 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / August 2006c+v and c-v or not?
c+v and c-v or not? Henri Poincaré wrote in his 1897 paper The Relativity of Space: Quote.........According to a hypothesis of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, all bodies carried forward in the earth's motion undergo a deformation. This deformation is, in truth, very slight, since all dimensions parallel with the earth's motion are diminished by a hundred-millionth, while dimensions perpendicular to this motion are not altered. But it matters little that it is slight; it is enough that it should exist for the conclusion I am soon going to draw from it. Besides, though I said that it is slight, I really know nothing about it. I have myself fallen a victim to the tenacious illusion that makes us believe that we think of an absolute space. I was thinking of the earth's motion on its elliptical orbit round the sun, and I allowed 18 miles a second for its velocity. But its true velocity (I mean this time, not its absolute velocity, which has no sense, but its velocity in relation to the ether), this I do not know and have no means of knowing. It is, perhaps, 10 or 100 times as high, and then the deformation will be 100 or 10,000 times as great. It is evident that we cannot demonstrate this deformation. Take a cube with sides a yard long. it is deformed on account of the earth's velocity; one of its sides, that parallel with the motion, becomes smaller, the others do not vary. If I wish to assure myself of this with the help of a yard-measure, I shall measure first one of the sides perpendicular to the motion, and satisfy myself that my measure fit s this side exactly ; and indeed neither one nor other of these lengths is altered, since they are both perpendicular to the motion. I then wish to measure the other side, that parallel with the motion ; for this purpose I change the position of my measure, and turn it so as to apply it to this side. But the yard-measure, having changed its direction and having become parallel with the motion, has in its turn undergone the deformation so that, though the side is no longer a yard long, it will still fit it exactly, and I shall be aware of nothing. What, then, I shall be asked, is the use of the hypothesis of Lorentz and Fitzgerald if no experiment can enable us to verify it? The fact is that my statement has been incomplete. I have only spoken of measurements that can be made with a yard-measure, but we can also measure a distance by the time that light takes to traverse it, on condition that we admit that the velocity of light is constant, and independent of its direction. Lorentz could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the latter...........End of Quote Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of Relativity': QUOTE.........In one of the most notable of these attempts* Michelson devised a method which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two mirrors so arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light requires a perfectly definite time T to pass from one mirror to the other and back again, if the whole system be at rest with respect to the æther. It is found by calculation, however, that a slightly different time T1 is required for this process, if the body, together with the mirrors, be moving relatively to the æther. And yet another point: it is shown by calculation that for a given velocity v with reference to the æther, this time T1 is different when the body is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from that resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes. Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result - a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and Fitzgerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in Section 11 shows that also from the standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one.......End of Quote *to detect the existence of an aether-drift Commentaries: 1. Poincaré does not mention the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) but it is clear that he refers to it and the Lorentz and Fitzgerald explanation of the absence of the predicted phase shift in MMX due to contraction of the parallel arm. According to Poincaré, the anisotropy of light would have explained the null result of MMX not less plausibly than contraction but Lorentz had admitted a preference for contraction. 2. Contraction explains the null result of MMX but only if a number of arguments against it are ignored (refer to some of my other posts in this news group). The contraction hypothesis in my view has no more value than explaining gravity by saying that all physical bodies are connected by invisible rubber bands exerting a pull. Both contraction theory and rubber band theory are 'ad hoc' theories and bizarre ones as well. 3. Another ad hoc theory is the theory that expansion of the perpendicular arm of the interferometer apparatus in MMX has the same effect as the contraction of the parallel arm. Both contraction and expansion explain the null result with equal justification but without any validity at all. 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed c (originally established by Maxwell and incorporated into his EM equations). The speed of the source does not affect c but the speed of the target (v) affects the time for light to transit from source to target. It is correct to use formulas that include expressions such as c+v (speed of light plus speed of approaching target) and c-v (speed of light minus speed of target going away). In these cases, c remains the same but to allow for the change in the distances between source and target, v is added to c if the distance is shortened or subtracted from c if lengthened. 5. M&M used c+v and c-v in the logic underlying their interferometer experiment. They believed the experiment would create an observable phase shift of two rays of light interfering. The phase shift did not occur. The null result was explained by Lorentz to be caused by a contraction of the parallel arm of the equipment. He published the contraction theory in mathematical form, called the Lorentz transforms. These are used by the special relativity theory. However, SR is not comfortable with c+v and c-v because it seems to undermine the postulate of the constancy of light. But without these two expressions, no MMX, no contraction theory and no SR. It is a case of having a cake but not wanting to eat it. Peter Riedt PS If you like fairytales, download one from http://www.geocities.com/sintao06/index Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of Relativity': Please get your facts right, Peter. The 1905 paper was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Androcles > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of > Relativity': [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Androcles Andy, thanks for the correction but it is the same thing. Peter Riedt PS If you like fairytales, download one from http://www.geocities.com/sintao06/index > > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of > > Relativity': [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > PS If you like fairytales, download one from > http://www.geocities.com/sintao06/index | > > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of | > > Relativity': [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | > | > Andy, thanks for the correction but it is the same thing. Wrong title right content. Yes, In Joanna K. Rowlings "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" it reads ALICE was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, "and what is the use of a book," thought Alice, "without pictures or conversations?' So she was considering, in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her. Right content, wrong title, different author, but it's the same thing, don't worry about it. Androcles. > | > > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of > | > > Relativity': [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Androcles. Andy, let me correct myself again: My AE quote is from chapter 16 of AE's book 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory'. It was written in 1916 and published by Methuan in 1920. Not too sorry about my mistake but thank you for pointing it out twice. Peter Riedt | > | > > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of | > | > > Relativity': [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] | | Peter Riedt Well, you see, Petey, there's an 11 gap between 1905 and 1916 and WW I was in progress that delayed publication until 1920. Einstein had plenty of opportunity to correct his 1905 blunders, particularly as Georges Sagnac had produced a rotating interferometer in 1913, so there never was any excuse for the moron to repeat his garbage in 1920. This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history. Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. My thanks to Sir Isaac Newton, I mean no disrespect by using his words. I have only substituted "Einstein" for "Ptolemy" "God does not play dice" - Einstein "Einstein bluffs at poker better than he plays dice" - God. | > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of | > Relativity': [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | Andy, thanks for the correction but it is the same thing. Any normal person would find something wrong with a greenback if the dead president's face was one side and the back was red, blue or blank. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF The strangest part about it is the omission of any analysis of the other half. If all these physicists are all so darned clever, how come they are blind? Androcles > c+v and c-v or not? > [... a number of distortions of old papers] It does not matter what has been written, or how you can distort old papers to suit your personal prejudices, what matters is experimental measurements. There are LOTS of measurements of the speed of light from moving sources, and the conclusion is that if the speed of light is speed = c + k*v where v is the velocity of the moving source, then the best measurements yield: k < 10^-6, k < 2*10^-9, or k < 10^-12, depending on which measurement you look at. So c+v and c-v are refuted experimentally. Completely. Tom Roberts > > c+v and c-v or not? > > [... a number of distortions of old papers] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tom Roberts Tom, you may be correct but it is irrelevant. You are talking about c+v and c-v relative to the source. I am talking about c+v and c-v relative to the target exactly as Michelson and Morley applied it in MMX. They allowed for the widening of the distance source to mirror moving away and then the shortening of the distance mirror to beam splitter moving closer. That was the logic of M&M. Irrefutably. Peter Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > It does not matter what has been written, or how you can distort old > papers to suit your personal prejudices, what matters is experimental [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > measurement you look at. > So c+v and c-v are refuted experimentally. Completely. More anon, & we'd like to invite everyone in the future, OK?" Yeah, I found that ordering room service breakfast for 0800 makes waking up a lot easier, as does waking up and realising that one has an appointment at 0830 to fix Lionel Fanthorpe's wi-fi... and that 0830 is in seven minutes' time. I have, on occasion since returning home, been tempted to instruct people to GTO... Crossroads? I hope not - I'm not even going to feel guilty about what my , or probably parents, may have done in Gaza? From Iran's Ahmadinejad: / / "Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) the great Messenger of God . . . That these creatures of torment abruptly decreased sometime after I turned eight years old is most likely below any possibility of resolving it. Consider that an identified source of "noise" in Eotvos equivalence testing is asymmetric heating of the bodys (or even apparatus). So, is mass what a scale measures? Or is it the matter? > c+v and c-v or not? SNIP. > 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of > SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed c [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Peter Riedt VERGON c+v and c-v apply only when the target is in motion wrt the source. In the MM case the target and source have no motion wrt each other --- aether or no aether. Incidentally, SR does not propose any contraction -- except that of observation. A rod in motion only appears to be contracted but is not actually. Re the aether, It is amazing how people will cling to a ridiculous and dead theory. But offer them a logical new theory that is flawless, and you run into a blank wall. > > c+v and c-v or not? > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > dead theory. But offer them a logical new theory that is flawless, and > you run into a blank wall. Vergon, Michelson and Morley did apply c+v and c-v in the logic of their interferometer experiment. Source and target are fixed on the equipment but once light has left the source it must pursue the target while it is moving away from its original position in space. In this case c-v applies. On the return from the mirror at the end of the parallel arm, the light ray is subject to c+v as the beamsplitter is approaching. The transit of the light in space is independent of its original position but not of the final position of the target. Peter Riedt >c+v and c-v or not? snip No, it should be ic + v and ic - v, these expressions having the same vector length. That is, our velocities are always normal to c. Such geometry makes the MM null automatic. I have a little diagram of it on my website, the gravity paper. Relativity formerly used ict x y z until someone rashly changed it (as they boast of in MLT's Gravitation) to ct and made g00 = -1. This is a mathematical violation of the definition of the tensor since it can no longer be used in a transformation. The idea (MLT) or the tensor as a machine that takes two inputs is naive and wrong. You rightly observe that c+v and c-v apply in certain cases, recognizing that a change in spacing can justify these expressions, without affecting the velocity of light. >5. M&M used c+v and c-v in the logic underlying their interferometer >experiment. They believed the experiment would create an observable [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >PS If you like fairytales, download one from >http://www.geocities.com/sintao06/index John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net | >c+v and c-v or not? | > | snip | | No, it should be ic + v and ic - v, these expressions having the same | vector length. That is, our velocities are always normal to c. snip Tell it to Einstein. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.GIF Androcles. >| >c+v and c-v or not? >| > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Androcles. Did you slip up on your algebra? Did I? I get 2cx'/(c^2 - v^2) from your Rocket reference. The denominator is telling you c and v are orthogonal. And what a nice way to finally resolve the M&M dilemma. v + ic is the same distance as v - ic. John Polasek John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net | >| >c+v and c-v or not? | >| > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | And what a nice way to finally resolve the M&M dilemma. v + ic is the | same distance as v - ic. It's Einstein's algebra, not mine, I was just pointing out the c+v. What you are suppose to get are the cuckoo transformations he blamed Lorentz for. Perhaps this wlll help: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm Androcles John Polasek wrote: > Relativity formerly used ict x y z until someone rashly changed it > (as they boast of in MLT's Gravitation) to ct and made g00 = -1. This > is a mathematical violation of the definition of the tensor since it > can no longer be used in a transformation. The idea (MLT) or the > tensor as a machine that takes two inputs is naive and wrong. If I didn't already know that Polasek is a crank, this would've been the clincher. ---Tim Shuba--- >John Polasek wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ---Tim Shuba--- "Who's convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", but here goes. The flat g tensor should be an identity matrix transformation, but instead, upon repeated application, g converts +ct successively to -ct, +ct -ct, which violates common sense. g fails the simple identity test of idempotency. As MLT state pg 51, "no way...make ict work in the general spacetime manifold". They have failed to entertain the possiblity that there might not be a spacetime manifold. (There isn't). Time is totally separate from space, but to make them seem the same required the perfidy of the -1 1 1 1 "signature" (actually, forgery). Why is the term sqrt(-g) so prevalant? What's wrong with sqrt(g)? John Polasek John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net John Polasek wrote: > The flat g tensor should be an identity matrix transformation The metric is not a transformation, though they are certainly related. A (coordinate) transformation preserves the metric. Obviously and trivially, the identity transformation, which is diag(1,1,1,1), does so. This is very basic stuff. It does appear true that John Polasek cannot understand and use transformations in special relativity, but others need not be handicapped by that incompetency. Search terms to help remedy such ignorance would include "linear algebra" and "group theory". > Why is the term sqrt(-g) so prevalant? What's wrong with sqrt(g)? Massive objects follow timelike trajectories, and most presentations of relativity use a signature (- + + +), so that's why. This is arbitrary, though, and using a signature (+ - - -) is also possible, and sometimes done. ---Tim Shuba--- >John Polasek wrote: > >> The flat g tensor should be an identity matrix transformation > >The metric is not a transformation, though they are certainly >related. The metric is the triple scalar product, a correct quadratic form. >A (coordinate) transformation preserves the metric. A scalar product can be two vectors as xi*xi, or more formally x1*xj*delta ij. delta ij is the identity matrix that lends itself to introduction of the warping coefficients of relativity. Therefore the first result must be that xi is transformed by gij to xj, becoming a modified version of xi, after which the product with xj. But in the limit, and without gravity gij must tend toward the the identity matrix delta ij. This can't possibly happen if g00 = -1. It is not a tensor any longer. The fact that the triple product XgX makes a valid metric does not validate gij, because it requires you to use all 3 every time and hides the fact that g00 =-1. As MTL state, you can't have spacetime with ict, and we don't. To >Obviously and trivially, the identity transformation, which is >diag(1,1,1,1), does so. This is very basic stuff. It does >appear true that John Polasek cannot understand and use >transformations in special relativity, but others need not be >handicapped by that incompetency. I would think you know I'm talking about general relativity. >Search terms to help remedy >such ignorance would include "linear algebra" and "group theory". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >why. This is arbitrary, though, and using a signature (+ - - -) >is also possible, and sometimes done. The second is no better than the first of course. > ---Tim Shuba--- John Polasek John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net John Polasek wrote: > >John Polasek wrote: > > > >> The flat g tensor > I would think you know I'm talking about general relativity. Flat spacetime is the realm of special relativity. > The metric is the triple scalar product, a correct quadratic form. Nonsense. The metric is a rank two tensor field. ---Tim Shuba--- >John Polasek wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ---Tim Shuba--- I'll put it this way. Take the tensor gij out toward infinity in which case the gravity terms tend to zero. gij should tend to the identity matrix, but it reverts to -1 1 1 1. This has the property of producing x0 = -ct, +ct, -ct etc. in successive transformations. And gij as a tensor has to be a transformer. For xi*gij = yj, its components gij are partial coefficients dyj/dxi. The matrix gij was arbitrarily given its signature and it was officially declared to be a tensor for the sole purpose of getting rid of ict. It is the necessity for ict that is evidence that time cannot be blended with space. All the effects of relativity can be achieved without the spacetime concept. All you need is a 3d universe expanding at the speed of light. John Polasek John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net John Polasek wrote: > And gij as a tensor has to be a transformer. The metric is a (0,2) tensor, which when multiplied by a vector, yields a one-form. The metric is not a coordinate transformation matrix. See a decent linear algebra text for more details. ---Tim Shuba--- >John Polasek wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ---Tim Shuba--- This is no longer physics but just mathematics. Why embellish on what is really just a row vector, a 4x4 matrix and a column vector that are applied in sequence to make s^2? What are we to do with the one-form out of the matrix; take the scalar product with the column vector? Other than that, what is its function? There's not enough here to get abstruse about. The matrix should and does contain the gravity factors that bend x and t and they stop doing it at infinity. Your (0,2) tensor takes the two vectors and before anyone can see what's going on, simultaneously multiplies the both of them out into the metric. You can't program a computer to do it. But it's a hat trick that conceals the fact of violence being done to x0. I am not going to debate with you about linear algebra in which you are obviously an adept . But I claim it has only an artifical connection with physics. Phys Rev. D, ostensibly a gravity journal, shows the unhappy consequences of erudition in the name of 'science'. Dozens of papers appear there, none of which would be read by anyone but their authors. Surely the Pioneer anomaly would have been solved by now. John Polasek John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net >> The metric is a (0,2) tensor, which when multiplied by a vector, >> yields a one-form. The metric is not a coordinate transformation >> matrix. See a decent linear algebra text for more details. > This is no longer physics but just mathematics. Well, it's geometry. Physics is intimately wrapt up with geometry. Indeed, all of the current fundamental theories of physics are, at base, geometrical (e.g. their Lagrangians are all the scalar curvature of an appropriate manifold). But ever since long before Newton geometry was essential in physics. > Why embellish on what > is really just a row vector, a 4x4 matrix and a column vector that > are applied in sequence to make s^2? Because vectors and tensors are NOT "row vectors and 4x4 matrix". <shrug> And this is not mere "embellishment", tensors are a whole 'nother thing. Indeed, it is their tensor nature that make tensors suitable to model physical structures (i.e. both tensors and physical phenomena are independent of coordinates). > What are we to do with the > one-form out of the matrix; take the scalar product with the column > vector? Other than that, what is its function? Representing the geometrical object properly. <shrug> In flat manifolds one can usually ignore the difference between covariant and contravariant vectors and tensors; not so in curved manifolds. > There's not enough here to get abstruse about. You merely display your ignorance. There is A LOT to get ABSTRACT about. Indeed, essentially all of modern theoretical physics is based on tensors; not "row vectors and matrices". > Phys Rev. D, ostensibly a gravity journal, > shows the unhappy consequences of erudition in the name of 'science'. > Dozens of papers appear there, none of which would be read by anyone > but their authors. Again you merely show your ignorance. Phys. Rev. D is NOT "a gravity journal", and papers in it are read by literally thousands of physicists, because it is one of the major research journals in high energy physics, and related fields. <shrug> Tom Roberts >>> The metric is a (0,2) tensor, which when multiplied by a vector, >>> yields a one-form. The metric is not a coordinate transformation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >appropriate manifold). But ever since long before Newton geometry was >essential in physics. But the world is all real, and in the void of the universe there is no space to bend. (I think we all know that). That's not to say GTR doesn't "work"-it does, but at what a cost-the old 'tangled web' problem. Einstein and Minkowski worked with what they had. They were not aware of permittivity and permeability, but they must have admired Maxwell's introduction of Ddot as a displacement current in the vacuum, without inquiring further. Ddot is the evidence of permittivity which is only possible in a second space. eps0 was only formally acknowledged circa 1960-but is still stoutly resisted by the cgs die-hards). >> Why embellish on what >> is really just a row vector, a 4x4 matrix and a column vector that >> are applied in sequence to make s^2? > >Because vectors and tensors are NOT "row vectors and 4x4 matrix". <shrug> It's the Pythagorean theorem, enhanced. >And this is not mere "embellishment", tensors are a whole 'nother thing. >Indeed, it is their tensor nature that make tensors suitable to model >physical structures (i.e. both tensors and physical phenomena are >independent of coordinates). I think you mean "independent of the choice of coordinates" not "independent of coordinates". Tensors must transform like their coordinates. If T transforms row vector V into W, as W = VT , then G transforms like T'GT. I don't believe such a transform is possible with the metric "tensor" yet it is the first test of a tensor. >> What are we to do with the >> one-form out of the matrix; take the scalar product with the column [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Indeed, essentially all of modern theoretical physics is based on >tensors; not "row vectors and matrices". You are mistaking contempt for ignorance. I make such statements not because GTR is not complex enough, but because I know that all the results of relativity are contained very simply in Dual Space theory. It merely requires recognition that every point in 3-space of the universe is expanding at speed c on its own radial time vector from a center of mass. From this the arithmetic of SR and GTR appear naturally. >> Phys Rev. D, ostensibly a gravity journal, >> shows the unhappy consequences of erudition in the name of 'science'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >physicists, because it is one of the major research journals in high >energy physics, and related fields. <shrug> You need to polish up on ignorance. I was misled when I subscribed to PRD becauseI still get notices entitled "Table of Contents Alert for Physical Rev D (Particles, Fields, GRAVITATION and Cosmology)". Granted there are more papers on particles than on gravity but its masthead implies gravity content, which I failed to find in any other APS journal. >Tom Roberts John Polasek John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net John Polasek wrote re this thread: "This is no longer physics but just mathematics. Why embellish on what is really just a row vector, a 4x4 matrix and a column vector that are applied in sequence to make s^2? What are we to do with the ..." John was right-on with his first sentence --- and then became a particiant himself. Mathematical physics is the bane of Physics because it is over-used and over abused. This thread proves it. A discussion of physics becomes a discussion of mathematics. Note how many interpretations there are. If math is such an exact discipline, how come there are so many interpretations? Math is like a sword. A sword is a sword --- but the effectiveness of it depends on whose hand wields it. Math is a tool only --- not an end product. Esoteric math is difficult to translate into reality. Never forget that the universe is physical not mathematical. Because math has taken over physics instead of augmenting it, it has led physics down the primrose path into dead ends, However, a Mathematics are exactly the same like a Languages, whether the first makes the universe to stand and the latter makes the universe to turn, as however, the both has a multitude of an interpretations, which it does allow them to free the minds circulations, along a define and a definate coplaisance to one another, a definitely as a matter a fact as a simply as that. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > John Polasek wrote re this thread: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Because math has taken over physics instead of augmenting it, it has > led physics down the primrose path into dead ends, John Polasek wrote: > >John Polasek wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >yields a one-form. The metric is not a coordinate transformation > >matrix. See a decent linear algebra text for more details. > This is no longer physics but just mathematics. Au contraire. This is the mathematics which lies at the core of relativity. Understanding the mathematics is essential for an understanding of the physics. The very word "metric" comes from Latin "metricus" or Greek "metrikos" meaning "relating to measurement". > Why embellish on what > is really just a row vector, a 4x4 matrix and a column vector that > are applied in sequence to make s^2? The answer is that we aren't talking about *just* a vector or a matrix as mathematical objects. However, the premise of your question is fundamentally incorrect. We can, to use the language above, directly multiply a column vector and row vector - the metric is not needed for this. What we cannot do is directly multiple two column vectors (by usual convention, column vectors represent "normal" vectors, and row vectors represent one-forms). For that the metric is needed. > What are we to do with the > one-form out of the matrix; take the scalar product with the column > vector? Other than that, what is its function? For one thing, every time we evaluate a line integral, we effectively use a one-form, so it is used to determine proper time. > conceals the fact of violence being done to x0. As far as crank statements go, that one is pretty funny. > I am not going to debate with you about linear algebra in which you > are obviously an adept . Not particularly, though I do enjoy the subject. It permeates virtually all branches of science, including the "soft" sciences. Very many relationships are at least approximately linear, and even non-linear relationships can often be analyzed with linear algebra if they are differentiable. In relativity, local spacetime is clearly not Euclidean, and for that reason cannot be represented by a Euclidean metric. The attempt to pretend that the metric has a Euclidean form by using a bizarre time coordinate such as (ict) or (it) serves only to obscure the physics. A real-valued four-dimensional vector space is entirely sufficient for the physics of general relativity. ---Tim Shuba--- Along the matter, that the " Ether ", would be at rest, therefore, it would be along what would follows : A ------> ( light velocity : c - v ) ------> B A <------ ( light velocity : c + v ) <------B ------> v = velocity of frame --------> Therefore, if and only if, the speed would be the light speed plus the " Ether " of the wind speed, which it would be ( c + v ), all along. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > John Polasek wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > ---Tim Shuba--- >John Polasek wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >convention, column vectors represent "normal" vectors, and row >vectors represent one-forms). For that the metric is needed. I don't quite follow. A row x a column is a scalar product. A row x a row or a column x a column are 2d rank outer products, in this case projection operators. Are you telling me the g tensor takes a row or column vector and outputs respectively a column or a row? That violates everything I know about it. The second product is then not conformable. The column vectors are "normal" vectors only by default from the earlier practice of inverting a set of simultaneous equations, wherein the column is the collection of the right hand terms. The scalar product that is the metric is given by xi gij xj. You seem to be implying that xi and xj are of a different nature. Row vectors are more fun; you run them left to right into matrices like a block diagram other than which row and column vectors are the same. >> What are we to do with the >> one-form out of the matrix; take the scalar product with the column [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ---Tim Shuba--- John Polasek wrote: > Are you telling me the g tensor takes a row or column vector and > outputs respectively a column or a row? Yes, exactly. See section 4 of http://phy.asu.edu/phy501-shumway/notes/lec5.pdf > The scalar product that is the metric is given by xi gij xj. You seem > to be implying that xi and xj are of a different nature. No, there are both vectors. It becomes much clearer if you use the superscript/subscript notation as in that link. In ugly ASCII, (x^i g_ij x^j) is a scalar. To be accurate, the scalar product isn't the metric, the tensor g_ij is. One of many reasons why it's a bad idea to think of a tensor as a matrix is that in both Euclidean geometry and flat spacetime, the components of g_ij and g^ij are the same *for a standard and obvious choice of bases*, in other words they are described by the same matrix in that particular case. Yet g_ij and g^ij are in no way equal; they aren't even the same type of object. I may try to address your other comments if I can figure out what you are talking about. ---Tim Shuba--- >John Polasek wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the same matrix in that particular case. Yet g_ij and g^ij are >in no way equal; they aren't even the same type of object. No, I believe one is the inverse or even just the transpose of the other. Isn't the product g_ij x g^ij = 1 (or whatever is the equivalent of 1 with a signature -1 1 1 1). >I may try to address your other comments if I can figure out what >you are talking about. > > ---Tim Shuba--- Yes, x^i g_ij x^j is a scalar because g_ij changes x^i to x_i, making it conformable with x^j, as to scalar product. So we can write x_1*x^j , a simple scalar product you said couldn't happen without the metric tensor. I think you know that raising and lowering of indices is done when convenient. In the case of the row and column vectors it's a matter of simply transposing from row to column and v.v. which is equivalent to lowering an index. I think we are tilting at windmills. Physics doesn't give a hoot how we configure the triplet or quadruplet of components. Anyway, all of the charms of GTR can be accomplished in a 3D + T space. I never cease to admire all that AE accomplished without a computer, wordprocessor or even a calculator. Any replacement for GTR does have the task of getting the same or equivalent numerical results. John Polasek 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed c... Tend to agree with you, however is there a formal proof? > c+v and c-v or not? > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > PS If you like fairytales, download one from > http://www.geocities.com/sintao06/index 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed c... Tend to agree with you, however is there a formal proof? There is a formal proof that your tendency is wrong, but someone that relies on gut feeling isn't going to understand formal proof anyway. But I'll try. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF To put it another way, c reverses direction and that is not a *constant* velocity. Androcles > 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of > SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Androcles c is the speod of light in a vacuum. Speed does not have direction, only magnitude, so how could it possibly reverse direction. | > 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of | > SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | Speed does not have direction, only magnitude, so how could it possibly | reverse direction. Mirreors hoave? a woay of reveorseng? volecities, speod is the? magnoitude oef vilecoty, Brass Boor? Androcles. Androcles No I do not rely on gut feeling that is why I am here. When we talk about source and target in this case, , I assume it means we are in the same frame of reference as the source and the target. Everything is normal and Newtonian physics applies ( as far as we can tell) S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T if T moves to T1 while the ray of light is travelling from S to T what can we say about the velocity of T? S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T1>>>>>>T G > 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of > SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Androcles | Androcles | [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | if T moves to T1 while the ray of light is travelling from S to T | what can we say about the velocity of T? "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif "- Einstein, http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ You can say the velocity of T (relative to S) is v, shining a light on it won't change it. Androcles | S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T1>>>>>>T | [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | > | > Androcles Ok So can we find the relative velocity of T to that of the "ray of light" ? c+v? Since we are all in one happy frame no relativistic effects apply ? Is this right? G > | Androcles > | [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > | > > | > Androcles The baby figure of the giant mass Of things to come at large -- William Shakespeare -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > Ok > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > | > > > | > Androcles | Ok | | So can we find the relative velocity of T to that of the "ray of light" | ? Of course. Doppler's equation is c+v f' = f ----------- c So measure the shift, it is that easy. | c+v? | Since we are all in one happy frame no relativistic effects apply ? | Is this right? There are no "relativistic effects". Einstein was a dork who failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html and that made him angry, he thought he was the smartest man alive. Dickheads often do think that way. So he cooked up a theory that had more holes in it than the Swiss cheese he was eating as payback. He got lucky, nobody checked his work thoroughly. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm It wasn't until the bomb went off that anyone paid any attention to the crackpot anyway, and now all the crackpots want to be an Einstein. Androcles G | > | Androcles | > | [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] | > | > | > | > Androcles Sorcerer I do wish you would stop insulting AE, this does not help in scientific debate I will look carefully at your proofs, thanks. After all irrefutable proof that AE was wrong cannot be hard to find? I think I have some myself if I can only find them G > | Ok > | [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > | > | > > | > | > Androcles Sorcerer I do wish you would stop insulting AE, this does not help in scientific debate Your wishes are NOT my command, I'll call the moron a w.nker if I want to. I will look carefully at your proofs, thanks. After all irrefutable proof that AE was wrong cannot be hard to find? I think I have some myself if I can only find them I've given you irrefutable proof that AE was wrong. Here it is again: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF End of scientific debate, now I'll call the moron a w.nker. Androcles G Sorcerer wrote: > | Ok > | [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > | > | > > | > | > Androcles Socerer I am sorry to admint I do not understand the the animated GIF. Clearly it is a distance- time diagram, but I do not think in any case velocity is defined where AB = 0 and t -t1=0; But my point is that there is relative motion taking place between a photon and its target where both source and target are in the same FOR This relative velocity is c There is relative motion between photon and its target where the target is moving in a straight line directly towards the photon. This relative velocity is c+v. Right? G > Sorcerer > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > | > | > > > | > | > Androcles Socerer I am sorry to admint I do not understand the the animated GIF. Clearly it is a distance- time diagram, but I do not think in any case velocity is defined where AB = 0 and t -t1=0; The photon leaves A = 0 at time tA = 0, reflects from a mirror B=1 at time tB=1, returns to A=0 at time t'A = 2. The distance AB divided by tB-tA is (1-0) / (1-0) = 1/1 =1. Then the distance BA divided by t'A-tB is (0-1) / (2-1) = -1/1 = -1 So c = (AB + BA) / (t'A-tA) = (1 - 1)/2 = 0/2 = 0. But then the next part requires calculus which you cannot possibly understand until you learn it, c = 0/0 because it takes no time at all from light to go from A to A. This is how you find the slope of a graph at a point x: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Derivative.gif But my point is You said: I do wish you would stop insulting AE, this does not help in scientific debate I said : Your wishes are NOT my command, I'll call the moron a w.nker if I want to. It is not my problem that you do not understand mathematics or that Einstein did not understand vectors, go and learn instead of making your "point" to me, you have no point. A reversal of direction is not a constant velocity. I've given you irrefutable proof that AE was wrong. I can wipe your arse for you, I can even grunt for you, but you have to sh.t for yourself. Androcles that there is relative motion taking place between a photon and its target where both source and target are in the same FOR This relative velocity is c There is relative motion between photon and its target where the target is moving in a straight line directly towards the photon. This relative velocity is c+v. Right? G Sorcerer wrote: > Sorcerer > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > | > | > > > | > | > Androcles > Androcles > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > G G, the logic of Michelson and Morley of the propagation of light along the parallel arm of the interferometer in MMX is based on the idea that, as the equipment moves through space, the distances beween beamsplitter and mirror are first widened and then shortened: 1. At start of experiment: ...beamsplitter BS1 to mirror M1 = 11m ...BS1-----------------------------------------M1 2. At impact on mirror at new position M2 ...BS1 to M2 = 11.001100110011m ...BS1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>M2 3. After return from M2 to beamsplitter BS at new position BS2 ............M2 to BS2 = 10.99890010998900m ...--------BS2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<M2 The lengthened distance BS1 to M2 is equivalent to c-v and the shortened distance M2 to BS2 is equivalent to c+v i.e. the distance variations are compensated for by varying c correspondingly. It is a mathematical convenience. It does not mean that the speed of light varies, only the distance source to target moving away (c-v) or approaching (c+v). Peter Riedt Peri The problem with MMX is that it was located on a planet spinning on its axis and orbiting a start that is also orbiting the centre of the galaxy. All are in some sort of circular motion. See opening statements G > > Androcles > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Peter Riedt Along a simplest matter, first of all, it would be, when the gravity is not included G = 0, no quantisation is included neither as the relativity would be ignored I / c = 0. However, this would as should take to G = h = 1 / c = 0, as along I /c and not h = G = 0, whether it would make things to fall to the theory of special relativity. Therefore, as along I / c = G = 0, it would make a turning around G = 1 / c = 0, where h is a different from 0, and when again a moving upwards, it would take to a general theory of relativity h = 0, G a different from 0 as 1 / c also a different from 0, as also to special relativity by adding the gravity. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! 4. The speed of light (c) may very well be constant but not because of SR. Light travelling between source and target has a constant speed c... Tend to agree with you, however is there a formal proof? Peri of Pera wrote: > c+v and c-v or not? > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > PS If you like fairytales, download one from > http://www.geocities.com/sintao06/index > c+v and c-v or not? You may compare all said here with my analysis of MMX on my site http://vps137.narod.ru/articlea.html. The c +/- v seems to appear only after impact from the moving mirror in reflective direction. It must be verified by experiment however. > > c+v and c-v or not? > > > You may compare all said here with my analysis of MMX on my site > http://vps137.narod.ru/articlea.html. The c +/- v seems to appear > only after impact from the moving mirror in reflective direction. > It must be verified by experiment however. vps137, the important thing about MMX is the logic that Michelson and Morley used in the experiment. They applied c+v and c-v in their reasoning and expected a phase shift which did not occur. The question is were they correct using c+v and c-v in their logic or not? Peter Riedt > vps137, the important thing about MMX is the logic that Michelson and > Morley [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Peter Riedt Is it so important for purport of the MMX? If they had been even made errors in their sights long time ago, who cares? The more interesting is to clear what is MMX means. V.Skorobogatov > > vps137, the important thing about MMX is the logic that Michelson and > > Morley [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > V.Skorobogatov VPS, I agree, it is important what MMX means. It is the basis for the contraction theory of Lorentz and the Lorentz transforms are the basis of SR. If MMX has been misinterpreted by Lorentz and others, there is no valid foundation for SR. Your paper does not provide the correct answer to the null result of MMX. The explanation is very simple. Peter Riedt > VPS, I agree, it is important what MMX means. It is the basis for the > contraction theory of Lorentz and the Lorentz transforms are the basis [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Peter Riedt Peter! It might not be very simple. Otherwise it was sold and we all are not talking about it so much. But the solution I proposed is really simple but it needs to penitrate into additional dimension and it is really hard to imagine. To help an overview of my point of view you could find at http://vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html V.Skorobogatov > > VPS, I agree, it is important what MMX means. It is the basis for the > > contraction theory of Lorentz and the Lorentz transforms are the basis [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > V.Skorobogatov Victor or Vladimir or V, the solution to the null result of MMX is not in constructing a special physical world or special physical theories. The solution is in the logic of the experiment. It does not require an ether or vacuous space, contraction, black holes, big bangs, small bangs, warp speed, paradoxes, superdimensional worlds, convoluted mathematics or theories other than plain common sense and very basic mathematics. However, don't be discouraged. We should appreciate the opportunity we have to discuss our ideas by such marvellous and immediate vehicles of free speech as are the internet, google and newsgroups. Peter Riedt > Victor or Vladimir or V, the solution to the null result of MMX is not > in constructing a special physical world or special physical theories. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Peter Riedt Peter! I appreciate but you have nowhere said what do you think yourself about subject. Where is your simple solution? I find only common statements. Or you may be a historian and only is collecting opinions? We know after Popper and at al. that there are no any true theories at all. As for TR, I think it is not true as well. It are to reinterpreted while the new ideas are appeared. It's early to reject it still. > > Victor or Vladimir or V, the solution to the null result of MMX is not > > in constructing a special physical world or special physical theories. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > well. It are to reinterpreted while the new ideas are appeared. It's > early to reject it still. VS, I agree with your reply. My solution will remain undocumented until science discards the Lorentz contraction as the explanation of the null result of MMX. I have previously tried in this newsgroup to rebut the contraction conjecture by pointing out that expansion of the perpendicular arm of the interferometer will achieve the same objective as contraction and suggested also other arguments why contraction cannot be the answer. Peter Riedt > VS, I agree with your reply. My solution will remain undocumented until > science discards [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Peter Riedt Peter! I take off my reproach. As for the transverse arm I doubt it may change its length in motion. And the longitudinal one as well. It might be some strenth to make it shorter or longer. In my opinion the latter changes its visible part, it enlarges like a projection, like a shadow. But it demands to adopt c+/-v to correlate with MMX result. Otherwise it must be put more correct experiment to measure photon velocity. And without pulling time! VS | > > c+v and c-v or not? | > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | Peter Riedt As far as Morley is concerned, don't even go there. Morley was a chemist and a friend of Michelson, his role as a scientist Michelson trusted was to oversee Michelson's work and look for errors Michelson may have made and Michelson, being an honourable guy, added his friend's name to the paper. This was not Michelson's first interferometer. Androcles > | > > c+v and c-v or not? > | > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Androcles Androcles, Michelson seems to be different from others in sharing his claims to fame. His first attempt (call it MX) was criticised by Lorentz who suggested to add the perpendicular arm to the interferometer after Michelson declared to the resentment of Lorentz that the null result of MX proved the nonexistence of the ether. Peter Riedt | > | > > c+v and c-v or not? | > | > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | | Peter Riedt What makes you think Michelson ever made a claim to fame? Can't an honest hardworking chap get on with his studies without being a movie star as well? It is shitheads like Lorentz and Einstein that sought glory and the popular press that supplied it, but they were not scientists, whereas Michelson was. MMX was a *failure* for Michelson, he did not find what he expected to find, but he went ahead and published anyway as a scientist should. The answer is most simple, there is no aether. The idiot Einstein was charlatan more concerned about his pet theory of time than science, and that because he was a patent clerk in Swiss cuckoo clock land who'd just read H.G. Wells's best seller, "Time Machine". http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm His theory has more holes in it than the Gruyere cheese he was eating, he ignored Sagnac altogether because it knocked his cuckoo theories into a cocked hat. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm Here we are 100 years later, sending snailmail messages to Cassini at Saturn because the world is so stupid it was conned by the jerk and nobody is developing a light accelerator except me and I'm out of funds so it's on hold. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm Then along comes Russian Skorobogatov who is experimenting with c+v and nobody pays him any attention because the new enemy is the Moslem, they are not seen as a scientific threat unless Iran wants to build a nuclear power station so it's heads up arses all round. Androcles. > | > | > > c+v and c-v or not? > | > | > > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Androcles. Bravo, Androcles! You plump by finger in the sky VS << c+v and c-v or not? >> Use the Lorentz transforms approximating those arithemetic sums in the nearfiied where Lorentz force is operative with the coupling structures. "Incident Wave Impedance" http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html "Retarded potential" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html Sue... > Henri Poincaré wrote in his 1897 paper The Relativity of Space: > Quote.........According to a hypothesis of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, all [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > PS If you like fairytales, download one from > http://www.geocities.com/sintao06/index ....there is no way to fix that > ....there is no way to fix that I'm afraid it's worse! - Cranks will always be cranks, but they may have been normal in the distant past. IOW, - Reasonable people sometimes become cranks - it's hard to prevent. What the hell, this is supposed to mean!? -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Do Explain! > > ....there is no way to fix that > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > IOW, > - Reasonable people sometimes become cranks - it's hard to prevent. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.