A Relativist Beginning a Reasonable Defense of Relativity

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

A Relativist Beginning a Reasonable Defense of Relativity

We have to admit:

1. Parallel lines have not been proven to meet, so the universe and
space are not curved.
2. That space is not curved because it is a vacuum, not a substance.
3. That curved space cannot provide a cause of gravity.
4. We must decide whether to keep both the ether and the LT or discard
both.
5. Einstein never predicted a doubling of the deflection theoretically
because he did not derive it from math or physics.
6. That a doubling would violate the findings of Galileo and Eotvos.
7. That the Newtonian result in Pound-Snider contradicts the doubling of
deflection.
8. There is no equivalence in the equivalence principle, so it is pure
nonsense.
9. That relative motion per se cannot cause all rates of change to
change in unison.
10. You cannot rescue an ad hoc hypothesis with an ad hoc rescue.

Now we are prepared to begin our defense of relativity!

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

11. The relative speed of the observer must be added and subtracted from
the speed of light just as with the speed of sound if we are even to
qualify as rational at all.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
11. The relative speed of the observer must be added and subtracted from
the speed of light just as with the speed of sound if we are even to
qualify as rational at all.

No serious model cares about "relative speed of
observer" and no serious model ever will.

For most of our real activities we use
geocentric model. Heliocentric and ECi are
also important. "Relative speed of observer"
is just another gedanken absurd.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Wozniak: No, I am saying it is like with sound. If you move towards a
stationary ambulance with its siren going, there will be a Doppler shift
because the relative speed of sound will be S + 30 mph. The same is true
of the lightning bolt in the train thought experiment. Einstein denied
this because he did not know what he was talking about.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Wozniak: It is a known fact that the relative motion of the Sun and
Sirius is -5.5 m/sec as they are moving towards each other. It is not
known which is moving towards which. This is known from the frequency of
the light waves. If the Sun is moving towards Sirius, this shortens the
frequency as certainly as Sirius moving towards the Sun. Take just the
case of the Sun moving towards Sirius. Then, the frequency is shorter
because the speed of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 m/sec.

[gharnagel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Wozniak: It is a known fact that the relative motion of the Sun and
Sirius is -5.5 m/sec as they are moving towards each other. It is not
known which is moving towards which.

That's not the total relative motion, that's the radial motion, called
"closing speed." The tangential motion is much larger (~17 km/sec).
Motion is relative so to determine "which is moving" requires specifying
a reference point. The presumed reference point is probably
heliocentric.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This is known from the frequency of the light waves. If the Sun is
moving towards Sirius, this shortens the frequency as certainly as
Sirius moving towards the Sun. Take just the case of the Sun moving
towards Sirius. Then, the frequency is shorter

Frequency isn't "longer" or "shorter." It is either higher or lower.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
because the speed of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 m/sec.

Completely false for two reasons. (1) It's not 5.5 m/sec, it's 5.5
km/sec.

(2) Using the test equation c' = c + kv:

K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051–1054, 1236(E) (1977).

"Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-
velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2 × 10−9. Optical
Extinction is not a problem here, because the high-energy X-rays
used have an extinction length considerably longer than the distance
to the sources."

So the assertion that c' = c + v is refuted to 1 part in a billion.
This justifies the claim:

"Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body." ―Albert Einstein 1905

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what
is proved." -- Galileo Galilei

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
"Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body." ―Albert Einstein 1905

This is one of the few times I agree with Albert Einstein.
Although the idea is probably taken from Henri Poincaré.

R.H.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
11. The relative speed of the observer must be added and subtracted from
the speed of light just as with the speed of sound if we are even to
qualify as rational at all.

No serious model cares about "relative speed of
observer" and no serious model ever will.

Then they all say that the Earth is the still centre of the universe.
Back to Aristotle via Einstein.

Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!

Post by Maciej Wozniak
For most of our real activities we use
geocentric model. Heliocentric and ECi are
also important. "Relative speed of observer"
is just another gedanken absurd.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
11. The relative speed of the observer must be added and subtracted from
the speed of light just as with the speed of sound if we are even to
qualify as rational at all.

This would be true if the space measured in a frame of reference were
isochronous, that is to say if the notion of "present time", of
"simultaneity" were absolute there.

I repeat, it WOULD BE true.

But the universe is not made like that, and this is the very basis of the
theory of relativity according to Dr. Hachel (the best relativistic
theorist of the universe by default of the others): space is an
anisochronous entity, the notion of absolute simultaneity is an abstract
idea.

From there will emerge one of the most fundamental equations of the two
hundred equations given by Dr. Hachel on relativistic kinematics:

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

In short, we CANNOT add or subtract speeds or times
as we do for apples in a housewife's basket.

w=u+v, it doesn't work.

It's even worse than that, and that's what leaves intelligent people like
Paul B. Andersen in incomprehension: observable times are not even addable
to each other in accelerated frames of reference! Only proper times are!

The theory of relativity is of a fantastic coherence and a fantastic
conceptual beauty. The mathematical calculations are even much simpler
than they are said.

But we must first have the first key, the fundamental key: the
understanding of universal anisochrony and especially not to confuse it
with the relativity of chronotropy which is a true but different secondary
phenomenon.

R.H.
<https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=***@jntp>

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Richard Hachel:
(Not to be confused with anyone else.) It is true, as Socrates said that
modesty ill-becomes a needy man.

To take space as a vacuum and not speak of the abstraction, then how is
it anisochronous?
It is not because there is no need for the LT unless you have an ether.

Unfortunately, Paul is not intelligent about logic, or he wouldn't have
an LT without an ether.

Relativity is an ugly, incoherent babble if you do not presume an ether
and time dilation.

Your assertion about anisochrony is mistaken.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
(Not to be confused with anyone else.) It is true, as Socrates said that
modesty ill-becomes a needy man.
To take space as a vacuum and not speak of the abstraction, then how is
it anisochronous?
It is not because there is no need for the LT unless you have an ether.
Unfortunately, Paul is not intelligent about logic, or he wouldn't have
an LT without an ether.
Relativity is an ugly, incoherent babble if you do not presume an ether
and time dilation.
Your assertion about anisochrony is mistaken.

My statement about anisochrony is one of the finest jewels of scientific
thought.
However, you ask an important question: "But if there is no ether, what do
photons and particles in general surf on?"

I will answer that since 1905 and Poincaré, the physicist no longer needs
the notion of ether for a second, and he can convince himself that between
here and there (apart from a few hydrogen atoms that wander around), there
is nothing but emptiness, and no detectable or palpable support.

Now, emptiness does not mean nothingness.

If we remove all the matter from the universe, between A and B, something
nevertheless remains: space and time.

This thing on which photons or particles in general surf, is not matter,
it is not ether, it is just TIME.

There is in the universe in a constant way, between two given points A and
B, separated by a distance of 3.10^8m, a time quantified at one second.

It is on this second that particles surf.

It is the universal anisochrony which gives the whole universe wave
properties.

There is no need for ether.

As for the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, they are the very basis of
the description of the anisochronous universe, and remain valid in all
frames of reference, including uniformly accelerated frames of reference
and rotating relativistic frames of reference.

R.H.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Richard Hachel: The LT presumes an ether wind affects the light just as
a current in a river affects a ship. It is invalid without an ether.
The LT is based on the ether and is pointless without it, just as it
would be pointless to use it to calculate the time it takes for a boat
to cross a pond without a current. You are necessarily presuming an
ether wind exists to conclude there is anisochrony.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Richard Hachel: The LT presumes an ether wind affects the light just as
a current in a river affects a ship. It is invalid without an ether.
The LT is based on the ether and is pointless without it, just as it
would be pointless to use it to calculate the time it takes for a boat
to cross a pond without a current. You are necessarily presuming an
ether wind exists to conclude there is anisochrony.

The ether wind is of no interest if we replace the ether with an
anisochronous vacuum.
On the other hand, once this is done the equations are then explained very
well.
Note that the ether implies an absolute space supported by "something":
physically and experimentally, this is absurd and all the more absurd
since we no longer need all this if we posit a simple universal
anisochrony.

R.H.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Richard Hachel: That is to attribute qualities to the vacuum, so it is a
reification fallacy.

[Aether Regained]

Post by Richard Hachel
My statement about anisochrony is one of the finest jewels of scientific
thought.
However, you ask an important question: "But if there is no ether, what
do photons and particles in general surf on?"
I will answer that since 1905 and Poincaré, the physicist no longer
needs the notion of ether for a second, and he can convince himself that
between here and there (apart from a few hydrogen atoms that wander
around), there is nothing but emptiness, and no detectable or palpable
support.
Now, emptiness does not mean nothingness.
If we remove all the matter from the universe, between A and B,
something nevertheless remains: space and time.
This thing on which photons or particles in general surf, is not matter,
it is not ether, it is just TIME.
R.H.

Say that aloud and hear yourself saying it, and you'll realize how
nonsensical that sounds!

If we extend your logic to the case of sound, we get:

If we remove all the matter from the universe, between A and B,
something nevertheless remains: space and time.

This thing on which phonons or sound in general surf, is not matter, it
is just TIME, except there is NO SOUND if you remove all the matter
between A and B!

Not a very sound way of reasoning, is it?

It is possible to conceive of a space not filled with an aether, just as
it is possible to conceive of a space not filled with any air. But such
a space cannot support light propogation or apply any type of force on a
particle present in this empty space. Without an aether, there is no
gravity and no electromagnetism, just as there is no sound and no life
in a space without air.

And the best way to understand time is: its just what a counter attached
to a trustworthy oscillator reads. All the confusions regarding time
then disappear. You can't have photons or particles surf on the
'readings of an oscillator counter'!

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Aether Regained: Comparing with sound is a good analogy. However, one
can have a particle concept of light and gravity that doesn't require an
ether.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
A Relativist Beginning a Reasonable Defense of Relativity
1. Parallel lines have not been proven to meet, so the universe and
space are not curved.
2. That space is not curved because it is a vacuum, not a substance.
3. That curved space cannot provide a cause of gravity.
4. We must decide whether to keep both the ether and the LT or discard
both.
5. Einstein never predicted a doubling of the deflection theoretically
because he did not derive it from math or physics.
6. That a doubling would violate the findings of Galileo and Eotvos.
7. That the Newtonian result in Pound-Snider contradicts the doubling of
deflection.
8. There is no equivalence in the equivalence principle, so it is pure
nonsense.
9. That relative motion per se cannot cause all rates of change to
change in unison.
10. You cannot rescue an ad hoc hypothesis with an ad hoc rescue.
Now we are prepared to begin our defense of relativity!

Good text.

R.H.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Yes, time can be well defined in math and physics in a way entirely
relevant to relativity as time = distance/speed because those are the
variables involved.