Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Jerry asked rightly - but then complained!
If Badley has some relevant evidence or argument in opposition to Einstein, I'm ready to consider it. Endless browbeating and innnuendo just gets tiresome.
Unfortunately I am the one, not Jerry, who has to suffer the browbeating e.g.
We also discussed decay of cosmic rays in the atmosphere, mostly in posts #67, #68 and #75.
I have already shown that the results there have been massaged and misrepresented by Einsteinian theory. The subatomic short-lived particles in the upper atmosphere have two reasons for their short lifetime - their inherent decay-proneness (factor 2) and interaction with intervening matter (factor 1) - see #67. In order to claim that TD on these fast-moving particles is increasing their lifespan, one has to exclude both the above factors, not just one of them.

In order to exclude factor one, the experimenters placed detectors at high-altitude and low-altitude. The high-altitude detectors found more detections of subatomic particles - even after the thickness of the atmosphere for the low-altitude detectors was compensated for by placing the upper-atmosphere detectors under sheets of metal or water.

Therefore, the Einstein-sozzled experimenters crudely concluded, "the persistent difference between the upper-atmosphere and lower-atmosphere detections of subatomic particles from cosmic rays is NOT accounted for the intervening matter, therefore the difference must be due to TIME DILATION affecting the faster-moving particles'.

The point is: that explanation is NOT correct, because factor 2 - the inherent decay-proneness of the particles - has not been compensated for. In fact, it has been exaggerated! This is because, over time, the subatomic particles decay, the lesser detection at the lower atmosphere detector also occurring because it takes a longer time for the particles to reach the lower atmosphere. Thus factor 2 was NOT compensated for by the experiments.

Rather, the exact opposite! The only way to exclude both factors fairly would be to have a lower atmosphere detector and another detector at the same altitude far beneath the mountain where the high-altitude detector was placed! Not only that, but there would have to be a vacuum extending the kilometre or so up the mountain to the site where upper-atmosphere detections were to be made. This is necessary IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE PARTICLES TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DECAY IN THE VACUUM WHILE TRANSITING TO THE DETECTOR AT THE SAME ALTITUDE AS THE LOW-ALTITUDE DETECTOR IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

IOW the Einsteinian claim is inherently biased - because the upper-atmosphere-detected particles have not been given adequate time to decay, their higher detection rate is merely because the detector is placed at a higher altitude - and therefore with a shorter path from where they were formed in the upper atmosphere. Hence it is for this reason, not SR, that the number of detected subatomic particles at high-altitude - despite the detector being covered with an amount matter equivalent in weight to the atmosphere between high- and low-altitude detectors - is still higher than the number of detected particles at the low-altitude detector.

In fact if a deep mountain detector at the same altitude as the low-altitude detector in the atmosphere were compared, if we could exclude earth's own radiation detections, we would find that any slight difference would be do SOLELY to the interaction effects of the particles with the atmosphere versus the interaction with the intervening material (metal sheets, water) in the upper atmosphere detector above the vacuum cavity separating the material from the deep mountain detector. SR is irrelevant nonsense at best.

Thus SR's claim for TD in subatomic particles a case of biased treatment of the experimental results, not hard fact! (Having diverted onto this, I return to the other issues below)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
When I wrote of two objects, A & B, in mutual motion Jerry replies.
By "mutual motion", do you mean they are traveling in parallel at the same speed? If so, then they would appear to be mutually at rest.
No! Here you are merely evading the question - the two objects are not at mutually zero velocity but moving towards or apart from each other. Hence your reply below is trivial and evasive and is shown that way.
Within that mutual frame of reference, both spaceships would appear to be the same length (unchanged from its stationary length in its own frame of reference) and each spaceship's clock would be the same as the other.
I mean that they are travelling in mutually opposed directions, towards or away from each other, therefore: -
Or if you mean that they're traveling in opposite directions, then I don't see the contradiction that each would see the other as foreshortened and time dilated.
Note first of all that we are talking of the actual situation, not superficial appearances or perspectival distortions - which I suspect you may still be caught up in. However I will presume below that you are not referring to mere raw perspective or appearances.

Therefore, according to your logic you can have two children, each one taller than the other at one given time; or you have twins and you believe and tell each of them that he/she is older than the other. Or Schrodinger's cat, alive and dead at one given time, Etc.:oops:

If A<B and B<A (alternatively, A<B and A>B),** whether we are talking about LC or TD under Einsteinian relativity, then this is a physical impossibility. How can time pass reciprocally, more slowly for B than for A and more slowly for A than for B? For both of these claims to be true is impossible. And if you assert mutual length contraction (LC) under Einsteinian no-absolute-reference-frame conditions then the mutual LC has no physical cause.*** It is simply impossible for each spaceship and each length-measure to be shorter than the other! If you assert such things to be true and non-contradictory then you don't understand what truth is, hence all possible discussion between us is rendered meaningless due to your evasiveness as to what truth and objectivity consist of. After all, if a spaceship and its measurement apparatus both contract, they will contract equally, then there is no change at all thus Einstein's (& Lorentz's) relativity is but imaginary BS.

The objectivity of space and time is vital to human understanding to establish truth. As in a law court, the whodunit question: - i.e. "where were you when the victim was killed?" - means that Einsteinian double-talk and double-think have NO place here, except as obfuscation. So imagine a murder in one of these spaceships; the Einsteinian criminal could mislead the court by introducing relativity-based arguments, including parallel & daughter universes to evade punishment.

We discussed this paradox (or something similar) in posts #55 thru #64.
I left it there because you hadn't cottoned on to the paradoxical implications. I thought, naively, that your insight may have improved in the meantime.:(
Could you explain please: what is this new, more complicated theory of light?
This will be in the next posting - it'll give you another chance:).

Yours faithfully
Claude

**I.e. B≠A due to mutual motion, NOT mutual rest.
***In Lorentzian relativity the LC is somehow "caused" by absolute motion, i.e. motion "relative to the universe as a whole".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The new more complicated theory of light - denied by Einstein's beloved "Theoretical Physics" - is this. It is based on the notion of the "quantum ensemble".

The Photon-Doppler-Ensemble: Each and every photon consists of all possible wavelengths of light. The different wavelengths move through space in proportion to their length - the longest wavelengths fastest, the shortest wavelengths slowest.

So I won't insult your intelligence by denying your knowledge of the light spectrum. Now consider a yellow light beam (preferably pure laser light of a single wavelength but an ordinary light source will do). There is a source (S) and detector (D) which are mutually stationary. I represent it thus.

S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D

The yellow arrows indicate the direction of the light, from left to right. The observer at D will find the yellow wavelength of the light and that the light is moving at speed c. Likewise an observer at S will find the light to be yellow and move at c. No surprises here.

Now consider a situation where another observer, R, is receding from S. In this case the light will be
redshifted, as we find in the galactic recession found by Hubble.

S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R >>>

The black arrows to the right of R indicate that R is receding from S.*

The observer at S will of course notice no change in his speed of light nor the fact that the source continues to emit yellow light.

The observer at R will notice that the color of the light from S has
redshifted, yet the light speed as measured by the R observer is still moving at speed c!

So Jerry, I would like YOU to draw for me the situation where yet another observer is approaching S, where the light from S is seen to be
blueshifted. Then tell me how you confront these natural, these experimentally demonstrated contradictions.:)

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Einstein won't save you now!:D:D:D

*We can represent the same situation by making R static wrt the page. There is no plenum, no absolute reference frame. The situation is exactly the same but the black arrows are reversed, showing S receding from R viz:

<<< S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I have already shown that the results there have been massaged and misrepresented by Einsteinian theory.
And I've already answered that the Einsteinian analysis looks OK to me. The researchers have taken into account your concern about factor 2, by saying that the "decay-proneness" of the muons is a physical constant. If it's changing, they say, it's only because of relativistic time dilation.

However, considering the complexity of the experimental design and the admitted difficulties in interpreting the results, I'm willing to grant the possibility that this demonstration of TD should be put aside.

And without necessarily rejecting Einstein, I'm willing to consider alternative theoretical formulations that explain all the experimental data we can agree on.

The reciprocal observations (A>B and A<B) can both be true, because they are from different frames of reference. And as for your conclusions about me, this is what I call brow-beating.

Each and every photon consists of all possible wavelengths of light. The different wavelengths move through space in proportion to their length - the longest wavelengths fastest, the shortest wavelengths slowest.
If this is the case, then what is the difference between a red photon, yellow photon or blue photon? Before I can properly consider your alternative formulation, I need to understand it.

Then tell me how you confront these natural, these experimentally demonstrated contradictions.
Yes indeed, these facts are experimentally demonstrated. The observed redshifts and blueshifts occur while the speed of light remains unchanged. I don't need to draw a picture to see your point about the blue shift.

But as for your allegation that there's a contradiction: how could there possibly be any contradiction contained within experimentally demonstrated reality? You just need to stretch your imagination.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The statement about the TD issue grants more than you did before so is of minor import though a step in the correct direction.:)

I hope you will also remember my qualification above viz.
Claude said:
...we are talking of the actual situation, not superficial appearances or perspectival distortions - which I suspect you may still be caught up in. However I will presume below that you are not referring to mere raw perspective or appearances.
At the simplest level, a FoR merely offers a perspective on whatever action is being observed - superficially, it seems rather like the blind men feeling an elephant and trying to describe it. Each man in his own FoR feels only one part, but when they connect together and combine the descriptions they can piece together the evidence, correctly reconstructing the shape of an elephant:).

However, your highlighted claim above can ONLY BE TRUE if you accept Hugh Everett's "many worlds theory." In his theory - a philosophical fantasy actually - each observer, i.e. A & B in this case, "bud off" into separate (i.e. daughter) universes, one seen from observer A's FoR where A>B, in that B is TD&LC compared to A, and the other separate or daughter universe of B's FoR where A<B, in that A is TD&LC compared to B. The corollary here however is that A and B can never meet up again to compare observations like the blind men could, since A and B are now in daughter universes whose 'facts' (e.g. A>B in one, A<B in the other) become the history of that particular universe, indicating that A and B can never ever contact one another to compare data.:oops:

But with the acceptance of Hugh Everett's fantasy of parallel & daughter universes here, I have polluted the whole conception of truth, since truth can no longer be objective but merely subjective i.e. subject to motion. Nor can the claim be investigated scientifically, since each of us are only in one universe and can never meet up with observers in other mutually moving FoRs. This is the necessary implication of your underlined claim as to "different frames of reference" rendering the "reciprocal observations" (i.e. the mutually exclusive A>B & A<B) true!

Hence in our ONE universe, where perspectives have to be combined to provide an objective answer, Einstein's answer (A>B & A<B) is even less possible than a single elephant with 2 legs and 4 trunks!:D:D:D

Why? Because it is NOT possible in our one universe for A>B and A<B since the individual perspectives of A & B - as clearly implied by SR - cannot be objectively resolved. Rather, they are - and can only ever be:p - avoided through the invocation of Everett's daughter universes, A>B is one, A<B in the other.

Hence the issue is not a mere question of perspective! It is NOT like the blind men feeling an elephant to determine its shape! By using Einstein's BS terminology such as FoR, you are actually implying your belief in parallel-&-daughter universes which essentially render scientific investigation null and void, due to the objective impossibility of A>B and B<A in any one universe. Hence the question now is: which of the two options do you choose?

1) So if you accept Everett's parallel-&-daughter universes I can laugh at you as a foolish fantasist but have to admit the impeccable Einsteinian logic that you claim.

2) If however you continue to claim that the mutually exclusive situations A>B and B<A (in reference to TD&LC) are true in our ONE shared universe, then you have evaded the physical impossibility by merely defining 'truth' subjectively according to Einstein's theoretical and impractical claims and wishes - and thus you would be a typical Einsteinian:confused:)!

I await your answer one way or another.

So now onto the more interesting bit - which, I think you would agree, is much more productive! So you can deal with the next posting first if you like!:)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Claude said:
Each and every photon consists of all possible wavelengths of light. The different wavelengths move through space in proportion to their length - the longest wavelengths fastest, the shortest wavelengths slowest.
If this is the case, then what is the difference between a red photon, yellow photon or blue photon? Before I can properly consider your alternative formulation, I need to understand it.
Good point. A photon does not have an INTRINSIC wavelength (i.e. 'color' in popular parlance). Rather, the wavelength revealed by the photon depends on which of its wavelengths is absorbed by an object moving at speed c relative to it.

IOW only objects moving at speed c relative to a particular wavelength member of a Photon-Doppler-Ensemble can absorb the photon. This is why we always observe light moving at speed c. I.e. no TD&LC but motion projected through* objective space.:)

Wisely too, you admit that you generally agree with #125.
Yes indeed, these facts are experimentally demonstrated. The observed redshifts and blueshifts occur while the speed of light remains unchanged. I don't need to draw a picture to see your point about the blue shift.
Glad to hear it - but don't be too hasty!
But as for your allegation that there's a contradiction: how could there possibly be any contradiction contained within experimentally demonstrated reality? You just need to stretch your imagination.
When I say 'contradiction' here, I am using it in the Marxist sense of 'opposition' or 'puzzle' or 'seemingly incoherent situation', thus not in the sense of 'logical contradiction' as you used the term above.' So the disagreement here is merely a definitional, not a substantial one.

So the question now is to resolve the puzzle. Let us first look at another observer (B) travelling towards S. They are mutually approaching so I could either show S going to the right or observer B (B for blue) moving left (but you see I've chosen the latter - and might have to put up with B-S puns here).

S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B <<<

The result now is three different situations.


S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R >>>
S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D
S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B <<<

What I hope you will see from this is that the wavelength of light observed is proportional ONLY to the mutual motion of source and observer (I.e. Galilean Relativity:)).

The further implication is that the yellow photons seen to be emitted by an observer at S will NOT necessarily be observed as yellow photons, hence photons are not "pre-labelled" with a wavelength.

So I also think you would agree that if B, D and R sent back a yellow light of the same frequency as that emitted by S originally, S would perceive this back-directed light as
blue, yellow and red respectively - i.e. the situations are reciprocal.

So are we agreed? - as Julius Sumner Miller** used to say.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*I.e. not propagated through a medium filling space along the lines of a plenum. This insight was that of Walter Ritz in 1909, but he died before being able to develop his theory against Einstein's BS.
**Born in the USA, he was a strikingly effective physics popularizer on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) television when I was a child. I used to think he was Jewish, only later finding out that he was of entirely Lithuanian origin. See e.g.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=julius+sumner+miller+youtube&mkt=en-au&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&plvar=0&refig=06e037f6794e40f5a3eaa5398981bf34&sp=2&qs=AS&pq=julius+sumner+mill&sk=PRES1AS1&sc=8-18&cvid=06e037f6794e40f5a3eaa5398981bf34&cc=AU&setlang=en-GB&ru=/search?q=julius+sumner+miller+youtube&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-au&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&plvar=0&refig=06e037f6794e40f5a3eaa5398981bf34&sp=2&qs=AS&pq=julius+sumner+mill&sk=PRES1AS1&sc=8-18&cvid=06e037f6794e40f5a3eaa5398981bf34&cc=AU&setlang=en-GB&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=A1DB0A86756020DC6E02A1DB0A86756020DC6E02&FORM=WRVORC
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Concerning the issue of asserting the truth in one universe of the mutually exclusive situations A<B and A>B, it is NOT merely a question of two mutually moving observers but millions of mutually moving observers. Consider a multitude of mutually moving observers: C, D, E etc. Each of these, according to Einstein, are not merely seeing things from a perspective but asserting that what they supposedly see or experience is true. Take for example the average width of the Atlantic Ocean (~4,000km) and the shape of the Earth itself. For observers whizzing about fast, this distance when LC is factored in, could be any distance - depending on the mutual motion of Earth and any one of these observer. Hence the Atlantic Ocean would have no objective width, despite the fact that an observer stationary wrt it would be the one to measure it correctly. But all the observers whizzing about at all sorts of speeds and directions would also find the Earth LCd in all different ways: each of them, according to Einstein, fully entitled to consider merely his own perspective as the absolute truth. A recipe for sectarianism and permanent strife indeed.

Such a situation is thus NOT one conducive to resolving disagreements. Indeed Einstein's TD&LC prevents any objective answer from ever being found at all, since, unlike the blind measuring the elephant, there is NO objective referent which the observers can refer to. Each observer's perspective is reified as the supposed truth since there is NO objective measuring standard for time and space to give an exact answer - only the subjectivist mathematical schlock called "spacetime intervals". And this is exactly how the Freemasonic Judaeo-Christians want it - everyone permanently confused and forced to accept provisional answers only, many tiring of this Einstein engendered BS and turning to religion instead. Hence the English physicist Polkinghorne who, under the influence of Einstein's teachings, went from being a physicist to an Anglican minister. Another good example is Barry Setterfield, your ex-Australian ex-Eugenean*, who merely used EInsteinism to boost his creationist outlook - since there is only a matter of degree, not a matter of kind between the 14,000,000,000 Big Bang creationism and the Christian 6,000 year creationism:D.

The infinite universe of Galileo and Chinese philosophy is instead something totally removed from modernist Western prejudices.

This is why the question of objectivity, i.e. of the impossibility of A<B and A>B, A<C and A>C etc. ... when one applies Einsteinian TD&DC to a given situation, is of fundamental importance to providing a proper philosophical grounding to science. You will reply that most scientists accept this situation: I reply that this is exactly why modern science is getting nowhere e.g. failing to solve the energy question while ratcheting up to WW3.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*He apparently lives in Grants Pass, Oregon today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Each of these, according to Einstein, are not merely seeing things from a perspective but asserting that what they supposedly see or experience is true.
I can only hold this in my mind, by imagining that the "true" measurement is the one taken by each observer in their own frame of reference. All those other measurements, I take to be erroneous, in the sense that they are manifestations of a systematic measurement bias that's built into the nature of motion in the universe.

Now, I do assert that the measurement I make is true in my own frame of reference. But I can also calculate what the measurement would be, in the other observer's frame. While I know that my measurement is erroneous in the other's frame, it's the best measurement that my own instrument can make. What saves this from being contradictory, is that we all agree that our observations are going to be systematically varying depending on relative motion.

Such a situation is thus NOT one conducive to resolving disagreements.
On the contrary, doesn't the situation permit disagreements to be resolved, simply by acknowledging the objective difference between frames of reference?

Have I been caught in an Einsteinian heresy, and therefore become a Badleyan without knowing it?

A photon does not have an INTRINSIC wavelength (i.e. 'color' in popular parlance). Rather, the wavelength revealed by the photon depends on which of its wavelengths is absorbed by an object moving at speed c relative to it.
So you are saying that the observed wavelength is a property of the object absorbing it? You do agree that all objects are always found to be moving at a fixed velocity |c| relative to all photons, although the direction of relative motion is variable for each photon?
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I mentioned a whole series of observers, each in mutual motion: A, B, C, D, E etc. Each of these, according to Einstein, are not merely seeing things from a perspective but asserting that what they supposedly see or experience is true (I.e. truth = raw observational data from one perspective alone:rolleyes:).

Your reply to my scenario above is perhaps the most extraordinary thing I have ever read, but also incredibly revealing to me...o_O
I can only hold this in my mind, by imagining that the "true" measurement is the one taken by each observer in their [i.e. each one's - CB] own frame of reference. All those other measurements, I take to be erroneous, in the sense that they are manifestations of a systematic measurement bias that's built into the nature of motion in the universe.
...because it reveals to me your 'automatic' inner thought processes, and the possibility of a workable solution as you gain insight into your own 'automatic' thought processes!:)

IOW your underlined and bolded statements merely claim that each egoistical observer sees the "true" measurement whereas everyone else's measurements are in error as they "are manifestations of systematic measurement bias!!!!!!" :eek:And you really expect that revealing piece of solipsistic egotism* (invoking Max Stirner) to lead to a harmonious objective treatment of the varied observers' data????:rolleyes:

Now you go on to present how to combine measurements taken by different observers - each at different velocities such as that seen by A, B, C etc.
Now, I do assert that the measurement I make is true in my own frame of reference. But I can also calculate what the measurement would be, in the other observer's frame.
You could NOT do this if you were one of the blind men feeling an elephant since the nature of the elephant is not a given (so cannot be calculated), but the object requiring multiple explorations by multiple blind men. When you write of calculating "what the measurement would be in the other observer's frame, you are thinking of SR-based calculations in Einstein's relativity or objective calculations in Galilean relativity.
While I know that my measurement is erroneous in the other's frame, it's the best measurement that my own instrument can make.
In Galilean relativity your measurement is NOT erroneous in the other's frame. Rather, it is merely different but objectively different.

The Galilean Situation: If Richard drives past your JerryRussell cop car standing on the side of the road in a car moving at 100km per hour - in a 100km/hr speed zone - you conclude that he is not speeding. But if I am driving in the other direction at 20km/hour as Richard passes, then tell you that my Doppler radar in my car shows that he raced past me at 120km/hour, I am wrong if I then assert to you that Richard was speeding, since you will only laugh at me as you understand the real situation, saying that the 120km/hr was only our relative motion and that Richard was going at 100km/hour relative to the road. Joe comes along in his vehicle behind me, going at 100km/hour. He sees me approaching him at 80km/hr and Richard passing him at 200km/hour. We can all meet up afterwards and correlate our measurements and find that our speed measurements agree!:)

This situation is not the case with Einsteinian relativity however. This is because there is mutual TD&LC with relative motion, rendering the situation objectively unresolvable.

What saves this from being contradictory, is that we all agree that our observations are going to be systematically varying depending on relative motion.
No, there is no systematic variation! So what you write in your first quoted comment in this post (#130) can now be applied to Richard and I passing by in our cars. Since TD&LC are to apply to the speeding cars, Richard and I will each claim that the other's car is length-contracted, a physical impossibility.

The Einsteinian Situation: This physical impossibility cannot be resolved in Einsteinian relativity, because as you say in the first quotation "the 'true' measurement is the one taken by each observer in their [i.e. each one's - CB] own frame of reference. All those other measurements, I take to be erroneous" hence Richard will claim his measurement to be true and I will claim my measurement to be true - and the two of us disagree i.e. A>B and B<A, a physical impossiblity. Therefore we will NOT, repeat NOT, agree on the mutual length contractions of our cars at the time when we (Richard & I) sped past in our cars! This is because there is NO objective measuring standard for the length contractions of the two passing cars.

Therefore, Jerry, you are merely hoping to enjoy yourself as you watch Richard and I, victims of Einsteinian measurement claims, mutually assert that the other's car was length contracted, yelling at each other along standard American sitcom lines. The situation is rendered still worse by Joe coming up behind me in his car going at 100km/hour. According to Joe, now also an Einsteinian victim of LC, the length contraction of my car was not as great as Richard' car since Richard's car was moving faster relative to Joe than mine was.

Once again there can be no agreement as there is no objective situation, no objective meausrements as to whose car was actually LCd and by how much! Hence:
On the contrary, doesn't the situation permit disagreements to be resolved, simply by acknowledging the objective difference between frames of reference?
No it does not, since the disagreements and the extent of the disagreements remain entirely subjective, entirely observer dependent, such that NOTHING can be objectively resolved, especially when more drivers at different speeds turn up and add their arguments as well - all building up into a collective road rage - since all the LC measurements for each observer A, B, C, etc. will be both different and mutually and collectively unresolvable.:D

IOW you are using the underlined term 'objective' as meaning merely 'intersubjective' (like Sir Karl Popper does), i.e. the (hopeful) agreement between a mass of people rather than an external and thus objective standard for judgment. The contrast could hardly be greater.
Have I been caught in an Einsteinian heresy, and therefore become a Badleyan without knowing it?
Well if you arrest us all for road rage and apply Einsteinian standards in court to convict us all you will certainly be applying Einsteinian principles. But in the end it will turn out badly for you, as even Joe himself might now realize!

(I'll treat the last question in post #130 separately as it refers to the Photon-Doppler-Ensemble)

Yours faithfully
Claude

* I mean these underlying words seriously Jerry. I did not include them as a comical exaggeration.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Richard will claim his measurement to be true and I will claim my measurement to be true - and the two of us disagree i.e. A>B and B<A, a physical impossiblity.
I am trying to argue as an Einsteinian would, even though I am no Einstein.

According to the doctrine, Richard and I would both agree as to our relative velocity, am I correct? Therefore, couldn't I predict exactly what Richard would think the length of his car is, based on our relative velocities, and my own measurement of his car's dimensions? Likewise, couldn't Richard measure my car's relative velocity and apparent length, and apply the Lorentz equations to determine the length of my car as I would measure with my own yardstick?

If Richard and I equipped our vehicles with CB radios, wouldn't we be able to compare notes, and agree on all four length measures? The only cause of road rage would be when Claude Badley, a non Einsteinian, speeds by and harasses poor Richard and I. "Why are you two driving around in shrunken cars?" he says. "Have you had your heads shrunk too?" He laughs as he passes out of sight, little knowing that actually it's his head that has grown disproportionately.

If I am guilty here of a *solipsism, perhaps it is in my misunderstanding of what the one and only Einstein would actually have to say about this?
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I'm really pleasantly surprised at your reply, Jerry, since you now demonstrate to me that you are beginning to wake up to the Einsteinian fraud! I had written::)
Claude said:
Richard will claim his measurement [of LC] to be true and I will claim my measurement [of LC] to be true - and the two of us disagree i.e. A>B and B<A, a physical impossibility.
I am trying to argue as an Einsteinian would, even though I am no Einstein.
A great start indeed!:cool:
According to the doctrine, Richard and I would both agree as to our relative velocity, am I correct?
When Einstein puts forth his arguments he begins with certain conditions and assertions. That Richard (moving at 100km/hr) and yourself (stationary cop) are moving relatively at 100km/hr I take to be part of the "initial conditions and assertions" hence you would indeed agree on your relative velocity.
Therefore, couldn't I predict exactly what Richard would think the length of his car is, based on our relative velocities, and my own measurement of his car's dimensions?
Based on relative velocities, when Einsteinian principles are applied, you could indeed predict that Richard's car would be LCd compared to yours, and quantify the prediction thru the LTs. However Richard would be able to do the same.
Likewise, couldn't Richard measure my car's relative velocity and apparent length, and apply the Lorentz equations to determine the length of my car as I would measure with my own yardstick?
Very true - but he will find your car contracted (LCd) relative to his, whereas you will find his car contracted (LCd) compared to yours, when you are mutually moving at e.g. 100km/hour. If however your two cars were mutually at rest they would be the same length - (I give this stipulation to simplify the issue so that we don't divert onto the silly issue of one person's car originally being longer than the other when both are at rest mutually.)

But now you bring up the far more important issue of communication between different observers with different experimental results - the equivalent of the blind men meeting up afterwards to work out the shape of the elephant.:cool:
If Richard and I equipped our vehicles with CB radios, [:) : excellent suggestion - CB] wouldn't we be able to compare notes, and agree on all four length measures?
Well, you could ONLY agree to disagree about this at the moment in question - when Richard passed you at 100km/hr: i.e. he found your car to be LCd, while you found his car to be LCd by the same amount. You could then only agree that each of you found the other's vehicle to be LCd by the same amount.
The only cause of road rage would be when Claude Badley, a non-Einsteinian, speeds by and harasses poor Richard and I. "Why are you two driving around in shrunken cars?" he says. "Have you had your heads shrunk too?" He laughs as he passes out of sight, little knowing that actually it's his head that has grown disproportionately.
You are guilty here only of comic naivety.
If I am guilty here of a *solipsism, perhaps it is in my misunderstanding of what the one and only Einstein would actually have to say about this?
Einstein would say NOTHING about this, as he would wish to retain you as a believer. He does NOT want you to consider the issues more deeply.

So let us consider what Joe sees, driving by at 100km/hr in the opposite direction to Richard, at the very same moment that Richard passes your stopped cop car! Joe finds your car moderately length contracted (100 km/hr) but Richard's moving car (200 km/hr relative to Joe) severely length contracted. Hence for the very same situation, Joe finds experimental results that fundamentally disagree with both yours and Richard's. Hence, given your Einsteinian logic, shared by Richard and Joe, you would end up arguing over the CB radio as to whose car was shorter and by how much - and the three of you could never agree, since the equal mutual LCs seen by you and Richard of one another is flatly denied by Joe's evidence!:D:D:D

You don't have to believe Joe, of course. You could regard his work as one of "those other measurements [that] I take to be erroneous" (#130 first paragraph); you could then e.g. accuse him of Alzheimer's senility, arrogance, pollution of his reason by either residual Catholicism or Original Sin, or being demonically possessed by the spirit of EMJ etc. etc. among other calumnies. Rather however, Joe, like yourself and Richard, is merely honestly applying what the Einsteinian teachings tell him MUST be the case.

Hence, the application of Einstein to this simple everyday situation leads to NO objective results at all. There is no combination or interpretation of the differing experimental results to work out what happened objectively concerning length contraction - unlike the blind men who could combine their evidence consistently to establish the shape of an elephant. The reason here is not the corruption of all observers other than the solipsistic ego; rather, it is the essential perversity of the underlying theory, Einstein's relativity itself, specifically its intellectual twin towers - TD & LC!

And to think, Jerry, you Richard and Joe, you're knocking Einstein's twin towers down with mere cars, mere automobiles - we didn't even need aeroplanes, let alone spaceships!;)

Yours faithfully
Claude

* See post #109ff. for the details.

PS: When you read this you will now understand the prima facie case for Einstein's deception. Having accepted the evidence here for Einstein's deceit, I can then show you Einstein's mathematical swindle - in the form of his misrepresentation of the Fizeau Experiment!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You don't have to believe Joe, of course.
But, the paradox can be resolved very simply by placing my full trust in Joe's measurements!

In the situation where Richard and I were comparing notes, we needed to construct a matrix with four entries to contain our results: my car length as measured by me, my car length measured by Richard, Richard's car length as measured by me, and Richard's car length as measured by Richard. With the stipulation that both cars are the same length, the two entries on the diagonal of the matrix are the same. And since our mutual velocities are the same, the other two entries are also the same: the matrix is symmetric.

With Joe joining the car rally, we now need a three-by-three matrix with nine elements. If our stipulation is that Joe is also driving the same model of car (which is not true since he bought a Tesla, but I digress) then the matrix would again have the same value entered for all items on the diagonal, and the off-diagonal entries would be symmetric.

If we all call in our measurements to C.B. on the CB, he should have no trouble filling all the entries in the table. Or for that matter, Joe and Richard and I should each have the necessary information, either by direct observation or by applying the Lorentz transformation using the appropriate relative velocities.

This is the beauty of science. We should all be able to agree about the numbers to enter into this three by three matrix, even if Joe and Claude are demonically possessed by the spirits of EMJ and Moussolini respectively.

The Fizeau Experiment!
This should be amusing & educational. I never heard of the Fizeau Experiment. Or if it did get mentioned in my classwork of 40 years ago, I've forgotten all about it.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Your reply is evasive at best.
But, the paradox can be resolved very simply by placing my full trust in Joe's measurements!
No, it is not physically resolved - because Joe's measurements, your measurements and Richard's measurements, when Einsteinian conditions are presumed, contradict one another, indeed refute one another objectively. I.e. LC is NOT an objective fact because it does NOT exist independently of an observer or an observer's motion. The LC is merely subjective.

This is no surprise either since LC is not a proven fact but was merely introduced to explain the negative MMX which was meant to be positive so as to demonstrate the Earth's absolute motion. Einstein's relativity denied absolute motion, therefore Einstein actually removed the justification for LC, but he clung to this BS notion because of its manipulative potential to destroy scientific endeavor - which you demonstrate below.

IOW there is NO positive experimental demonstration of LC (attempts to prove it by using the transverse Doppler Effect are evasions, since LC is meant to work with rectilinear motion, not light motion at an angle. The FACT that LC has not been demonstrated in rectilinear motion, should, along with the demonstration of its logical-paradox-generating implications, remove it entirely (along with TD) from consideration as genuine science.

I.e. what you serve up below is not scientific thinking but mere, though genuine, Einsteinian sophistry - where science is replaced by mathematical matrices.
In the situation where Richard and I were comparing notes, we needed to construct a matrix with four entries to contain our results: my car length as measured by me, my car length measured by Richard, Richard's car length as measured by me, and Richard's car length as measured by Richard. With the stipulation that both cars are the same length, the two entries on the diagonal of the matrix are the same. And since our mutual velocities are the same, the other two entries are also the same: the matrix is symmetric.

With Joe joining the car rally, we now need a three-by-three matrix with nine elements. If our stipulation is that Joe is also driving the same model of car (which is not true since he bought a Tesla, but I digress) then the matrix would again have the same value entered for all items on the diagonal, and the off-diagonal entries would be symmetric.

If we all call in our measurements to C.B. on the CB, he should have no trouble filling all the entries in the table. Or for that matter, Joe and Richard and I should each have the necessary information, either by direct observation or by applying the Lorentz transformation using the appropriate relative velocities.
Well that certainly follows logically from Einsteinian thinking...

This is the beauty of science.
...but for you to label this mathematical BS 'science' is an insult, since the measurement claims are NOT objective, they refute one another, especially as more and more observers from different directions and speeds are added to the "road rage incident". Yes, you can quantify them mathematically, but they do not add up to a physical, an objective situation - they are mere mathematical fantasies that refute one another since they cannot be combined into an objective situation with practical implications.

This is also why I portrayed you as a cop - forcing your own Einsteinian prejudices on passing travellers and justifying it through Einstein-approved matrices etc.

We should all be able to agree about the numbers to enter into this three by three matrix, even if Joe and Claude are demonically possessed by the spirits of EMJ and Moussolini respectively.
That claim is evasive at best, and objectively false. The "numbers to enter" are meant to be observations (or calculations) which refute each other physically! Merely entering them into a matrix hides the loss of objectivity and even more, renders the observations of no use whatsoever for practical science and technology - in fact, exactly the opposite.

Einstein's teaching embody the theologians' perspective; we can see this if we replace the varied LC measurements with individual visions of Jesus - some with a White Jesus, some a Black Jesus, some a female Jesus, including Bearded Lady Jesus, some a transsexual Jesus etc. They continue to accept Jesus as real and the gospels as true - including a male Jesus dying on the cross - such ecumenicalism and broad mindedness yet justifying the continued bigotry and oppression of the theologians' religion! Yet, according to your Einsteinian standards, this religion is scientific, because even though each vision of JC refutes the other, they can be placed in a matrix which accommodates all 'variants' of Jesus' appearance!:D

Hence, if you believe Einstein, you have abandoned genuine science and objectivity altogether. So perhaps my only option left to demonstrate the anti-science nature of Einstein is to reveal his imposture...
This should be amusing & educational. I never heard of the Fizeau Experiment. Or if it did get mentioned in my classwork of 40 years ago, I've forgotten all about it.
...in falsifying his (mathematical) proof for "nothing can travel faster than light." So only 'amusing' huh?:rolleyes:

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Well that certainly follows logically from Einsteinian thinking...
So we are in agreement, that I've correctly stated the Einsteinian view.

In fact, perhaps you were fully aware that these results could be presented in matrix or tabular form? Were you hoping that I would be sufficiently addle-brained to accept your argument that a third vehicle entering the road rally (in addition to the first two) creates irresolvable contradictions? Does that ever work for you?

I'm sure you can now agree that we can add as many cars as we like, simply adding a row and column to our matrix for each new entrant.

That claim is evasive at best, and objectively false. The "numbers to enter" are meant to be observations (or calculations) which refute each other physically! Merely entering them into a matrix hides the loss of objectivity and even more, renders the observations of no use whatsoever for practical science and technology - in fact, exactly the opposite.
??? "objectively false"? I don't see why. Given the relative velocities, the calculation of the matrix is simple, objective and repeatable.

Claude, are you claiming that all the entries in the matrix should be the same? That is, all the measurements should be the same regardless of inertial frame of reference, given that we all are driving the same model of Tesla? If so, then you have your useful data (the "true" length measurement, in stationary frame of reference) and I would merely ask that you be indulgent about the Einsteinian's speculation that the Lorentz transform describes some interesting additional effect, which is encoded in the off-diagonal elements of my matrix.

Please note that as per my concession in post #126 above, I am not insisting that TD has been experimentally verified. But you're trying to convince me that special relativity is wrong because it's somehow logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. So far you haven't demonstrated any problem that can't be fixed by constructing a matrix.

Yet, according to your Einsteinian standards, this religion is scientific, because even though each vision of JC refutes the other, they can be placed in a matrix which accommodates all 'variants' of Jesus' appearance!
A clever analogy, but completely false. We cannot enter just any old arbitrary thing into my nine-entry matrix describing our car rally. Only very specific numerical values are correct and scientifically valid according to the model.

An intriguing point about Jesus, though... given that he or she is a fictional character, there is essentially no limit to the attributes that can be assembled onto the frame. No contradictions are even conceptually possible.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Claude said:
Well that certainly follows logically from Einsteinian thinking...
So we are in agreement, that I've correctly stated the Einsteinian view.
Very definitely true!
In fact, perhaps you were fully aware that these results could be presented in matrix or tabular form?
Aware??? These paradoxical 'results' of applying SR and LC to ordinary driving situations can ONLY be presented in matrix or tabular form - because they are physically impossible so have to presented in a formulaic way to prevent the imposture being revealed - much like the Athenasian Creed or other religious formulas.
Were you hoping that I would be sufficiently addle-brained to accept your argument that a third vehicle entering the road rally (in addition to the first two) creates irresolvable contradictions? Does that ever work for you?
It does not work for me because it creates irresolvable contradictions since the results are physically impossible. If however you view the world ONLY in a mathematical way then all sorts of paradoxical BS are acceptable because you can present them as matrices, tables and trite formulas with about as much scientific relevance as "Hail, Mary, Mother of God".:D
I'm sure you can now agree that we can add as many cars as we like, simply adding a row and column to our matrix for each new entrant.
But that is ONLY a mathematical formulation, ignoring the physical impossibility for one car e.g. yours, demonstrating different degrees of LC depending on which car's observer is looking at it.

Hence I wrote: "That claim is evasive at best, and objectively false. The "numbers to enter" are meant to be observations (or calculations) which refute each other physically! Merely entering them into a matrix hides the loss of objectivity and even more, renders the observations of no use whatsoever for practical science and technology - in fact, exactly the opposite."
??? "objectively false"? I don't see why. Given the relative velocities, the calculation of the matrix is simple, objective and repeatable.
By "objectively false" I mean physically impossible and therefore untrue. You are defining objectivity merely by collective prejudice e.g. a collectivity of Einsteinians decides to present a mathematical matrix rather than accept the fact that the proposed solutions are physically impossible.

What you glaringly demonstrate Jerry is your modern-mindedness, your fundamentally Jewish prejudice of reducing physics - and all of science - to mere mathematics and mathematical speculation. For you (presuming you are a genuine Einsteinian) the physical world does not really exist - since it is entirely reducible to mere mathematical tables.

Claude, are you claiming that all the entries in the matrix should be the same? That is, all the measurements should be the same regardless of inertial frame of reference, given that we all are driving the same model of Tesla?
It is not the entries in the matrix that matter - it is the question of physical objectivity, not the collective subjectivism of Popper-type 'objectivity' as mathematical reductionism. Hence all the Teslas in inertial frames of references (since we have removed accelerational stresses and crashes) will indeed maintain a fixed length irrespective of what external observers see, no matter what their relative velocity.:) Only this constitutes genuine science!
If so, then you have your useful data (the "true" length measurement, in stationary frame of reference)…
No! In all inertial "frames of reference", there is NO privileged stationary frame (i.e. a hidden plenum) since all motion is relative (Galileo). The length of the vehicle does not contract, depending on the velocity of an external observer, contra Einstein. Your claim for 'stationary' is manipulative or merely evasive.

…and I would merely ask that you be indulgent about the Einsteinian's speculation that the Lorentz transform describes some interesting additional effect, which is encoded in the off-diagonal elements of my matrix.
If you treat it only as idle speculation I might indulge it - but I well know that it is not a scientific one because it is physically impossible. It is not "some interesting additional effect" but the result of abstract unphysical entirely mathematical speculation. And you demonstrate that it is entirely mathematical since you are reduced to matrices and tabulations in order to try to present it in an "acceptable" form; one that hides the mutual and collective physical incompatibility, the objective unresolvability of the presumed/deduced Einsteinian "observations".

As an Einsteinian you think ENTIRELY mathematically, discarding the physical world out to oblivion.

Please note that as per my concession in post #126 above, I am not insisting that TD has been experimentally verified. But you're trying to convince me that special relativity is wrong because it's somehow logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. So far you haven't demonstrated any problem that can't be fixed by constructing a matrix.
What you say here in purple bold is quite correct! You can always resolve an Einsteinian logical paradox through a mathematical trick like matrices or tabular formulations. But that is not my point. My point is that the physical world is NOT reducible to mathematics. Mathematics is fundamentally an art NOT a science since it is NOT directly connected to the physical world. That physics (or other sciences) require mathematics does NOT mean that physical impossibilities (e.g. A>B, B<A re TD&LC) are to be subjected to fantastic and unrealistic mathematical formulations in order to render them 'scientifically credible'.

So what I am saying here is that mathematical formulations that overlook physical impossibilities (notably Einstein's relativity and claims for TD&LC) are misrepresentations of science and instead constitute pseudoscience (false scientific theories masquerading as genuine science that are nevertheless popularly believed in), luring millions of otherwise genuine researchers into sterile mathematics-based speculation, hence the rubbish about Black Holes, the Higgs Boson (which gives other particles mass!) and cosmic wormholes etc. etc. that infest scientific journals, including popular ones like New Scientist.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
When I pointed out the multiple Jesus-visions analogy, which "according to your Einsteinian standards", makes this religion scientific, because even though each vision of JC refutes the other, you do not seem to realize that the JC visions too can be placed quantifiably in a matrix which accommodates all 'variants' of Jesus' appearance!

You reply
A clever analogy, but completely false. We cannot enter just any old arbitrary thing into my nine-entry matrix describing our car rally.
Your claim is completely untrue since the visions of Jesus cannot be criticized as false; they are what the participants experienced (being entirely subjective, just like the LC measurements:D:D:D), and thus we CANNOT test them objectively. Therefore we have to quantify things as we are told, including approximations: hence skin color, present or absent beard, eyebrows meeting in the middle or not, color of the robe etc. In that way we can put the Jesus visions into a matrix too, e.g. counting up the number of participants noting a particular feature for Jesus!
Only very specific numerical values are correct and scientifically valid according to the model.
A model does NOT confer scientific validity. The specific numerical values of the LC contradict one another, just like the varied appearances of Jesus. The question is NOT the reliability of Joe Atwill in his car or Mother Mary McTrollop having a vision but the mere recording of what they in their thousands found or claim to find - the mere perspective taken to be "the truth". I also note that your definition of "scientific validity" is merely reducible to abstract numbers divorced from physical conditions that would otherwise render the theory physically impossible (e.g. A>B and A<B)

I.e. the story of Lorentz-Einstein TD&LC is on par with the story of Jesus as a human being, except that, given Ralph Ellis's work on Jesus of Gamala, there is more credible evidence for the latter than for TD&LC.:D
An intriguing point about Jesus, though... given that he or she is a fictional character, there is essentially no limit to the attributes that can be assembled onto the frame. No contradictions are even conceptually possible.
Exactly right, Jerry! There are no limits to the Jesus attributes on the frame or matrix, hence no contradictions are even conceptually possible for the believer. And so exactly the same situation applies to Einstein's Relativity, its observer-motion-dependent LC, and the Einsteinians who believe in it!:cool:

Hence when all is said and done Einstein's relativity is but a religion for atheists and agnostics, people who otherwise have no religion. It abandons objectivity by redefining it as collective subjectivity - agreement among an elite of believers. Like religion, Einsteinism has its priesthood, its dogmas and its sects - but it rules the elites worldwide by accommodating itself to the ordinary religions of all sorts.

...as I detail Einstein's misuse of the Fizeau Experiment his deceit will be revealed.

Begin by seeing posts ##1250-1252 in:

https://www.thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity/5577-relativistic-rolling-wheel-ii-13.html

Over 1,000 posts were removed because the impostures of SR had been revealed by a wayward Einsteinian called 'cincirob'. I ask you to note this now, since this declining Forum - which suppressed anti-Einsteinians like me by banning us - may be taken down once readers here begin broadcasting the evidence against SR.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Before we start, let's be clear. You are saying that Einstein perpetrated a fraud by falsely presenting Fizeau's experimental results? These are serious charges indeed, Mr. Badley. While you are presenting this, please clarify whether you are referring to Fizeau only, or to similar experiments by Martin Hoeck (1868), Michelson & Morley (1886), Franz Harris (1910) and Pieter Zeeman (1915).
Yes, Einstein falsely presents Fizeau's experimental results!

Einstein well knew that Fizeau's experimental work on light in fluid mechanics was the best evidence to date on the speed of light considerations. None of the other researchers mentioned seem to have disproved Fizeau's claims since - especially as Einstein died in 1955, giving him until then plenty of time to review the work of even the latest researcher (Pieter Zeeman of 'Zeeman Effect' fame), and to replace Fizeau's work with something better if Fizeau's claims were erroneous.

So I think we can credit Einstein with some basic gumption there! But it is what he is hiding that is crucial to my argument.

Strangely, The Physics Forum, having banned me back in 2014, forgot to remove my expose of the Fizeau experiment there. Here is the link, but if it becomes popular here they will no doubt take it down. So I am going to give you that link - and you can also read there their vicious and misleading replies, which also reveal that no one had ever noticed Einstein's imposture before.

https://www.thephysicsforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-hypothesis/5527-experiment-fizeau-demonstrates-einsteins-insincerity.html

The Fizeau experiment was used by Einstein to claim that "nothing can travel faster than light". It is dealt with in chapter 13 of RSGT (Relativity: the Special and the General Theory) pp. 38-41 (internet versions put the page numbering in the later 40s).

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I cannot upload the particular chapter of Einstein's RSGR here. Internet versions place the page numbers further on from those indicated above. So here I paste in the whole text. In Fig. 3, the tube (T) with water flowing to the right in it is rendered in dashed lines. There is one footnote, this mathematical footnote obscuring Einstein's deceit until one expresses it correctly!:cool:

Relativity: the Special and the General Theory: chapter XIII



THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES. THE EXPERIMENT OF FIZEAU​



NOW in practice we can move clocks and measuring-rods only with velocities that are small compared with the velocity of light; hence we shall hardly be able to compare the results of the previous section directly with the reality. But, on the other hand, these results must strike you as being very singular, and for that reason I shall now draw another conclusion from the theory, one which can easily be derived from the foregoing considerations, and which has been most elegantly confirmed by experiment.

In Section VI we derived the theorem of the addition of velocities in one direction in the form which also results from the hypotheses of classical mechanics. This theorem can also be deduced readily from the Galilei transformation (Section XI). In place of the man walking inside the carriage, we introduce a point moving relatively to the co-ordinate system K' in accordance with the equation

x' = wt'.

By means of the first and fourth equations of the Galilei transformation we can express x' and t' in terms of x and t, and we then obtain

x = (v + w)t.

This equation expresses nothing else than the law of motion of the point with reference to the system K (of the man with reference to the embankment). We denote this velocity by the symbol W, and we then obtain, as in Section VI,

W = v + w ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….(A)

But we can carry out this consideration just as well on the basis of the theory of relativity. In the equation

x' = wt'

we must then express x' and t' in terms of x and t, making use of the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation. Instead of the equation (A) we then obtain the equation

W = (v + w)/(1 + vw/cc) ………………………………………………………………………………………………..(B)

which corresponds to the theorem of addition for velocities in one direction according to the theory of relativity. The question now arises as to which of these two theorems is the better in accord with experience. On this point we are enlightened by a most important experiment which the brilliant physicist Fizeau performed more than half a century ago, and which has been repeated since then by some of the best experimental physicists, so that there can be no doubt about its result. The experiment is concerned with the following question. Light travels in a motionless liquid with a particular velocity w. How quickly does it travel in the direction of the arrow in the tube T (see the accompanying diagram, Fig. 3) when the liquid above mentioned is flowing through the tube with a velocity v?

Fig. 3

T [tube]​

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v​
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not. The velocity of light relative to the liquid and the velocity of the latter relative to the tube are thus known, and we require the velocity of light relative to the tube.

It is clear that we have the problem of Section VI again before us. The tube plays the part of the railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays the part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K', and finally, the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage, or of the moving point in the present section. If we denote the velocity of the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the Lorentz transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment* decides in favour of equation (B) derived from the theory of relativity, and the agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and most excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity of flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to within one per cent.

Nevertheless we must now draw attention to the fact that a theory of this phenomenon was given by H. A. Lorentz long before the statement of the theory of relativity. This theory was of a purely electrodynamical nature, and was obtained by the use of particular hypotheses as to the electromagnetic structure of matter. This circumstance, however, does not in the least diminish the conclusiveness of the experiment as a crucial test in favour of the theory of relativity, for the electrodynamics of Maxwell-Lorentz, on which the original theory was based, in no way opposes the theory of relativity. Rather has the latter been developed from electrodynamics as an astoundingly simple combination and generalisation of the hypotheses, formerly independent of each other, on which electrodynamics was built.



* Fizeau found W = w+v(1-1/nn), where n = c/w is the index of refraction of the liquid. On the other hand, owing to the smallness of vw/cc as compared with 1, we can replace (B) in the first place by

W = (w+v)(1-vw/cc), ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….(BS)

or to the same order of approximation by w+v(1-1/nn), which agrees with Fizeau’s result.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Rather than having you read the whole chapter from Einstein's RSGT in the last post, I will outline the issue here so as to zero in on Einstein's deceit. The issue concerns firstly the meaning of the mathematical terms and then the comparison of the four equations, A), B) and particularly F) versus BS).

For Galilean relativity, Einstein imagined a person walking forward in a moving train.
The train velocity is w (relative to the platform/railway track).
The person's walking velocity is v (relative to the train).

E.g. if the train moves at 60km/hr and the person walks forward at 5km/hr, he is moving at 65km/hr relative to the railway tracks or platform - the "addition of velocities" used by Galileo.

W is the resulting velocity of the person wrt the platform.

Hence the Galilean equation A):

W = w + v

The Einsteinian (or Lorentzian) equation for motion includes the 'Lorentz contraction' factor to the Galilean equation. Einstein gives this as equation B):

WB = (v + w)/(1 + vw/cc)

The forward slash - / - represents the division sign.

Note that we do not have a superscript function for a square of a number, so for "c squared" I merely write cc etc.:)

Observe here that the Lorentz contraction factor (1 + vw/cc) is a denominator to the Galilean numerator (v + w). It acts to 'reduce' the resulting velocity to <c when the velocities are added, "proving" :rolleyes: Einstein's claims that 'nothing can travel faster than light'. This, equation B), is the given equation that Einstein supplies us with, so I will not quibble with it, irrespective of whether it describes the actual situation or not, since it is NOT experimentally derived, unlike Fizeau's equation!


The situation of light in water or other transparent objects is rather different though analogous, as Fizeau well recognized. There are two factors, analogous to the train and the person walking in the train.:

v - the velocity of water.
w - the speed of light in water (<c).

The speed of light in transparent media such as glass or water is slower than c. This slowed light velocity is termed w, and is a very large number, being only slightly less than c.

From the experimental constraints of that era, it is clear that v is to be a very small number compared to w.

W is the resulting velocity of the light wrt to the tube and laboratory. Fizeau used flowing water, water flowing forward at v and back at -v. As with the split light-beam in the MMX Fizeau passed light thru the forward-flowing tube and the backward-flowing tube, recombining the light to look for an interference pattern indicating the faster movement of the light in forward flowing water and the slower movement of light in backward flowing water.

IOW light is "piggy-backed" by the flowing water, carrying it along or pulling it back.

Now the speed of light in water (w) is proportional to the refractory index of light (n), the equation for the relation being, as Einstein shows in the footnote:

n = c/w.

We need this because, as Einstein notes there, Fizeau expressed his experimental equation as:

WF = w+v(1-1/nn)

We first have to represent Fizeau's equation F), obviously different to the plain Galilean equation, into the same mathematical terms that Einstein uses (i.e. w, v and c). Hence we replace the n in the Fizeau equation with c/w. The result is

WF = w + v(1-ww/cc)

I show this rendition of Fizeau's equation F) larger than normal because we are going to compare this equation to Einstein's modification of equation B).

The form of this equation looks very different to Einstein's equation B), but in the footnote Einstein helpfully provides a modification of equation B). Einstein tells us in the footnote that this modification is of the "same order of approximation" as the Fizeau equation due to the smallness of the factor vw/cc. This modified equation which resembles Fizeau's equation I therefore term Einstein's equation BS), this equation also highlighted.

WBS = (w + v)(1-vw/cc)

In order to compare the two equations, WF & WBS, we have to factor them out of their bracketed form into separate added terms in order to reveal the difference between them. (I presume here Jerry that you know algebra well, since I'm sure the massive degradation of even the US school curriculum had not quite begun before you left college:D:p).

For the experimentally-derived Fizeau equation F) we find three separate terms (one negative):

WF = w + v - vww/cc

For the mathematically concocted Einstein equation BS) however we find four separate terms (and two negative):

WBS = w + v - vww/cc - vvw/cc

The first three terms are identical to that of Fizeau's equation B), but Einstein's BS) equation has a further term, highlighted and reddened here.

But is this term of significance?

The term w is usually about 90% of the speed of light (c), whereas the velocity of water (v) in Fizeau's experiments had a very small value. However, future experiments in outer space will be able to use fast moving solid materials and gases at very high speeds.

When we consider that reciprocal mass ejections from galaxies can move at >0.5c relative to the galaxy itself, we know that such speeds can be attained for moving fluids and solids. Hence not only would w be 0.9c in the equations, but v too will be extremely fast compared to laboratory conditions on earth.

Mathematically, this too means that c will be unity so won't appear in the solution to the equations as a confounding influence. So for fast v, unattainable by Fizeau, let us see whether the Fizeau and Einstein equations make different predictions!

So let us try v = 0.9c. Does the Fizeau equation deny a final velocity for light greater than c relative to the light's source? This will only be the case if the equation's answer is >1 since =1 means speed c only.

According to Einstein's equation BS):

WBS = 0.9 + 0.9 - 0.9×0.9×0.9 - 0.9×0.9×0.9 = 1.8 - 0.729 - 0.729 = <0.5

Therefore even at fast w and v, the light speed is not greater than c relative to the source.
This is also the case with Einstein's original equation B):

WB = (v + w)/(1 + vw/cc) = 1.8/(1 + 0.9×0.9) = 1.8/1.81 = 1

But according to Fizeau's experimentally-derived equation F):

WF = w + v - vww/cc = 0.9 + 0.9 - 0.9×0.9×0.9 = 1.8 - 0.729 = >1

Hence for high v with high w we predict experimentally, from Fizeau's equation, that light, piggy-backed by transparent media (whether fluid or solid) can indeed travel faster than c relative to its source. I.e. we find the exact opposite of the mathematized theoretical BS that Einstein claims - since Einstein has falsified the evidence by replacing the genuine experimental equation with HIS OWN BS equations: - i.e. equations B) and BS)!

Furthermore I take this to be definitive proof of Einstein's deceit and fraud. He knew what he was doing - and chuckled within himself as the idiot-scientists and mass media fell to their knees in adoration, especially in 1919 in the wake of the horrors of WW1.

And, Jerry, are you too going to keep falling to your knees in adulation before Einstein?

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley indeed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Einsteinian relativism lording his superior vision of the universe and so express your blissful hope for the Return of Jesu... oops... I meant to say... cosmic wormholes and spacetime warps for mankind to use to escape this miserable polluted Earth and its collapsing environment.
Speaking merely for myself, I must confess, that regardless of whether Einstein was right or wrong, or cosmic wormholes and spacetime warps truly exist or not, I am guilty of gross procrastination, in not having prepared any immediate escape plan from "this miserable polluted Earth and its collapsing environment", unless ("God" forbid), I am prematurely "Raptured" (culled) by the "clothed with the Sun" Coronavirus, Indeed!
 
Top