216 thoughts on “Relatively Speaking”

  1. More from Cahill:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610076.pdf

    It is often assumed that the anisotropy of the speed of light is inconsistent with Special Relativity, that only one or the other can be valid, that they are mutually incompatible. This misunderstanding is very prevalent in the literature of physics, although this conceptual error has been explained [1]. The error is based upon a misunderstanding of how the logic of theoretical physics works, namely the important difference between an if statement, and an if and only if statement. To see how this confusion has arisen we need to recall the history of Special Relativity (SR). In 1905 Einstein deduced the SR formalism by assuming, in part, that the speed of light is invariant for all relatively moving observers, although most importantly one must ask just how that speed is defined or is to be measured. The SR formalism then predicted numerous effects, which have been extensively confirmed by experiments over the last 100 years. However this Einstein derivation was an if statement, and not an if and only if statement. For an if statement, that if A then B, does not imply the truth of A if B is found to be true; only an if and only if statement has that property, and Einstein did not construct such an argument. What this means is that the validity of the various SR effects does not imply that the speed of light must be isotropic. This is actually implicit in the SR formalism itself, for it permits one to use any particular foliation of the 4-dimensional spacetime into a 3-space and a 1-space (for time). Most importantly it does not forbid that one particular foliation be actual. So to analyse the data from gas-mode interferometer experiments we must use the SR effects, and the fringe shifts reveal the preferred frame, an actual 3-space, by revealing the anisotropic speed of light, as Maxwell and Michelson had originally believed. For “modern” resonant-cavityMichelson interferometer experiments we predict no rotation-induced fringe shifts, unless operated in gas-mode. Unfortunately in analysing the data from the vacuum-mode experiments the consequent null effect is misinterpreted, as in [7], to imply the absence of a preferred direction, of absolute motion. But it is absolute motion which causes the dynamical effects of length contractions, time dilations and other relativistic effects, in accord with Lorentzian interpretation of relativistic effects.

    The detection of absolute motion is not incompatible with Lorentz symmetry; the contrary belief was postulated by Einstein, and has persisted for over 100 years, since 1905. So far the experimental evidence is that absolute motion and Lorentz symmetry are real and valid phenomena; absolute motion is motion presumably relative to some substructure to space, whereas Lorentz symmetry parameterises dynamical effects caused by the motion of systems through that substructure. To check Lorentz symmetry we can use vacuum-mode resonant-cavity interferometers, but using gas within the resonant-cavities would enable these devices to detect absolute motion with great precision. As well there are novel wave phenomena that could also be studied, as discussed herein and in [19, 20].

  3. J-Mac: Why do you think I had not considered ALLthe possibilities?

    I didn’t , merely said your explanation was one possibility.

  4. Einstein built the theory of relativity on Maxwell’s equations of Electro dynamics. It is helpful to see how the speed of light is constant independent of reference frame, whether you are going fast or slow.

    https://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=31670&t=speed-of-light-from-maxwells-equations

    It is dependent solely on the values of mu and epsilon in space, not on the observer’s velocity. This of course leads to interesting paradoxes.

    This website explains the d’Alambertian in relation to Maxwell’s equations:

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node48.html

    The link here then shows how the Lorentz transformation is one way to make the d’Alambertian in different reference frames invariant to velocity between the reference frames.

    http://ricardoheras.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/LTDerivation.pdf

    Which then shows the reasonableness of special relativity, and specifically the Lorentz transformation.

    Wow, it’s been a decade since I did the derivation of special relativity from electromagnetism, but that is in outline how it is done. Einstein didn’t come up with this in a vaccum (pun intended).

  5. Special Relativity hinges on the invariance of the speed of light in all inertial frames (those moving with respect to each other). The article linked above says it so beautifully:

    c2 is 1/(mu*epsilon) where mu is the magnetic permeability and epsilon is the electric permittivity of free space. A wave equation is usually of the form that the second derivative with respect to time equals the velocity squared times the second derivative with respect to position (Laplacian in 3-dimension). The above final equations are of the exact form! So we derived wave equations from Maxwell’s equations. The speed of this wave (c in above equation) is the square root of 1/(mu*epsilon).

    Now we have a set of equations for wave propagation with constant speed c. Maxwell’s equations we started with do not say anything about the reference frame. (they were not even expected to describe a wave) Maxwell himself did not postulate that this speed should be constant in all inertial frames. He assumed just one reference frame.

    ….
    To sum up, a wave equation directly follows from Maxwell’s equations and the implied EM wave has constant speed c. The four equations by Maxwell do not state anything about the reference frame. So we cannot get any information about the reference frame from Maxwell’s equations.

    One way to get around the lack of reference frame in Maxwell’s equation is to assume, as Einstein did, whatever reference frame you’re in, Maxwell’s equations will hold true and you’ll measure the speed of light to be the same value whatever reference frame you’re in, but this requires a Lorentz transformation between inertial frames moving at different velocities to each other.

    But Lorentz actually had a rival relativity theory to Einsteins which postulated an Ether.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228333657_Dynamical_3-Space_neo-Lorentz_Relativity

    The major extant relativity theories – Galileo’s Relativity (GaR), Lorentz’s Relativity (LR) and Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR), with the latter much
    celebrated, while the LR is essentially ignored. Indeed it is often incorrectly
    claimed that SR and LR are experimentally indistinguishable. Here we show that
    (i) SR and LR are experimentally distinguishable, (ii) that comparison of gas-mode Michelson interferometer experiments with spacecraft earth-flyby Doppler shift data demonstrate that it is LR that is consistent with the data, while SR is in conflict with the data, (iii) SR is exactly derivable from GaR by means of a mere linear change of space and time coordinates that mixes the Galilean space and time coordinates. So it is GaR and SR that are equivalent.

    Hence the well-known SR relativistic effects are purely coordinate effects, and cannot correspond to the observed relativistic effects. The connections between
    these three relativity theories has become apparent following the discovery that space is an observable dynamical textured system, and that space and time are distinct phenomena, leading to a neo-Lorentz Relativity (nLR). The observed relativistic effects are dynamical consequences of nLR and 3-space. In particular a proper derivation of the Dirac equation from nLR is given, which entails the derivation of the rest mass energy mc^2

  6. Gordon Davisson,

    In what way can a dome, which is moving exactly perpendicular with the ground, have one side touch the ground before another. I am pretty sure there is nothing in relativity which can change the shape of a dome so that its shape can touch a surface at different times.

    This has nothing to do with me understanding the Lorentz transformation, this is just making up any rationalization so that it fit the problem. There may be some answer to my objection, but simply saying, ok, will just change the physical nature of an object, so that it can performs things that are physically impossible, in order that the theory isn’t violated.

    So since you can’t seem to understand the problem, it doesn’t make much sense to accept your answer.

    I mean, you can just as easily claim that the dome has now become the shape of a cupie doll, with an arm missing, so that is how it can be accomplished, but if that is the best explanation science has, I think I will maintain some skepticism.

  7. phoodoo: In what way can a dome, which is moving exactly perpendicular with the ground, have one side touch the ground before another. I am pretty sure there is nothing in relativity which can change the shape of a dome so that its shape can touch a surface at different times.

    You don’t understand the Lorentz transformation then. Check out the bar and ring paradox for the explanation.

  8. phoodoo: but if that is the best explanation science has, I think I will maintain some skepticism.

    Oh? Is that why you are afraid to say if Uri Geller has real PSI powers? Is the best explanation that he’s a fraud or he really does have PSI powers? It’s odd how your skepticism picks and chooses it’s targets.

  9. DNA_Jock: You don’t understand the Lorentz transformation then. Check out the bar and ring paradox for the explanation.

    This doesn’t address my issue at all. If you don’t know the answer, its fine if you just say so, but the Dome is not changing shape. And even if it was, is some part of it changing and another part isn’t? What would cause it to change shape so that only one side of the rim can touch the ground at a time?

    I am sure the reason the thought experiment uses two distinct doors for the tunnels, so that one can always say they move independently. But if the doors physical CANNOT move independently, you can’t just say they do anyway.

  10. OMagain: Oh? Is that why you are afraid to say if Uri Geller has real PSI powers? Is the best explanation that he’s a fraud or he really does have PSI powers? It’s odd how your skepticism picks and chooses it’s targets.

    I have never actually tested Uri Gellers psychic powers. We usually just talk about sports.

    Have you?

  11. phoodoo: This doesn’t address my issue at all.If you don’t know the answer, its fine if you just say so, but the Dome is not changing shape.And even if it was, is some part of it changing and another part isn’t?What would cause it to change shape so that only one side of the rim can touch the ground at a time?

    Yikes. Of course the dome is changing shape: the first thing anyone learns about SR is the Lorentz contraction. Just think about it — if the train didn’t compress, there wouldn’t even be a paradox! The weird thing about your dome (or the ring, in the bar and ring paradox) is that it is rotated in other frames of reference.

    I am sure the reason the thought experiment uses two distinct doors for the tunnels, so that one can always say they move independently.But if the doors physical CANNOT move independently, you can’t just say they do anyway.

    I know that you are sure about that. That’s why I referenced the bar and ring paradox, where there is no door to close, no “one can always say they move independently” issue.
    As Gordon has patiently explained to you, your conceptions about simultaneity are hopelessly wrong. You’re also idealizing the behavior of “rigid” bodies too. Phoodoo, there are lots of things that you are sure about that are, in fact, wrong.

  13. DNA_Jock: Of course the dome is changing shape
    phoodoo: Into what shape?

    Your dome will be Lorentz-transformed. The technical term is “smushed”. Along the direction of its motion relative to the train. As I said before: if it wasn’t, there wouldn’t even be a paradox.

    This has nothing to do with me understanding the Lorentz transformation, …

    No sirree, nothing at all.
    😉

  14. DNA_Jock: Your dome will be Lorentz-transformed. The technical term is “smushed”. Along the direction of its motion relative to the train. As I said before: if it wasn’t, there wouldn’t even be a paradox.

    No sirree, nothing at all.

    How is smushing it relative to the direction the train is coming at it, going to make one side come down on top of the train before the other? The dome is now not symmetrical on the bottom edge according to the train?

    And if smushing did do that, then all you would have to do is have the edge of the dome already halfway on top of the tunnel opening. From the perspective of Sarah it wouldn’t be smushed out of the way, but from the perspective of Adam it would.

    The train can’t be smushed both lengthwise and heightwise. So for one of the twos perspective at least, the tunnel opening is partially blocked.

  15. stcordova: I earlier referenced Maxwell’s equations as implying special relativity.

    They don’t imply relativity.

    Rather, it is Maxwell’s equation, together with many other unstated assumptions, that imply relativity.

  16. phoodoo: How is smushing it relative to the direction the train is coming at it, going to make one side come down on top of the train before the other? The dome is now not symmetrical on the bottom edge according to the train?

    That’s right! Because the dome is smushed along the direction it is approaching the train, it’s bottom edge is no longer parallel to the tracks. Angles (or being parallel) are NOT conserved in Lorentz transformations. But you already knew that, right?

    And if smushing did do that, then all you would have to do is have the edge of the dome already halfway on top of the tunnel opening. From the perspective of Sarah it wouldn’t be smushed out of the way, but from the perspective of Adam it would.

    So if the dome comes down really slowly, then we all agree that Adam gets beheaded. Was that your point?

    The train can’t be smushed both lengthwise and heightwise. So for one of the twos perspective at least, the tunnel opening is partially blocked.

    Of course it can. It gets smushed along the vector of their relative velocities. Sarah sees the train as smushed horizontally. Adam sees the tunnel and the dome as smushed horizontally, and the dome is smushed (a little) vertically, effectively rotating it. Sarah and Adam will agree about how much the dome is smushed vertically. They will disagree dramatically about its horizontal smushing.
    It’s easier to think of Sarah throwing a switch at the midpoint of the tunnel that ‘simultaneously’ triggers flash cameras at each end of the tunnel. The photographs show a train with both ends in the tunnel. Adam says “Why did you wait to trigger the caboose flash?”

  17. It is an interesting historical note that at the heart of Einstein’s Relativity is a formula derived for the Lorentz’s Relativity which was Ether based. Nothwithstanding Cahill’s claim that Lorentz’s Relativity is not the same as Einstein’s Relativity:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

    Aether

    Poincaré wrote in the sense of his conventionalist philosophy in 1889: [A 17] “Whether the ether exists or not matters little – let us leave that to the metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the existence of material objects? That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis; only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless.”

  18. Gordon Davisson: So the faster-than-light causal influences might not even exist.

    If that were true we wouldn’t have the effects of instantaneous entanglement… particles changing their quantum states instantaneously faster than the speed of light…

    Einstein’s theory of general relativity must be and is wrong… and time after time it is inconsistent with the most reliable theory in quantum physics…

    There is just no way to unify both theories unless Einstein’s theory of general relativity is wrong….I makes no sense and the train paradox is a living proof of that….

  19. Neil Rickert,

    Neil,

    I don’t see much of an assumption beyond Maxwell’s equations and the solutions to the differential equations thereof. One of the solutions to Maxwell’s equations are the wave equations (sinusoids), and then there is a constant velocity associated with the sinusoids going through space, that is the speed of light.

    If the speed of light has no reference to velocity of the observer of light and velocity of the source of light, something has to give. The Lorentz transformation is one way to reconcile the velocity of the observer (receiver) and the source (emitter) and still keep the speed of light constant according to Maxwell’s equations. The Lorentz transformation is a nice accounting trick with Maxwell’s equations.

    I’m putting on the table the idea that Lorentz himself suggested which involved an absolute reference frame and ether. Much of the math of Einstein’s version (which is really Lorentz’s math) is retained, but the more classical notions of space and time are preserved… at least that what Cahill asserted, and its something I’m still working through.

    I guess the irony is one of the main proponents of the Ether, Lorentz, is the one whose math is at the heart of Einstein’s special theory.

  20. DNA_Jock,

    You still don’t get it, try to use what imagination you do have.

    Either they both see the bottom of the dome as parallel, or one of them sees one end of the dome lower than the other. In the case of one of them seeing one end of the dome lower than the other, all you have to do it lower it a little before Adam gets to the tunnel. Just enough so part of it blocks the tunnel.

    If one of them sees one end of the dome lower than the other, then that end which is lower is going to hit Adam. For the person who sees the dome as parallel, either both ends, or no ends of the dome are going to hit Adam.

    Either way, these are TWO DIFFERENT outcomes for two different observers.

  21. phoodoo,

    Adam sees the ‘front’ edge of the dome as lower, if and only if it is moving downwards. If it is stationary, then Adam and Sarah will agree on its height at all points, but disagree as to its length. Learn about the Lorentz transformation.

  22. J-mac,

    Cahill has a nice quantum mechanical version of relativity. 🙂 The YECs should love it.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228333657_Dynamical_3-Space_neo-Lorentz_Relativity

    That said, there is a lot about Einsteinian relativity that is worth learning simply from the math, which is beautiful and accords for the most part with many experiments. Cahill identifies where he believes there is experimental evidence against Einstien’s version in favor of the neo-Lorentzian view (which involves Quantum mechanics).

    Much of what Cahill wrote is beyond my reach for the time being, but the math and physics accord with what I’ve learned. A lot of critics of Einstein don’t have basic physics to argue from, but Cahill does.

    I’ve corresponded with Cahill. He seemed like a very kind and scholarly gentleman.

  23. J-Mac,

    There is just no way to unify both theories unless Einstein’s theory is wrong….

    Unless the entanglement is the result of a stimulus equal distant from the two entangled particles.

  24. DNA_Jock:
    phoodoo,

    Adam sees the ‘front’ edge of the dome as lower, if and only if it is moving downwards. If it is stationary, then Adam and Sarah will agree on its height at all points, but disagree as to its length. Learn about the Lorentz transformation.

    You have a very limited imagination.

    Its moving very slowly.

    If Adams head hits the leading edge believing that the dome is tilted so that the leading edge is lower, then that would have a different effect to what Sarah would see, who believes the dome was parallel to the ground at impact.

    The impact would be different. The forces would be different. If it was made of glass it would break differently.

    Learn about imagination.

  25. stcordova: I don’t see much of an assumption beyond Maxwell’s equations and the solutions to the differential equations thereof.

    Maxwell’s equations give the speed of light as a function of the permittivity and permeability of free space. So any implication about the constancy of the speed of light depends on assumptions about the constancy of the permittivity and permeability of free space.

  26. colewd:
    J-Mac,

    Unless the entanglement is the result of a stimulus equal distant from the two entangled particles.

    OK…we are getting somewhere…Elaborate please…

  27. No, phoodoo.
    If Adam hits the leading edge, Sarah and Adam will agree about the height of the leading edge at which contact occurs. They will disagree (to the extent that Adam is still capable…) about the height of the dome at the back of the train when this collision occurs, just as they will disagree about whether the caboose is in the tunnel when the collision occurs.
    Of course, if the dome were moving really slowly, then Adam gets decapitated before he enters the tunnel <ggg>
    Learn about the Lorentz transformation.

  28. Neil,

    It may be worth pointing out, Hertz, who actually gave the first powerful experimental evidence of Maxwell’s equations by making radio waves, thought Maxwell’s made an oversight by not accounting for velocities of transmitter and receiver. So Hertz made his “correction” to Maxwell’s equations. There are a few anti-relativists who have developed alternate theories based on Hertz revision to Maxwell’s equations. There have been alternate versions of electro dynamics, but Maxwell’s equations seem to be the right ones.

  29. Neil Rickert,

    Maxwell’s equations give the speed of light as a function of the permittivity and permeability of free space. So any implication about the constancy of the speed of light depends on assumptions about the constancy of the permittivity and permeability of free space.

    Agreed.

  30. DNA_Jock: about the height of the dome at the back of the train when this collision occurs, just as they will disagree about whether the caboose is in the tunnel when the collision occurs.

    Right, and if you strike a dome on the leading edge with your head, and the back edge is higher, it will deliver a different force, and the glass would break differently, then if the leading edge were parallel with the back edge. Do you know what a glancing blow means?

    Where was the center of gravity relative to the edges at impact.

    Get an imagination.

  31. Cahill gives interesting review of experiments in favor of Lorentzian relativity and against Einsteinian relativity. The experiments were high precision experiments conducted by NASA and JPL, but there were anomalies that were ignored!

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5404.pdf

    He also gives an interesting interpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment and other “clock slowing” experiments.

  33. phoodoo: the glass would break differently

    ROFL
    Forget about Adam, I doubt that Sarah will survive this collision: glancing blow or not, that train is gonna be vaporized.
    Get an imagination, indeed.

  34. stcordova,

    Thanks Sal.

    I believe Cahill is a big fan of quantum foam, which, in my view, is just an more visual expression of dark energy…
    My conclusions have led me to believe that spacetime is an intrinsic property of dark energy…
    However, Cahill believes that quantum foam is an intrinsic property of spacetime…I have not seen neither the equations nor the math to support his views…

  35. DNA_Jock: ROFL
    Forget about Adam, I doubt that Sarah will survive this collision: glancing blow or not, that train is gonna be vaporized.
    Get an imagination, indeed.

    Does the Lorentz transformation depend on people surviving and telling their story?

    Its still two different events, and you haven’t refuted that.

    Sarah is immortal.

  36. Naah, phoodoo, I was just laughing at your supposed forensic skills: from the pattern of broken glass, you were going to distinguish whether the edge of the dome at the back of the train was a foot or two higher than the edge of the dome at the front of the train when the train hit it. At relativistic speed…
    Ballpark estimate, that’s a megaton or so collision. There won’t be any “broken glass”.

    Do you accept that Sarah will view the bottom of your dome as parallel to the tracks, but Adam will not?
    Seriously, read the bar and ring paradox. Educate yourself, for once.

  37. DNA_Jock,

    Do you agree that striking the edge of a dome with a blow that is tangential to the center of mass rather than directly in line with the center of mass is a different event?

    You have tried to come up with all kinds of twisted rationalization for why the events would be the same for both observers, first calling it a simultaneity problem, and then a physical shape one-and I have swatted away each of those objections, by saying simply adjust the thought experiment then.

    Now your latest rationalization is to say, the glass will be impossible to look at….

    Right, and Adam also won’t be traveling at close to the speed of light, you know why…BECAUSE ITS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT YOU IMBECILE! We can’t make people travel at near the speed of light without their brain exploding!

    Maybe yours already has.

  38. You seem like a nice guy, phoodoo, so I’ll help you out:
    The center of gravity of your dome will be ABOVE its edge. Instead, adjust your thought experiment by replacing your dome with a nice thick circular metal ring. Lose the tunnel and the track. Think of the train as a nice solid metal bar.
    The ring and the bar are, from Sarah’s perspective, both horizontal, and the bar would be slightly longer than the diameter of the ring, but (thanks to the Lorentz contraction) Sarah views the bar as smushed, such that it can pass through the ring. (Remember, in the original thought experiment, Sarah sees the train as being totally contained within the tunnel, thanks to its Lorentz contraction).
    The apparent paradox arises because Adam, sitting on the bar, views the RING as smushed into an oval, such that the bar is longer than the ring. How on earth can they agree that the bar can pass through the falling ring? And here comes the weird bit: because the ring is moving downwards, Adam sees it as smushed along the direction of their velocity of approach; he does not see the ring as being horizontal. As he approaches the ring, he sees the nearer edge as being above the further edge, such that the rod, despite being longer than the ring is wide, can shoot through the ring like an arrow.
    Have you read the bar and ring paradox yet?
    If the bar collides with the ring, all hell will break loose, mainly messing with your naive intuitions about rigid bodies, and the Lorentz transformation is insufficient to describe this far messier behavior. (Both ‘rigid’ bodies will start to deform, the ring will accelerate and the bar will deccelerate, by the time the deformation reaches the opposite side of the ring, its CoG will be below the rod, etc. etc. Thank heavens that doesn’t happen…)
    The paradox really is about simultaneity, and is easily resolved by the application of the Lorentz transformation. Or, alternatively, you have proved Einstein wrong, and should start packing your bags for Stockholm.
    Interested in a friendly wager?

    P.S. What on earth makes you think that people cannot travel at relativistic speeds? Care to explain why their brains would explode?

  39. DNA_Jock,

    Yeah yeah, I get it, you would like me to change the thought experiment to YOUR idea, because that would make it much easier for you.

    If you don’t think it matters which angle you hit a dome, you have a problem with your understanding of physics. The center of mass could indeed be above the edge, and it could also be closer to the edge, depending on the materials, and how heavy the edge is. But since you imagination is so limited, you are struggling. You could change the shape of the dome 1000 different ways, to help you understand that if you move the center of mass, upwards, and closer to Adam, the blow becomes more glancing, and less direct. All the weight from the rim is now no longer in line with the blow (have you ever played a sport?) Make it a rod with two weights on each end, do you think it doesn’t matter which angle you strike it? Make the dome out of foam, which way is it going to fly according to Adam and Sarah, the same direction?

    You have no imagination.

    At the end of the day, YOU can not explain it away, you have just shown that. You have tried pathetic rationalizing, because you think you are always the smart guy in the room, so you bloviate about pretty much anything, even when you have no idea. I haven’t claimed to prove Einstein wrong, what I claim is you are the not one who can prove me wrong. I knew full well your final escape would be, “What, you think you are smarter than Einstein!” That’s basically the same defense Gordon tried to use-its right because it is. Its a dumb defense. If that’s all you had, you should have announced that earlier. Instead you talk about Sarah dying, and not being able to tell which direction the glass would fly, because its too fast.

    Its the same reason why you think Weinstein debunked Sheldrake – because you are a skeptic, so you just buy anything you are told. Weinstein never debunked anything.

    You don’t understand the problem any more than I do. Which is fine, but just admit you don’t and that you just accept things on faith, without thinking about them. Like Weinstein.

  41. Just wanted to thank Gordon and Jock for their patient explanations. As I said at the top, Lorentzian transformations are very difficult to grok for us common shmucks–even after repeated attempts. So it’s great to have such cogent explanations. Much appreciated.

  42. DNA_Jock: Ballpark estimate, that’s a megaton or so collision.

    A hundred ton train accelerated close to the speed of light? I’m thinking a collapsing star. At the very least a planetary collision.

    walto: Just wanted to thank Gordon and Jock for their patient explanations. As I said at the top, Lorentzian transformations are very difficult to grok for us common shmucks–even after repeated attempts. So it’s great to have such cogent explanations. Much appreciated.

    Yes I second this motion.

  43. Another food for thought:

    A parked car with headlights on the radar shows the speed of light being 671 000 000 miles per hour.
    But what would happen if the same car traveled at 200 miles per hour? Would the speed of light increase too?

    If not, what happens to spacetime?
    5 min mark:

  44. Here is another reason I believe there must be and absolute reference frame. First off an interesting observation and experiment that apparently confirms Einstein’s version of Relativity, but imho, confirms Lorentz’s version even better:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

    With current technology severely limiting the velocity of space travel, however, the differences experienced in practice are minuscule: after 6 months on the International Space Station (ISS) (which orbits Earth at a speed of about 7,700 m/s[8]) an astronaut would have aged about 0.005 seconds less than those on Earth. The Hafele and Keating experiment involved flying planes around the world with atomic clocks on board. Upon the trips’ completion the clocks were compared to a static, ground based atomic clock. It was found that 273±7 nanoseconds had been gained on the planes’ clocks.[9] The current human time travel record holder is Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev,[10] who beat the previous record of about 20 milliseconds by cosmonaut Sergei Avdeyev.[11]
    ….
    The reciprocity of the phenomenon also leads to the so-called twin paradox where the aging of twins, one staying on Earth and the other embarking on a space travel, is compared, and where the reciprocity suggests that both persons should have the same age when they reunite. The dilemma posed by the paradox, however, can be explained by the fact that one of twins must accelerate while the other remains inertial.

    OK, that last paragraph. Cleary one of the guys accelerates RELATIVE to the other. This then can be extrapolated all the way back to the beginning of everything where something must be accelerating relative some absolute hypothetical zero reference point. That implies an absolute reference frame, hence there is no pure relativity as Einstein Relativity suggests, there is indeed a preferred reference frame that goes all the way back to the beginning, maybe even God himself being the reference from which all things proceed.

    That favors the Lorentz Ether interpretation of relativity and Cahill’s work, which although Cahill is not a YEC, is a YEC-friendly version of Relativity.

  45. stcordova: The Hafele and Keating experiment involved flying planes around the world with atomic clocks on board. Upon the trips’ completion the clocks were compared to a static, ground based atomic clock. It was found that 273±7 nanoseconds had been gained on the planes’ clocks.

    Hahaha. Oh they did did they?

    Congratulations folks, Sal is now officially a skeptic.

    And this, is exactly what is wrong with the state of knowledge in our current information world. Who knew that it would talk Sal to make my point so well for me.

    Thanks Sal.

  46. Rumraket: A hundred ton train accelerated close to the speed of light? I’m thinking a collapsing star. At the very least a planetary collision.

    I was being very conservative – I ballparked a 1000kg train at 0.7c and ignored relativistic effects — from memory, I got about 16 megatons.

  47. Some notes in agreement with Einstein, and some note of disagreement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

    Kinematic time dilation[edit]

    According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many tests of special relativity, such as the Ives–Stilwell experiment and time dilation of moving particles.[1] Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth’s rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.[2]

    Gravitational time dilation[edit]

    General relativity predicts an additional effect, in which an increase in gravitational potential due to altitude speeds the clocks up. That is, clocks at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth’s surface. This effect has been confirmed in many tests of general relativity, such as the Pound–Rebka experiment and Gravity Probe A. In the Hafele–Keating experiment, there was a slight increase in gravitational potential due to altitude that tended to speed the clocks back up. Since the aircraft flew at roughly the same altitude in both directions, this effect was approximately the same for the two planes, but nevertheless it caused a difference in comparison to the clocks on the ground.[2]

    That is the supposed GPS correction! The problem, as Ron Hatch pointed out, is that there have to be additional corrections not accounted by Einstein’s theory.

    Hatch has been a known anti-Einsteinian….

    A couple years back when I was talking with John Sanford about my interferometry experiments related to Cahill, John told me of his meeting with Hatch and Hatch’s membership in the prestigious GPS advisory council where 2 of my former co-workers and one my upper level boss from a half-billion dollar think tank MITRE also were on the GPS council! My jaw dropped. How the heck did Hatch get on board?

    It turns out, Hatch is the author of the famous “Hatch filter”, the blasted GPS won’t work without the Hatch filter. They couldn’t black list him without embarrassing themselves and not to mention not making the GPS work right!

    https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

    This is the advisory board including 2 members from MITRE where I worked 10 years ago.

    https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/

    ◾John Stenbit (Chair), former Assistant Secretary of Defense
    ◾Bradford Parkinson (Vice Chair), Stanford University
    ◾James E. Geringer (Second Vice Chair), Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)
    ◾Thad Allen, Booz Allen Hamilton
    ◾Penina Axelrad, University of Colorado
    ◾John Betz, MITRE
    ◾Dean Brenner, Qualcomm
    ◾Scott Burgett, Garmin International
    ◾Joseph D. Burns, Sensurion Aerospace
    ◾Per K. Enge, Stanford University
    ◾Martin C. Faga, MITRE
    ◾Ronald R. Hatch, consultant to John Deere
    ◾Larry James, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    ◾Peter Marquez, Planetary Resources
    ◾Terence J. McGurn, private consultant (retired CIA)
    ◾Timothy A. Murphy, The Boeing Company
    ◾Ruth Neilan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    ◾T. Russell Shields, Ygomi

    How the heck did a guy without a PhD, was just a radio engineer, an avowed anti-Einsteinian get on the GPS advisory council? HAHAHA! Well, he made a practical contribution to making the dang thing work right in a way not predicted by Einstein’s theory!

    Here is the story of the Hatch filter to Einstein:
    http://www.insidegnss.com/node/451

    On the same website, here is something form Hatch’s bio:
    http://www.insidegnss.com/node/535

    His Compass Points

    • “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” – Proverbs 25:2

    His Namesake Equation
    The “Hatch Filter” is used to smooth the code measurements so that code multipath noise is reduced.

    ….
    Influences of Engineering on His Daily Non-work Life
    Studying and writing about alternatives to Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity in light of discoveries related to GNSS [global navigation satellite systems].

  48. The author is one of the world’s foremost experts on the Global Positioning System and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. His book discusses GPS satellite data that contradicts Einstein’s relativity theories and proposes his own Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) as a replacement for Einstein’s relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory.

  49. Hatch lays out the problem not accounted for by Hafele–Keating experiment that accounts for the Earth’s gravitational potential but not the Moon nor Sun’s! Einstein’s General Relativity should demand such a correction, but what happened?

    [The acronyms used are SRT (Special Relativity Theory of Einstein) and LET (Lorentz Ether Theory of Lorentz and Hatch).]

    http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5789.pdf

    GPS presents us with a different problem. As is reasonably well known, GPS, a navigation satellite system developed by the U.S. Department of Defense, provides a highly accurate means for determining both position and time anywhere on the earth and its vicinity. But GPS clocks (and even earth-bound clocks) present us with a problem that is not well known—and the proposed solutions to that problem are clearly incorrect.

    The GPS clocks do show, as expected, that moving clocks run slower and that clocks also run slower with lower gravitational potential. The GPS clocks are adjusted to run slow before launch into orbit to account for the fact that the earth’s gravitational potential at the nominal orbital height makes them run faster. This faster clock rate is partially offset by the effect of the nominal circular orbital speed of the satellites.

    ….
    SRT cannot explain the missing effect from the sun’s gravitational potential and incorrectly assigns multiple rates to the same clock in the same identical environment. SRT is clearly incorrect. Such a conclusion is, of course, scandalous.

  50. phoodoo: Hahaha.Oh they did did they?

    Congratulations folks, Sal is now officially a skeptic.

    And this, is exactly what is wrong with the state of knowledge in our current information world.Who knew that it would talk Sal to make my point so well for me.

    Thanks Sal.

    You realize phoodoo they have preformed the experiment many times since with equipment which is more accurate and addresses the criticisms of the original experiment.

Leave a Reply