmac]

I think it is important to remember what dimensions are, and are not.
They are conventions of language. They are thought experiments. They are agreed upon ways to "measure distance".
They are very useful tools in our lives. But they are not real objects.
Go out in your yard at night without a flashlight and walk around in the dark; you will never trip over a foot or a mile. They do not exist in the physical world.

Jac

[Chan Rasjid]

Einstein's relativity theories, SR and GR are invalid - trivially invalid. They are trivially invalid because they violate a natural physical principle, that of the absoluteness of space-time:

Absolute space-time is a principle of the natural physical world.

There are two space-time. There are the absolute real metaphysical space and time. There are the mathematical structures of space and time constructed to try to model absolute space time so that quantitative predictions may be possible using our physical theories. The one is reality - the reality of nature. The others are only abstract constructs existing in our mind. So we cannot take one for the other.

Why space and time are absolute is because they absolutely have no attributes. Space does not even have the seemingly plausible attribute of infiniteness. Absolute time too is absolute because it absolutely has no properties - not even the seeming behavior as in "arrow of time".

When we ascribe properties to space and time, they would only be attributes that commensurate with the endowed faculties of man as a created being. But there is no reason why space and time exist only because we exist. Absolute space and time may exist without man. Only the mathematical space and time are dependent on the faculties of man, not the real metaphysical space and time. Only the mathematical space time have attributes commensurate with the endowed faculties of man.

Newton's laws of motion is valid because they have been verified to be correct empirically. It could only be verified because it is founded on absolute time - no definition of time or its attributes is inherent in the laws. It was laws to examine motion in space. In order to verify Newton's laws, clocks were designed. Whether the clock really is a measure of time in absoluteness is irrelevant. The important thing was the clocks seemed to be a very useful instrument in following how the day progressed from sunrise to sunset and to study motion in general. The common folk is no philosopher nor physicist and so the clock is taken to measure time. And using clocks, Newton's laws of motion have been verified to be correct.

On the other hand, Einstein's theories will never be verifiable because they are not founded on absolute space and absolute time. The theories are not theories in spacetime but, at the very most, theories in space-clock. Such theories are not verifiable in the real physical world. They violate the criteria of the scientific method.

Time itself has no properties and a study of motion involves motion across distance in a given time. Space and time are the foundational mathematical structures of the theories of physics; for time the mathematical construct is just the simple plain scalar of real numbers - nothing fanciful. So the foundational mathematical space and time strutures are what we started with in order to discuss physics - and they must be defined within a theory. Without an agreed upon mathematical premise to start with, there cannot be any theory in physics. So a theory in physics that can change the very mathematical properties of their foundational dimensions of space and time cannot be a physically verifiable theory. A theory that can deform its own space and time violates a basic criteria of the scientific method. It is analogous to a theorem that violates the axioms of its own mathematical algebra - the theorem is invalid.

Relative time in relativity theories presuppose that a theory could be built founded on clocks - that is what relative time means. The scientific criteria do not allow physical theories to be founded on the manner of functioning of human designed gadgets.

Debates about the validity of Einstein's relativity is extremely boring and useless - it has been debated ad nauseam for a hundred years. Almost all that could be said have been said and nothing more could come out of debates. In the real world, what matters is what the mainstream takes to be correct - now! What the most influential universities say and teach - they are all teaching relativity - now. But it is not carved in stones that 50, 100 or a 150 years from now, relativity would still be taught in universities around the world.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid