RelativityCobblers

Post Reply New Topic

I found this obnoxious article both insulting and unscientific, so it annoys me at several level, and I intend to respond (see below; there will be more objections to follow) but I'd first like for some of you to give it the once over and check the maths, logic and grammar, and let me know of any gaffs. If anyone here has a copy and scanner it would be nice to see the whole thing posted (this guy's a toad) and if anyone wants to proliferate this on other sites, be my guest (I'll be doing AI myself)! For anyone wishing to make their own response:the adress is [email protected]

[Staff writer Graham P. Collins of Scientific American (Sept 04) wrote:

“Everyone wants to get a piece of Einstein. Two of the three most common crackpot missives... concern Einstein... Like cannibals seeking the strength and life spirit of their victims, these misguided amateurs seem to think that by outdoing or disproving Einstein they will acquire his prestige and acclaim. Of course, all that they disprove is their own competence with basic relativity.”]

Actually, I only seek an end to the monumental waste of money the science establishment spends on a fatally flawed theory, and to the cover up that allows this! I may be wrong, so perhaps Collins in his wisdom can explain my error?

As a design engineer who translates frames of reference on a near daily basis, I have no difficulty in understanding how an apparent different perspective of the universally constant velocity of a light beam, between a “static” observer, and an object travelling along the beam, can be eliminated by supposing that the said object shrinks along the axis of motion (by the amount {(c-v)/c}). Nor do I have any difficulty with the same kind of adjustment taking place, should the light beam be travelling in the opposite direction, this time by the object lengthening by {(c+v)/c}. The problem, it seems to me, is how to perceive the effect when said object encounters both beams simultaneously! I'll admit, I don't understand what is meant by the “bending” of a homogeneous 3-D volume, so if Collins would convey his understanding, and explain how it can account for the above object both lengthening and shrinking at the same time, then I'd be very appreciative!

Of course Einstein eliminated this conundrum by assuming that the light beam traversed the path of said object at right angles, thus producing the famous relationship c/ root{c squared - v squared} or, if you prefer La = Lo root {1- v squared/c squared)} [apologies for lack of proper maths notation; just draw the triangle: adjacent = c(observer), opposite = v relative, and hypotenuse = c (object) and it all falls out, c(observer) becoming root {c(object)squared – v squared}] with the solution having options + or -, thus eliminating the inconvenience of having to consider direction of motion, relative to the light beam. Should we not now question how a special case now becomes the universal case? This is not usually considered good science, but lets ignore that for the moment. Let's ignore too that Einstein has understood that the square root relationship is a fundamental property of space, whereas this poor benighted engineer sees it as an artefact of Pythagoras' theorem. Let us simply test it, using the postulates of Special Relativity.

It's axiomatic to the theory that subject and object share the same rules of physics, and so are interchangeable. If so, we should be able to observe the observer from the object's point of view, repeat the maths, and if the theory is valid, arrive at the same relationship; i.e., that from the objects point of view it's the observer that appears to have shrank in length and slowed in time, but wait! If that should turn out to be the case, then what practical application would it have?

Let's do the maths; this time the object observes the light beam traversing it's path, not at right angles, but at a slightly divergent angle of tan -1 of v/c (which is simple trigonometry to a Newtonian engineer, but will Collins have a more sophisticated understanding of spacial geometry which causes the triangle to flip over? An explanation please.). Repeating the previous maths, regrettably, now produces the inverse of the previous solution, which seems to suggest that light speed is not after all universal, but that relative velocity matters! Interestingly, if Occam's razor had been applied to the Michelson Morley results, this would also have been a satisfactory explanation back then!

Ah well, now that I've satisfactorily demonstrated my lack of “competence with basic relativity”, Collins will explain where I've gone wrong?[/i]

Do you have a link to the article in question?

To a magazine? As it's just been released, I doubt it'll be available on the web for some time (at least to non-subscribers) but it may be available on the news stand, and so of interest to anyone who's engaged in the "Relativity" issue. The focus is on Einstein, and issues related to his work (string theory and the like) so it's a good read (albeit infuriating in places).

Here's some more "discussion" on the topic:

http://www.musicmademe.com/asp/viewtopic.php?t=682

Yes, precisely. While I concur that there is an unresolved discrepancy between Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the arguments that you provide are based on simple errors and misconceptions. The math of special relativity is easy to uphold. I am saying this not because I blindly believe the "scientific establishment", but because I derived the equations my own way, when I was trying to understand the theory. While the math is simple, the theory itself is not, and it is not trivial to find the starting point for derivations (there are, in fact, many).

First, the equations that make a basis for special relativity were not invented by Einstein, but by Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz. That's why they are called the Lorentz transformation. The formulae for length contraction and time dilation follow easily from Lorentz transformation.


This discussion assumes that Lorentz transformation is a linear displacement. It is not, in fact it can be said to be "hyperbolic". The invariant of the two-dimensional space-time is ds^2 = dx^2 - dt^2 [^ means power, or superscript]. In 4-dimensional space-time it is ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2. Minus before dt^2 causes it not to be a simple rotation.

The matrix form of Lorentz transformation is shown below. For simplicity I assumed c = 1 (this is without loss to generality). This transformation is from reference frame S to S', and v is speed of S' relative to S.


These equations are for the case when v is pointed along the x-axis of S. In other cases a simple rotation can be perfomed so that v points along the x-axis of S. This is much easier than using the general form of Lorentz transformation (which is of course known).


The object will see both light beams as moving with speed c. This can be easily derived from Lorentz transformation.


I don't understand either. There is no need to introduce the concept of "bending 3D volumes" in order to derive or explain the special relativity.


This is not so. The case of the light beam traversing the path of the moving object at the right angle provides a particularly easy way to derive Lorentz transformation for this special case. That is why it is often cited in books for lay people. However, it should not be considered as anything more than an example. There are many ways to derive Lorentz transformation in a general case. For example, I derived it from four simple postulates (L(v) is transformation matrix, the formulae are for 2D space-time, and c = 1):
1. Transformation inverses to self (with change of sign of v): L^-1(v) = L(-v).
2. Space is isotropic (at least in one dimension): L(v)[x,t]^T = [x',t']^T => L(-v)[-x,t]^T = [-x',t']^T.
3. Speed of light is constant: L(v)[1,1]^T = a[1,1]^T (for some a), or x = t => x' = t' (in other words, [1,1]^T is an eigenvector of L).
4. v is speed of S' relative to S: L(v)[0,1]^T = b[-v,1]^T (for some b), or x = 0 => x' = -vt'.
Lorentz transformation is the solution of the above set of equations. Full derivation is available upon request.


This reasoning is false. Please see above for arguments to the contrary.


Introducing this complication does not prove anything. The problem can be easily reduced to the simpler case, in which movement of the observer along the direction of the light beam is considered, without any loss to soundness of the result. Should you prefer not doing so, the general form of Lorentz transformation is also available.

As a general remark I will add that presence of light beams in not necessary for object's length contraction. This phenomenon is a result of a relative motion of observers. The contraction is not observable by the moving observer on itself, but by the stationary observer on the moving one. Of course, from the reference frame of the moving observer, the moving/stationary roles are reversed (this is my postulate 1).

I do not know how well you are acquainted with physics and linear algebra. Please let me know if you need explanation of concepts or notation.

You'll see my response in full on the previous link (which I hope will be comprehensible, though the submission process screwed up my diagram; when I've time I'll try and come up with a better method to explain).

Basically, it's a case of "garbage in=garbage out", and the people who believe the maths have resolutely failed to tie it in with the mechanics, the geometrical study of which leads inevitably to paradox.

Such erroneous methods are not unsusual, as I witnessed on a nearly weekly basis during my twenty year career in R&D, where my own function was almost exclusively to innovate. I'd watch in amazement when, almost as soon as a technological challenge came up, my colleagues would reach for a manual, extract a seemingly appropriate formula, and apply it with hardly any effort to check the assumptions and ensure it was the right technique to use. As a result they inevitably produced second rate solutions which had to be developed and modified extensively before they could be made to work satisfactorily (if at all).

I never trusted maths as a substitute for thinking, but rather considered things from first principles and ensured I could visualise the events I was aiming to acheive. Only then would I use maths as a tool of verification for something I'd already seen in my mind's eye. It's a somewhat slower process, but then my solutions, when tested, always worked first time.

As one US citizen pointed out, "assumption is the mother of all f*** ups" and it's just as true in science as elsewhere; it doesn't mater how consistent the maths is, if you missapply it, you get wrong answers. The other perrenial problem in high-faluting physics is the extreme difficulty of testing these results, so the mathemetically inclined develop the unfortunate habit of believing that if the maths works, it must be real. My own experience, in a field where results where rigourously tested, proves otherwise.

But surely, the top people are bound to get the message eventually? I doubt it! More likely those who ask such awkward questions rapidly become persona non grata. Look at my own experience; I could and did prove that I knew what I was doing, but now most of those guys who "reached for the manual" are mostly still working, wheras I've not had a proper job for more than ten years.

I doubt it's much different in scientific circles.

This started well, but then fizzled, which is a shame. I remain of the opinion that holding light speed, C, to be a universal constant always leads to paradox. Furthermore, now that photons are known to be particulate in nature (and are generally accepted to be mass less, so why should they be affected by gravity?) there is no need to suppose a velocity determined by the medium which was once assumed to support a light wave. It is probably true that all photons leave their emitters at C, but what if the emitter then accelerates? How can their relative velocities remain unchanged when there is no apparent mechanism by which the changed velocity of the emitter can alter that of the photon (which is long gone)?

The power of consensus never fails to amaze me; as magic has demonstrated, vastly “knowledgeable”, educated and intelligent people somehow lose the ability to challenge “accepted fact”. Isn’t it ironic that Einstein stated that the greatest obstacle to scientific advancement is blind acceptance of authority, and is now that “authority”?

Another example; Lorna Wing’s relabeling of the various issues that make up the alphabet soup (BPD, ADHD, NPD etc.) as “autisms” has no scientific merit whatsoever (she seemed to have no knowledge of the historic meaning of “Autistic”, which was around long before Leo Kanner borrowed from it to make “autism” the label for the condition which he’s best known for studying, and the only condition that merits this label) yet we now have a complete industry of PhDs labouring away as if it’s proven fact! When a load of disparate conditions get stirred up in the same pot, it could be fairly labeled a crock of crud, but in no way does the outcome resemble a spectrum, yet most users of sites like this are determined to stick to that idea, as if it is a matter of pride! Why? Every paper of Wings that I’ve read had in it what should have been a fatal flaw, which should have been thrown out during peer review, but instead she became the “greatest living authority” on “Autism Spectrum Disorders” which is nothing other than a product of her idiot imagination. Until this is all unraveled, and proper labeling restored, there will be nothing useful derived from “Autism” research!

Why bump this 15-year-old thread?

Photons exhibit properties of both particulates and waves, depending on the experiment being performed.

Because of the Mass-Energy Equivalency Principle, E=mc^2. Photons are packets of energy, so gravity affects them.

If the acceleration is toward the direction of propagation, then the wavelength decreases. If the acceleration is away from the direction of propagation, then the wavelength increases. This is known as the Doppler Effect.

Because the Principle of Causality implies that an effect can continue long after the causitive event ceases to exist.

Magic does not exist. What passes for "magic" instead is the skill of the performer and the gullibility of the audience. It's all trickery, nothing more, so there is no reason to challenge it.

Not at all. Part of the Scientific Method involves challenging foregone conclusions -- even the speed of light (a constant in all reference frames) is being tested again and again.

It is a proven fact. Deal with it.

Evidence, please?

What are your credentials? I mean, do you have a PhD in Psychiatry?

How many peer-reviewed papers have you written on the subject? Wing has written eight.

How many books have you written on the subject? Wing has written twelve.

Are you in any way qualified to criticize the work of a life-long professional in the fields of Childhood Developmental Disorders, Autism Spectrum Diagnosis, or Asperger Syndrome? Wing was.

Are you a Knight in the Order of the British Empire, an Honorary Fellow at the University College in London, or a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatry. Wing was.

Did you have something constructive to add to this 15-year old thread, or are you just intent on passing you personal judgment over one of the greatest minds in psychiatry while displaying your general ignorance of scientific principles?

Photons don't care what anyone thinks they "should" do, not even such a genius as Einstein. He hypothesised that they would be behave in this way, and proposed experiments which might confirm or (more importantly) refute this. No observation made thus far has refuted it, and many have confirmed it; therefore the hypothesis stands as theory. Unless you have a more accurate, reliable, and testable hypothesis than his, your speculation is of no value to science.

The same argument holds for much else that you have written. There is no reason to expect that the mechanisms by which the universe works should be comprehensible to any human mind. Scientific theories either reliably predict observations or they do not; that is all (though satisfying our curiosity may be a very nice side-effect!) Since the discrepancy between relativity and quantum mechanics is one of the most active areas of theoretical physics, there are many scientists examining Einstein's theories extremely critically indeed. They would all surely agree that both theories are imperfect; and if they work out what is amiss, I'm sure they'll let us, and the Nobel prize committee, know all about it.

You seem to be under the impression that the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics are merely speculative curiosities of little practical value. I am glad that the technology inspired by them is not affected by anyone's beliefs about what the universe "should" do.

Do you think we've chased him away for another ten years?

^ More likely than that he'll apply Popperian principles to his own hypotheses (if you could call them that) is my working hypothesis!

I wanted to interject on this topic because it is part of one of my special topics that I ponder over and over endlessly. What we know as light energy is not a two dimensional wave. It exists as a three dimensional spiral of two vectors: one vector for the electro portion of energy and the other vector for the magnetic portion of energy. If one looks at it from the side, it would appear as the familiar wave that is discussed in most textbooks. I am not the first to come to this conclusion, but have made strides defining some things with this light model to “correct” String Theory.

The giveaway piece that lead me to this conclusion was in defining the mechanism of both pair production and annihilation. It simply will not work if light was a two dimensional wave. It does work however if it is a three dimensional vector set though. It has always bothered me that no one wanted to question how the mechanism of the two processes occurred.

What specifically gives matter and anti-matter their respective properties is in the particular bending of the light vectors to make up such particles. This also leads to the differences between the two types. Gravity force is the attraction of bent light to other sources of light vectors, be them bent or otherwise. I have been using these concepts to define what the substructure of each type of particle is.

I have found supporting evidence that I am on the right track by reviewing the Richard Feynman diagrams that he left us before he past on. There is a reason why he defined anti-matter particles as matter particles traveling back in time. It matches exactly what I described in my theoretical work, a happy coincidence if I have ever seen one.

Albert Einstein was correct on his Special Theory of Relativity, E = mc^2. But, there is a bit more to add to the equation to get the full relationship that he was after.

Joe “Why bump this 15-year-old thread?” Because it is still the case that no one is answering the specific questions I’ve raised! Simply trotting out the usual orthodoxy doesn’t do this. One respondent thinks I should prove that all these “alphabet soup” conditions are unrelated, but isn’t it more the case that relationships between them should have been proven BEFORE they were assumed to be a “spectrum”? Lorna wing certainly didn’t do this; all her papers I’ve read had what should have been seen as fatal flaws, and should not have passed peer review. She does not seem to be even aware of the historic meaning of “Autistic” (one of those aspects of the psyche which together determines each individuals personality, and has not demonstrated any connexion between it and the rest of the “soup”. Only in Kanner’s studies is this addressed! I am autistic; I do not have autism. If you don’t understand this, you need to study more.

"...Simply trotting out the usual orthodoxy doesn’t do this..."

In order to challenge an orthodoxy, it is necessary first to have a thorough understanding of what it is you are challenging. It is evident from what you wrote about relativity, with which I am extremely familiar, that you don't have that understanding. From what you wrote about Lorna Wing (for example, "all her papers I’ve read had what should have been seen as fatal flaws, and should not have passed peer review"), I suspect the same is true in your understanding of autism research too.

Correction: Nobody is answering your questions in the way you want them to.Correction: I doesn't "do this" for you.Correction: Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have yet to be proven to be related; that is, if they are related at all.Correction: They are being investigated, and by more than just one expert in the field of study.Correction: Yes, she did; and so have many others.Evidence, please?Yet they did pass Peer Review because those peers who reviewed her papers were also experts in the same field of study, which you obviously are not.You do not seem to even be aware of the history of her work.Neither have you."Being Autistic" and "Having Autism" are synonymous, just as "Being Blue-Eyed" and "Having Blue Eyes" are synonymous. If you do not understand this, then you need to study the English Language more.