Mathematical Obscurities in Special Relativity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />
Once you learn Einstein's theories
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


He specifically said in the 1905 paper: “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”. This turned out to not be true, and in the 1952 appendix to his 1916 book, he said, “There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.”

The reason why he was so vague about his changes and corrections was because he never wanted to admit that the most vocal early critics of his 1905 theory were right about it being filled with errors.

And I’m aware of what he said about atomic oscillation rates (atomic clocks) slowing down in the same gravity fields where light speed slows down.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br />Einstein ... specifically said in the 1905 paper: “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”. This turned out to not be true<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. When lightspeed is interpreted with Einstein's theory and measured against proper time, it always has velocity c. The fact that other interpretations give a common sense result that the speed varies is irrelevant to the interpretation using Einstein's theory.

As for your point about "empty space", just substitute the word "vacuum" and it all reads as Einstein intended -- in both 1905 and 1952.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The reason why he was so vague about his changes and corrections was because he never wanted to admit that the most vocal early critics of his 1905 theory were right about it being filled with errors.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You should read more of his works. Einstein was always quick to admit error when that was justified. One of his famous quotes was: "Perhaps I did use such a philosophy earlier, and even wrote it, but it is nonsense all the same." - Einstein on Bohr's positivism to Heisenberg in 1926.

Because admitting error is rare for any professional, it is especially unfair that you criticize Einstein for something about which he was actually exemplary.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And I’m aware of what he said about atomic oscillation rates (atomic clocks) slowing down in the same gravity fields where light speed slows down.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then you can appreciate that, when the "slowed" speed of light is measured with a "slowed" clock, it measures the same as in a vacuum with no nearby mass. -|Tom|-

I disagree.

webpages.charter.net/pubmaster/PDF.html

The only option if man is going to reach the Stars in a lifetime is to master both Space and Time. Warp Technology today!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Spacedust</i>
<br />I disagree.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You disagree with what?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The only option if man is going to reach the Stars in a lifetime is to master both Space and Time. Warp Technology today!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm already on record with the published result that the speed of light is no longer a speed limit, and that gravity propagates much faster than light. What more do you want from a pre-warp civilization? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Then you can appreciate that, when the "slowed" speed of light is measured with a "slowed" clock, it measures the same as in a vacuum with no nearby mass. -|Tom|-

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

So if we have a star that is fixed relative to the sun, and if we assume the star’s light is traveling between the star and the sun at c, and if we send a space probe out toward the star at several hundred miles per second, and if we assume the atomic clock aboard the probe is ticking faster than it would on earth, then at what speed is the starlight meeting up with the space probe, and why is the probe seeing a blueshift in the starlight?

And if we have a star in another galaxy that is moving along with that galaxy at several hundred miles per second, what would be the speed of the light relative to the earth when the starlight moving toward us is still traveling though that galaxy?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />

In relativity 101, you will learn the opposite. In Einstein's theories, the velocity addition law is not linear, and has an upper limit of c no matter how many velocities are added or how large each one is.

There are many things that can legitimately be criticized about Einstein's theories. Some are Einstein's "fault" and some were introduced by later relativists. But incorrect inferences arising from not having learned the theories cannot be blamed on Einstein or his followers. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Einstein’s velocity addition and “speed limit” hypothesis came from Lorentz theory. Einstein didn’t invent it, Lorentz did. This is why Lorentz’s 1904 paper was titled, “Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity less than that of Light”. And generally speaking, Lorentz theory was based on the idea that the universe was fixed and the atoms were traveling through a fixed universal ether that put up a resistance to their motion through it.

There is no reason to assume that the high z galaxies are moving right up to the speed of light but not more than the speed of light, relative to us. And if they are moving faster than the speed of light relative to us, how can light speed inside the galaxy be “c” relative to us?

No, he just spoke prematurely when he said all light always travels at “c”, and that started the myth that light is always moving at “c” relative to every observer, all the time, under all circumstances. Light has a speed relative to the area of space through which it is traveling, and when it travels in deep space, it has different relative speeds relative to all bodies it is traveling toward or away from, since those bodies are moving through space in different directions and at different speeds.

A Relativity 101 class will merely propagandize students with the usual SR myths.