Discussion:
Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument
Pentcho Valev
2018-02-02 11:15:38 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein "borrowed" the false constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations, redefined it as "postulate", and finally derived, for the gullible world, the Lorentz equations from the postulate (reverse engineering):

Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. Einstein's second sin was an invalid deduction. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The conclusion

"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous but idiotic "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late - the gullible world was already irreversibly brainwashed:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

Pentcho Valev
Ed Lake
2018-02-02 15:32:55 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Pentcho Valev
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev totally misunderstands Einstein AND time dilation. Pentcho writes:

----quote----
The conclusion

"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
---- unquote -----

Einstein is correct, and he has been confirmed to be correct by many experiments. The clock that moves shows less time has passed than the clock that did not move. It's called "velocity time dilation."

Pentcho Valev's "conclusions" are INCORRECT. His "conclusions" assume that all movement is reciprocal. It's not. All movement is relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred. So, relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, Clock A moved and Clock B did not move.

Pentcho Valev also misunderstands relativity. Relativity says that within Clock-A's "frame of reference," everything seems normal. Time seems to tick at at its normal rate. And the same with Clock-B in its "frame of reference." Everything seems normal, and time seems to tick at its normal rate. BUT, if you compare the length of a second in one frame versus the other, Clock-A's frame of reference has a longer "second" because it moved. Time slows down when you are moving.

In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while turning in place.

There's an interesting article at this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.html

Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate. Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph. London is moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph. However, no one in London realizes that their clocks are ticking faster than clocks in Miami. Everything in their frame of reference seems "normal." But, if you COMPARE one frame to the other, you will see that the clock in Miami is ticking slower than the clock in London (by a few trillionths of a second).

Pentcho Valev's ridiculous argument claims that from Miami's point of view, London is moving slower, and from London's point of view, Miami is moving slower. That is ABSURD. How can that be possible on a spinning globe?

Movement is NOT RECIPROCAL. Therefore time dilation is NOT RECIPROCAL.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-02 17:06:20 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Pentcho Valev
Einstein "borrowed" the false constancy of the speed of light from the
Lorentz equations, redefined it as "postulate", and finally derived, for
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the
velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the
stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the
speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased
if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein
states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time,
to the point of despair."
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin.
Einstein's second sin was an invalid deduction. In 1905 he derived, from
his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From
this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A
and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary
system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the
velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which
has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock
moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination
give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B.
In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward
prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST
(asymmetrical time dilation). The famous but idiotic "travel into the
future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means
that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of
the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that
this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards
the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect
practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities
comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the
capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that
a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time)
arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see,
and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of
realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in
a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s
Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as
expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar,
regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work
at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished?
The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to
work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not
only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then
be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it
is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have
been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the
theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects
of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the
clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the
question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the
equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE
Pentcho Valev
----quote----
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has
remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock
moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
---- unquote -----
Einstein is correct, and he has been confirmed to be correct by many
experiments. The clock that moves shows less time has passed than the
clock that did not move. It's called "velocity time dilation."
Pentcho Valev's "conclusions" are INCORRECT. His "conclusions" assume
that all movement is reciprocal. It's not. All movement is relative to
the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred. So, relative to the
point where the Big Bang occurred, Clock A moved and Clock B did not move.
Pentcho Valev also misunderstands relativity. Relativity says that
within Clock-A's "frame of reference," everything seems normal. Time
seems to tick at at its normal rate. And the same with Clock-B in its
"frame of reference." Everything seems normal, and time seems to tick at
its normal rate. BUT, if you compare the length of a second in one frame
versus the other, Clock-A's frame of reference has a longer "second"
because it moved. Time slows down when you are moving.
In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at
the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at
1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing
still while turning in place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.html
Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth
between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different
rate. Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph.
London is moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph.
However, no one in London realizes that their clocks are ticking faster
than clocks in Miami. Everything in their frame of reference seems
"normal." But, if you COMPARE one frame to the other, you will see that
the clock in Miami is ticking slower than the clock in London (by a few
trillionths of a second).
Pentcho Valev's ridiculous argument claims that from Miami's point of
view, London is moving slower, and from London's point of view, Miami is
moving slower. That is ABSURD. How can that be possible on a spinning globe?
Movement is NOT RECIPROCAL. Therefore time dilation is NOT RECIPROCAL.
Ed
Ed, you know for a fact that your stints here are brief and ill-fated. You
always leave in an angry huff when you get cascades of responses pointing
out how uneducated and uninformed you are, and how foolish it is to do
“amateur thinkin’ “ in your own personal vacuum and a pile of crappy
internet resources you do not comprehend.

So why do you do this cycle over and over again? Is it because you get
lonely talking to yourself and end up craving interaction, even if it’s
abusive?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Steve BH
2018-02-02 17:27:18 UTC
Raw Message
“In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while turning in place.”

Einstein got this one wrong, and realized why later.

At sea level water flows to an equal level of gravitational minus centrifugal potential called the “geoid.” On the geoid clocks all go the same rate, as equatorial bulge lifts moving clocks out of the g field by just enough to compensate for their rotational speed.

Clocks on the geoid all go slower than clocks in interplanetary space. And clocks above sea level have an offset between these extremes. Clocks at elevation thus must offset before the contribute to global atomic time.

Clocks in orbit also must compensate for both motion and g potential, which cancel (with respect to geoid) at a distance of 1.5 Earth radii but not below or above that orbit. GOS clock are at 4.2 radio so the higher potential wins in their offset compared to sea level.
Ed Lake
2018-02-02 17:49:00 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
“In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while turning in place.”
Einstein got this one wrong, and realized why later.
At sea level water flows to an equal level of gravitational minus centrifugal potential called the “geoid.” On the geoid clocks all go the same rate, as equatorial bulge lifts moving clocks out of the g field by just enough to compensate for their rotational speed.
Clocks on the geoid all go slower than clocks in interplanetary space. And clocks above sea level have an offset between these extremes. Clocks at elevation thus must offset before the contribute to global atomic time.
Clocks in orbit also must compensate for both motion and g potential, which cancel (with respect to geoid) at a distance of 1.5 Earth radii but not below or above that orbit. GOS clock are at 4.2 radio so the higher potential wins in their offset compared to sea level.
That's missing the point. Einstein was correct IN THEORY, but he was off in practice because the earth is not a perfect sphere.

Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?

BTW, I found the source for the map. http://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/post/74287163429/have-you-ever-wondered-how-fast-you-are-spinning

Looking at a much larger and clearer map, it shows Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650 mph. Do you deny those speeds? Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different lengths for their seconds?

Ed
Paul B. Andersen
2018-02-02 18:53:08 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Steve BH
At sea level water flows to an equal level of gravitational minus centrifugal potential called the “geoid.” On the geoid clocks all go the same rate, as equatorial bulge lifts moving clocks out of the g field by just enough to compensate for their rotational speed.
Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?
BTW, I found the source for the map. http://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/post/74287163429/have-you-ever-wondered-how-fast-you-are-spinning
Looking at a much larger and clearer map, it shows Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650 mph. Do you deny those speeds? Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different lengths for their seconds?
Reading is hard, isn't it? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Tom Roberts
2018-02-02 19:06:51 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Ed Lake
In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the
poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040
miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while
turning in place.
Since 1905 we have learned two relevant facts:
1) The earth is not a perfect sphere (as Einstein implicitly assumed). The
earth is an oblate spheroid, and anywhere on the planet at mean sea
level (i.e. the geoid), clocks will remain in sync.
2) Clocks do NOT "tick faster or slower", they ALWAYS tick at their usual
rate, regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or
where they might be located (e.g. at any gravitational potential). For
a cesium atomic oscillator that rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz, BY DEFINITION.

Note however, that when one COMPARES SIGNALS from clocks that are moving
differently (relative to each other), or are located at different gravitational
potentials, one observes Doppler shift and/or "gravitational time dilation" in
the SIGNALS.

It is manifestly impossible to directly compare such clocks,
one can only compare SIGNALS from them.
Post by Ed Lake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.htm
Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth
Post by Ed Lake
between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate.
Not really -- first: that map shows SPEED RELATIVE TO THE ECI, not "time
ticking", and second: see #2 above. If one always considers clocks at the
altitude of mean sea level (the geoid), then they will all remain in sync, and
one could not claim "ticking at a different rate" (see #2 for why such claims
are always wrong).
Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph. London is
moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph. [...]
You are confused, and do not realize your confusion. Whenever you say "moving",
your MUST say relative to what that motion is measured. Here you apparently are
referencing to the ECI frame.
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein was correct IN THEORY, but he was off in practice because the earth
is not a perfect sphere.
Rather, he was correct in SR, which inherently neglects gravitation. He realized
the error when he understood gravitation much better, and with the advent of GR
we can calculate how signals from such clocks compare; calculations which agree
exquisitely with measurements.
Post by Ed Lake
Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does
it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?
Yes.
Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650
mph. Do you deny those speeds?
No, relative to the ECI.
Post by Ed Lake
Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different
lengths for their seconds?
Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the
second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition.

It also depends on which theory you apply. If you assume SR applies, and
completely neglect gravity, then comparing signals from clocks at those
locations would yield Doppler shifts due to their different motions relative to
the ECI. If you assume GR applies, and compare signals from clocks on the geoid
at those locations, then there will be no Doppler shifts. In practice, of
course, gravity applies.

You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.

Tom Roberts
Frank Weisenberger
2018-02-02 21:36:29 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Tom Roberts
Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate,
and the second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133
hyperfine transition.
It also depends on which theory you apply. If you assume SR applies, and
completely neglect gravity, then comparing signals from clocks at those
locations would yield Doppler shifts due to their different motions
relative to the ECI. If you assume GR applies, and compare signals from
clocks on the geoid at those locations, then there will be no Doppler
shifts. In practice, of course, gravity applies.
You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.
This is nothing. In relativity you are giving me a NAND-gate which is not
a NAND-gate.
Ed Lake
2018-02-02 21:58:23 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the
poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040
miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while
turning in place.
1) The earth is not a perfect sphere (as Einstein implicitly assumed). The
earth is an oblate spheroid, and anywhere on the planet at mean sea
level (i.e. the geoid), clocks will remain in sync.
2) Clocks do NOT "tick faster or slower", they ALWAYS tick at their usual
rate, regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or
where they might be located (e.g. at any gravitational potential). For
a cesium atomic oscillator that rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz, BY DEFINITION.
And, "hz" means "hertz" which is "the SI unit of frequency, equal to one cycle PER SECOND." Which means that if your SECOND is longer because you are moving, you still get 9,192,631,770 Hz, but it is not the same rate you get when you are stationary, even though you get 9,192,631,770 Hz then, too. The length of a SECOND is different, therefore they cycle rates are different. That is what Relativity is all about.
Post by Tom Roberts
Note however, that when one COMPA"RES SIGNALS from clocks that are moving
differently (relative to each other), or are located at different gravitational
potentials, one observes Doppler shift and/or "gravitational time dilation" in
the SIGNALS.
It is manifestly impossible to directly compare such clocks,
one can only compare SIGNALS from them.
And, as usual, all you can do is recite memorized words. You cannot explain what the word "signals" means in that context.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.htm
Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth
Post by Ed Lake
between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate.
Not really -- first: that map shows SPEED RELATIVE TO THE ECI, not "time
ticking", and second: see #2 above. If one always considers clocks at the
altitude of mean sea level (the geoid), then they will all remain in sync, and
one could not claim "ticking at a different rate" (see #2 for why such claims
are always wrong).
Here's what the author says:

------ start quote -----
Though this is an approximation, in an effort to be as accurate as possible, I used the length of a sidereal day (23 hrs, 56 min, 4 sec), which is a full 360° rotation of Earth. Because Earth is an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, I varied the radius as a function of latitude when calculating the tangential speed. The polar radius is 3950 miles and the equatorial radius is 3963 miles; I approximated the radius at other latitudes via a linear interpolation. This has no visible effect on the curve, though. Using the average radius of the earth (3959 miles) as a constant changes the global tangential speeds by <1 mph. Topography of the Earth is equally unimportant for this level of accuracy because the difference between a mountain peak and the bottom of the ocean is trivial compared to the radius of the Earth. If, hypothetically, Mt. Everest’s peak (5.5 miles above datum) and the deepest part of the Mariana Trench (6.8 miles below datum) were both located along the equator, the difference in tangential speed caused by the 12.3 mile elevation difference would only be about 3 mph, or less than a third of a percent of the equator’s 1040 mph tangential speed.
----- end quote ----

The discussion was about MOTION. Pentcho Valev argued

"Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

"Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system. "

Your argument seems to be that all clocks tick at the same rate. So, neither of Valev's conclusions are true.

My point was that Miami moves faster than London as the Earth spins on its axis, and there is no scenario where anyone can argue that someone in Miami sees London as moving faster.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph. London is
moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph. [...]
You are confused, and do not realize your confusion. Whenever you say "moving",
your MUST say relative to what that motion is measured. Here you apparently are
referencing to the ECI frame.
In Einstein's theories, there is no "ECI frame." A person in Miami is in a different "frame of reference" than a person in London.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein was correct IN THEORY, but he was off in practice because the earth
is not a perfect sphere.
Rather, he was correct in SR, which inherently neglects gravitation. He realized
the error when he understood gravitation much better, and with the advent of GR
we can calculate how signals from such clocks compare; calculations which agree
exquisitely with measurements.
Yes, as we've argue before, they do that with GPS satellites. They set the GPS clocks to run 7 microseconds faster per day when they are on Earth, so that when the clocks are in orbit where time moves at a slower rate, the clocks will tick at the SAME rate as clocks on Earth. That 7 microsecond rate is 45 microseconds for GR minus 38 microseconds for SR.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does
it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?
Yes.
Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650
mph. Do you deny those speeds?
No, relative to the ECI.
Post by Ed Lake
Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different
lengths for their seconds?
Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the
second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition.
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass. So, you still get the same number of cycles, but during a SECOND OF A DIFFERENT LENGTH. So, the rate of time is different even though you get the same measurement in both places. As stated before, that is what Relativity is all about.

You've stated your BELIEFS about all this before, even though there are dozens of experiments which show you are WRONG. You have BELIEFS about how all those experiments do not show what the experimenters claim they show - because of some "signals" which you cannot explain.
Post by Tom Roberts
It also depends on which theory you apply. If you assume SR applies, and
completely neglect gravity, then comparing signals from clocks at those
locations would yield Doppler shifts due to their different motions relative to
the ECI. If you assume GR applies, and compare signals from clocks on the geoid
at those locations, then there will be no Doppler shifts. In practice, of
course, gravity applies.
You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.
Tom Roberts
You STILL have not learned anything. I don't pity you. I'm just here to help you understand.

Ed
Dirk Van de moortel
2018-02-02 23:52:19 UTC
Raw Message
[snip to essence]]
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.
Tom Roberts
You STILL have not learned anything. I don't pity you. I'm just
Ed
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
2018-02-04 19:32:04 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Ed Lake
EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.
So you claim.

The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts
Ed Lake
2018-02-04 20:36:48 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.
So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Einstein's First Postulate says that physics experiments performed in a moving spaceship will get the same results as physics experiments in a lab on earth.

However, TIME DILATION makes the length of a second DIFFERENT in the two frames, because a second is longer when aboard a fast moving spaceship.

Therefore, if you COMPARE lengths of a second in the two locations, you will see that while the experiments APPEARED to get the same results, the results were actually DIFFERENT. THAT IS WHAT RELATIVITY IS ALL ABOUT. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand basic physics.

Ed
Python
2018-02-04 20:52:12 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.
So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.
Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.
David Waite
2018-02-04 20:55:13 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.
So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.
Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.
If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
2018-02-04 21:13:04 UTC
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Python
Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.
Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.
If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.
Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.

Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
David Waite
2018-02-04 23:56:55 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
Post by David Waite
Post by Python
Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.
Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.
If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.
Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.
Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
There you go repeating your lie. If ANYONE here could debunk me by doing it we both full well know they WOULD.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-05 02:43:43 UTC
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
Post by David Waite
Post by Python
Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.
Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.
If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.
Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.
Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
There you go repeating your lie. If ANYONE here could debunk me by doing
it we both full well know they WOULD.
Never underestimate the value of not biting bait.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2018-02-04 20:55:48 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.
So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."

What does "usual rate" mean? It has been explained to you many times that the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster because it was farther from the center of the earth. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

But you dismiss this, seemingly arguing that the NIST doesn't know what it is doing because they ignore the "SIGNALS" that you are incapable of explaining.

Ed
Pentcho Valev
2018-02-04 10:23:54 UTC
Raw Message
So in 1905 Einstein concluded that the moving clock runs slower, and this was going to become "the traveling twin remains younger" later. But the conclusion was non sequitur - it didn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The situation was dangerous - at that time scientists were still not brainwashed by the Einsteinian propaganda.

In 1918 Einstein almost admitted the failure of special relativity but informed the scientific community that his general relativity did solve the problem:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

The "homogeneous gravitational field" was an idiotic hoax of course. So idiotic that nowadays most Einsteinians avoid any discussion of it. Yet some do teach it, euphemistically:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

Pentcho Valev
Ed Lake
2018-02-04 15:33:07 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Pentcho Valev
So in 1905 Einstein concluded that the moving clock runs slower, and this was going to become "the traveling twin remains younger" later. But the conclusion was non sequitur - it didn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The situation was dangerous - at that time scientists were still not brainwashed by the Einsteinian propaganda.
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin." http://youtu.be/ERgwVm9qWKA
"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox
John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho,

What you are doing is showing a bunch of screwball misinterpretations of Einstein's theories and blaming the misinterpretations on Einstein.

The exception is the quote about "homogeneous gravitational field" which is from a paper where Einstein IMAGINES A CONVERSATION between a relativist and a critic. So, it isn't really Einstein saying anything. It is an IMAGINARY conversation between two other people.

Every time you quote John D. Norton you are quoting someone who has a SCREWBALL misunderstanding of Einstein's theories.

And the quotes you use above sometimes interpret "running slower" as meaning "a clock running slower than it ran before," and sometimes meaning "a clock running slower than another clock." Those are two VERY DIFFERENT meanings.

Ed