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 Jan</i>
<br />
SR doesn't work on any scale in MM, it is a non-issue. [] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here’s a clue to understanding the secret of the “null” result of the MM experiment:

Had MM run a flag up a flag pole inside their laboratory, the flag would not have waved in an 18.6 mps wind, since it was not moving through the air at 18.6 mps.

<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>
It was done in 2002 with our paper: “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002).

The short story is that nothing (including Sagnac) in the light-speed or slower domain can distinguish the two models, SR and LR. However, something propagating FTL <i>in forward time</i> is impossible in SR but is routine in LR. So our demonstration that gravity propagates FTL in forward time falsifies SR in favor of LR -- a result now published in a major peer-reviewed journal of record. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I will be happy to concede this point to you after you prove it. You can send me a copy of your paper and I will be glad to review it and see if it is as you claim.

SR does not work because it has no “force” being placed on any of the clocks that could make them slow down.

1895 Lorentz theory works with atomic clocks because there is a “force” felt by the atoms when they are forced through fields such as gravity fields. This is generally known as the “Lorentz Force”. Einstein left out the fields and the physical “forces” in his 1905 paper, and that causes the major flaw in the paper, and so he had to add a field to the SR theory in his 1918 paper, and he had to change the mechanical clocks to atomic clocks, and that’s when he turned SR into a form of GR, and so SR literally disappeared from physics in 1918. All we have now is Lorentz theory and GR theory.

I don't follow this argument, although the idea that a force causes time dilation is interesting. I am not at all clear what the 1918 paper refers to. Is this the Naturweiss paper on the clock paradox?
The 1905 paper contains a major blunder. Einstein interpreted clock dial readings improperly as proving that moving clocks run slow. based on this he claimed a clock at the equator ran slow relative to one at the north pole. This is the basis of the idea that moving clocks run slow.

In 1907 Stark suggested that his theory could explain the redshift of canal rays and invited Einstein to write a paper for a journal Stark edited. The result was the famous 1907 paper which is generally overlooked. It presents a revision of the 1905 theory and contains the seeds of general relativity. This paper gives an entirely different result for the equation of time dilation and says that it explains the apparent slowing of moving clocks. This resulted in confusion regarding whether the time dilation was real or apparent. This has never really been cleared up. Some people think the 1905 paper gives the time dilation formula and some think the correct result is only given in the 1907 paper. Still others, such as the comment above, think the correct answer is only given by general relativity.

The result of all this is a confusion in physics texts which has resulted in a lot of confusing and erronous statements. Since Einstein never said which version of his theory, the 1905 version or the 1907 version was correct, it is difficult to determine which interpretation is correct. But some books try to make both versions correct. This has only perpetuated the confusion. The experiments all support the 1905 version, but the theory presented in most books today is the 1907 version. The problem arises because the derivation in the 1905 paper indicates that moving clocks run fast. A result that arises because of the mistake of using dial readings rather than frequency. In the 1907 paper Einstein used frequency to prove that moving clocks run slow, but the proof used the apparent time of the rest observer in a different reference frame. So this result indicated that the moving clock only appears to run slow when viewed from a different rest frame. This is why Einstein dropped his assertion that a clock at the equator runs slow relative to one at the pole when he wrote his 1907 paper.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />In 1907 Stark suggested that his theory could explain the redshift of canal rays and invited Einstein to write a paper for a journal Stark edited. The result was the famous 1907 paper which is generally overlooked. It presents a revision of the 1905 theory and contains the seeds of general relativity. This paper gives an entirely different result for the equation of time dilation and says that it explains the apparent slowing of moving clocks. This resulted in confusion regarding whether the time dilation was real or apparent. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I’ve got both the 1905 and 1907 papers. It seems to me that his equations for “time dilation” are the same. He uses the same ratio of 1 : #8730;1 – v^2/c^2. He also mentions the frequencies in the 1907 paper, but he uses the same equation for their reduction due to motion.

It wasn’t until the 1911 paper when he attributed the slow-down of atomic oscillation rates due to “acceleration”, and also in that same paper he changed all his clocks over to being specifically atomic clocks rather than being mechanical “balance clocks”. This, in effect, is what Lorentz started with in the late 19th Century, atomic clocks and a change in internal atomic oscillation rates when the atoms moved through fields. It was Maxwell, who in 1873, first proposed that oscillating atoms were in fact atomic clocks.

There are two things that are going on in the canal rays experiment. There is a motion of particles through the earth’s fields (Lorentz theory) and an acceleration of the particles (Einstein GR theory). So, we don’t even have to mention SR theory in reference to the canal rays.

The SR theory was a poor attempt to imitate the Lorentz theory, but Einstein left out the fields, whereas Lorentz did not.

The 1918 paper is the Naturweiss paper, in which Einstein added gravity fields and atomic clocks as the only way of eliminating the “clock paradox” of the 1905 SR theory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />You can send me a copy of your paper and I will be glad to review it and see if it is as you claim.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A preprint (prior to being joined by a co-author and prior to peer review) is posted at:
metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp

If you want to see the published version (38 printed pages), I will need either a surface mail address or an email address. This Message Board does not seem to allow me to send an email with an attachment. -|Tom|-

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />
The last dollar disappears. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">30 – 3 = 27

3 x 9 = 27

The 27 results from the subtraction of 3, not the subtraction of 2.

Plus there are 2 dollars left over.

Two men wound up paying $8.33 for the room, and one wound up paying $8.34.

$8.33 + $8.33 + $8.34 = $25

$25 + $5 = $30

Their problem is to divide the $2 up 3 ways, so each will get .66666 cents.

But they can’t do that, so they settle it this way:

Two guys take .67 cents and one guy settles for .66 cents.

SR does not work because it has no “force” being placed on any of the clocks that could make them slow down.

1895 Lorentz theory works with atomic clocks because there is a “force” felt by the atoms when they are forced through fields such as gravity fields. This is generally known as the “Lorentz Force”. Einstein left out the fields and the physical “forces” in his 1905 paper, and that causes the major flaw in the paper, and so he had to add a field to the SR theory in his 1918 paper, and he had to change the mechanical clocks to atomic clocks, and that’s when he turned SR into a form of GR, and so SR literally disappeared from physics in 1918. All we have now is Lorentz theory and GR theory.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Don't mean to get off subject, but this riddle has been used in the MB before and was similarly missolved.

Amount that salemen spent = (10 - 1) * 3 = 27
Amount that innkeeper received = (30 - 5) + 2 = 27

There is no missing dollar.

Mathematical analogies are a tricky business in that they rely somewhat on the skills of audience for proper effect, which is why I avoid them.


JR