Mathematical Obscurities in Special Relativity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by altare</i>
<br />Clocks are used to meaure time <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well tell us your definition of “time”.

The game the SRists are playing goes like this: Let's change the definitions of the numbers 4 and 3 for example (but be discreet and hope no one will notice) and voila, we dazzle the public with the result that 4 + 3 = 2. A great sleight of hand trick, all SR is.


Basically, units are changed between inertial frames in SR but without using a different terminology as required. An inch becomes a centimeter in a different inertial frame but is mistakenly called an inch by the SR hoaxers. Everyone except SR elitists are required to give a conversion ratio between scales (e.g. 1 centimeters on a road map = 1 mile on the road) so that a set of values can be sensibly compared- deception is the means by which SRians circumvent the logical and physical contradictions arising from SR's two postulates.

If the proper units and terminology were used, SR's postulate of a constant speed of light independent of source must result in contradiction with its second postulate, that physics is the same in all inertial frames, since the speed of light then would be c+v and c-v round trip measured inside an inertial frame moving at v relative to the vacuum.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />
If the proper units and terminology were used, SR's postulate of a constant speed of light independent of source must result in contradiction with its second postulate, that physics is the same in all inertial frames, since the speed of light then would be c+v and c-v round trip measured inside an inertial frame moving at v relative to the vacuum.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Yes it is. Exactly.

And here’s how you can figure it out and prove what you just said. This is what allowed me to figure it out:

Think of a passenger on a moving train. The whistle blows and the passenger hears the same pitch of the whistle that the moving whistle is actually emitting.

But on the track ahead of the train, a stationary observer hears a higher pitch, and on the track behind the train, a stationary observer hears a lower pitch.

There are TWO completely different Doppler Effects at work here. And for the moving observer, one Effect cancels out the other Effect.

Most people think of the Doppler Effect as being only one kind of effect that produces either a redshift or a blueshift in the signal, but there are actually TWO completely different kinds of Doppler Effects, and by working out the physical conditions, on graph paper, then you can answer the question about why a moving observer on the train hears no redshift or blueshift in the whistle tone, and this will tell you that light speed can not possibly be regulated to “c” relative to all observers.

Get yourself some graph paper, and work out this puzzle. Make a simple drawing of the train and the moving observer on the train. And then add the stationary observer at the front and the stationary observer at the rear. You might need two different sheets of graph paper to do this, one for the two stationary observers, and the other for the moving train and moving observer.

I don’t have such an illustration drawn up at the moment, but I’m thinking about making one so I can post it on the internet.

This is a very interesting experiment, which I first noticed and puzzled about while riding on a train. When I got home I got some graph paper and I made drawings of the sound waves and their wavelengths, and I figured out exactly what physical process takes place that causes the moving observer to hear no pitch change. Solving this puzzle will show you that relative light speed is c + v and c – v for observers moving relative to what you call the “vacuum”. If you work this puzzle out on graph paper, you will find that the grid of the paper itself represents the metrics of the “air” in the puzzle and “the vacuum” regarding relative light speed when the same principle is applied to light.

I have a little more new information about the metrics of the “vacuum”, but I’ll tell you about that later.

Perhaps there is an ether and vacuumed space. If the dynamics of the ether and its compression is what generates matter in the Universe, laws of volume and density would require lower ether density areas exist if there are higher density areas. If the obsevable space is a vacuum this does not necessarily rule out the existance of an ether, and if an ether is ever proven, this does not rule out the possibility vaccumed space.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Perhaps there is an ether and vacuumed space. If the dynamics of the ether and its compression is what generates matter in the Universe, laws of volume and density would require lower ether density areas exist if there are higher density areas. If the obsevable space is a vacuum this does not necessarily rule out the existance of an ether, and if an ether is ever proven, this does not rule out the possibility vaccumed space.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

One of the latest theories about this has been produced as a quantum mechanics theory by a Taiwan physics professor. He considers the “ether” to consist of “local ethers”, which, in effect, he considers to be the strong gravity fields that surround astronomical bodies, with the strongest parts of the fields being those closest to the bodies.

This is actually very similar to the 1895 Lorentz ether theory and the 1918-1920 Einstein ether idea.

It’s actually quite simple. In the new theory, “the ether” is actually a “local” phenomenon. Instead of there being one big “universe stationary” ether, as they thought about it in the 19th Century, the professor thinks of it as billions of separate “local ethers”, which are the gravity fields that are centered on the astronomical bodies that generate them

As we move away from a body, out into the “vacuum”, the vacuum grows “stronger” (less physical material in it per cubic meter), and the gravity fields grow “weaker”. So the professor says this conforms to a slight modification of Lorentz theory, and also to Einstein’s 1911 and 1916 GR theory which says light speed slows down when photons pass through a strong gravity field.

With all the different astronomical bodies moving around, and all the different galaxies moving around, this “local ether” theory could be compared to a bunch of airliners all moving around, carrying their own local “sound propagating media” along with them, i.e. the “air” that is sealed inside each airplane and that moves through space with each airplane.

In deep space, these “local ethers” are supposed to “blend” and provide sort of a background grid of the local vacuum, which regulates the speed of the light photons that travel through it locally. Each galaxy would carry with it all its own local gravity fields (background vacuum grids) that are generated by all the local astronomical bodies that are inside and that travel through space with each galaxy.

Einstein almost developed this theory, but he just couldn’t imagine all the local gravitational fields traveling around in space with the astronomical bodies that generate them.

Hello

I am Ed van der Meulen, a pure mathematician. And all theories are just theories and so questionable.

The Standard model is a model so questionable. The String theories are theories, what else.

So the more questions that falsify a theory, the better.

Have you heard that measurements that they are never precise. And our mathematical theories are precise. That is already strange. In another thread I go on with it.

Never science has stand still.

Have a nice day

Ed van der Meulen

Groeten aan Jan