home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!dreaderd!not-for-mail
- Message-ID: <physics-faq/criticism/einstein-absurdities_1083675484@rtfm.mit.edu>
- Supersedes: <physics-faq/criticism/einstein-absurdities_1082292761@rtfm.mit.edu>
- Expires: 2 Jun 2004 12:58:04 GMT
- X-Last-Updated: 1999/08/06
- Subject: Einstein (1905) Absurdities
- From: Thnktank@concentric.net (Eleaticus)
- Followup-To: poster
- Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.EDU
- Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.physics,sci.answers,alt.answers,news.answers
- Organization: Think Tank Eleatic
- Summary: Einstein's 1905 paper that introduced the world to
- his Special Relativity was full of logical and math-
- ematical absurdities. Science has been very unlucky
- to be able to use Einstein's space-time formulations
- with 'fudges' and 'kludges'.
- X-Disclaimer: approval for *.answers is based on form, not content.
- Originator: faqserv@penguin-lust.MIT.EDU
- Date: 04 May 2004 13:01:21 GMT
- Lines: 1327
- NNTP-Posting-Host: penguin-lust.mit.edu
- X-Trace: 1083675681 senator-bedfellow.mit.edu 570 18.181.0.29
- Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu sci.physics:947422 sci.physics.relativity:407381 alt.physics:396 sci.answers:15996 alt.answers:72761 news.answers:270898
-
- Disclaimer: approval for *.answers is based on form, not content.
- Opponents of the content should first actually find out what
- it is, then read Einstein"s paper (in Dover Book's _the Principle
- of Relativity_) and think, the last being something they didn't
- have to do previously (knowing it was right before they read it).
- Flaming the hardworking, selfless, *.answers moderators evidences
- ignorance and atrocious netiquette.
- Archive-Name: physics-faq/criticism/einstein-absurdities
- Version: 0.06.03
- Posting-frequency: 15 days
-
- Einstein (1905) Absurdities
- (c) Eleaticus/Oren C. Webster
- Thnktank@concentric.net
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 1. Purpose
-
- Einstein violated simple logic (many times), common sense,
- the basic principles of analytic geometry, vector algebra,
- and elementary measurement theory in deriving the transfor-
- matin equations at the heart of Special Relativity.
-
- We explicate many of his absurdities.
-
- In all cases we are discussing his 1905 paper in which
- he presented the derivation of SR. We are using the Dover
- edition of "The Principle of Relativity" in which the
- title page is on p-35.
-
- By the way, our frequently asked question - often asserted
- as fact - is in one form or another:
-
- Isn't Special Relativity silly?
- -----------------------------------------------------------
- Note: Everywhere in this document, we use @ to represent
- the curly deltas used for partial derivatives. Einstein
- used the curly deltas.
- -----------------------------------------------------------
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 2. Table of Contents
-
- 1. Foreword and Intent
- 2. Table of Contents
- 3. The light direction absurdity.
- 4. The really strange and marvelous magical gamma absurdity.
- 5. The amazing transverse gamma absurdity.
- 6. The time increases as distance decreases absurdity.
- 7. Simultaneity and Measurement Prologue.
- 8. The data scale degradation absurdity.
- 9. The absolute simultaneity SR transforms.
- 10. The Relativistic Maxwell absurdity.
- 11. The Twins Paradox absurdity.
- 12. The "how does an absurd SR work" non-absurdity.
- 13. The "strange effects of nothing" absurdities.
- 14. The "lasting effects of no effect" absurdity.
- 15. The "brag about your absurdities" absurdity.
- 16. Einstein's anti-simultaneity argument.
- 17. A straightforward pro-simultaneity argument.
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 3. The light direction absurdity.
-
- Having derived his differential equation and subse-
- uent tau function based on light moving in both
- directions, he then substitutes - for t - an expression
- for time that is valid only for one light direction.
- This creates a transform formula that could be valid only
- for one direction. Substituting the opposite direction
- expression is just as invalid, and results in a diff-
- erent transform for x to x'.
- -----------------------------------------------------------
-
- At one point, Einstein attains a formula for what we'll
- call X', the transformed x; it is based on the tau equation
- he got from from his differential equation:
-
- X' = c*tau = ac(t-vx'/(cc-vv)).
-
- He then returns to the time arguments of his unknown tau
- functions, where he had t=x'/(c-v). He substitutes this
- expression into the X' formula above, to get:
-
- X' = accx'/(cc-vv).
-
- Remembering that Einstein's model, his unknown tau functions,
- his differential equation, and resultant tau function are
- all about light going BOTH directions, we see that using the
- time expression for just one light direction is an error, and
- time in the other direction, t=x'/(c+v), is just as valid,
- - which is to say not at all valid. The algebra works out
- just a bit differently:
-
- X' = ac(x'/(c+v)-vx'/(cc-vv)).
-
- = ac(x'(c-v)-vx')/(cc-vv)
-
- = ac(cx'-vx'-vx')/(cc-vv)
-
- = ac(cx'-2vx')/(cc-vv).
-
- QED. Einstein's derivation of the x' transform is invalid
- by reduction to the absurd; the transform depends on the
- direction of the light movement in the time term substituted
- for t in the X'=c*tau equation, an absolute violation of the
- principles of Special Relativity. It is one thing to realize
- that an expression in one case differs from the other, but
- a very different thing to let your one and only transform
- formula's derivation depend on an arbitrary choice of just
- one light direction.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 4. The really strange and marvelous magical gamma absurdity.
-
- Perhaps the most marvelous thing about Einstein's Special
- Relativity derivation is the math he used to get from his
- tau function in t and x' to his tau=f(t,x) transform.
-
- [We let his a=phi(v)=1, as he concludes later.]
-
- [1] tau = (t-vx'/(cc-vv)).
-
- [2] tau = (t-vx/cc)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).
-
- First of all, to get to [2], we certainly have
- to rid [1] of x'. x'=x-vt.
-
- [3] tau = (t-v(x-vt)/(cc-vv))
-
- = (tcc-tvv-vx-vvt)/(cc-vv)
-
- = (tcc - vx)/(cc-vv)
-
- Now, divide numerator and denominator on the right
- by cc:
-
- [4] tau = (t-vx/cc)/(1-vv/cc).
-
- There's only one way to get [2] from [4]. Let
- tau<>tau, a logical absurdity in this situation;
- Einstein has proceeded far beyond tau the unknown
- function. The only unknown is a, which he later
- says is phi(v)=1.
-
- And if it is legal to get [2] by multiplying only one side
- by sqrt(1-vv/cc), then it is also correct to multiply
- only one side by (1-vv/cc), and get the galilean transform.
-
- Or to multiply one side by pi and get "t and -vx/cc
- are really circle diameters" transforms. [You know,
- the circumference of a circle is Pi*diameter?]
-
- But in all cases - both the absurd Einsteinian and Pi
- transforms - it is not legal to treat only one side of
- an equation in a non-identity fashion. The left side of
- the tau function would not be tau, but gamma*tau or Pi*tau.
-
- The appearance of gamma is just as magically marvelous
- in the X' transform (we used X' for the moving system
- x value coordinate, remember?):
-
- X' = ccx'/(cc-vv).
-
- = (ccx-ccvt)/(cc-vv)
-
- = (x-vt)/(1-vv/cc).
-
- Not X' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-vv/cc).
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 5. The amazing transverse gamma absurdity.
-
- Gamma=1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) (he called it beta, but tradition now
- calls it gamma) appeared magically in Einstein's t' and
- x' transforms, replacing the mundane 1/(1-vv/cc) without
- cause, reason, or justification.
-
- But Einstein did cause it to appear in expressions for
- the transformed y and z axes. All he had to do was say
- light movement along these transverse axes was at the
- rate sqrt(cc-vv).
-
- Remember, the (c-v) and (c+v) expressions Einstein used
- were not due to non-c light velocity, but due to the
- movement of objects toward which the light was moving.
- That condition does not hold in the y and z directions
- in his derivation.
-
- "In an analogous manner we find, by considering rays
- moving along the other two axes, that
-
- Y' = c*tau = ac(t-vx'/(cc-vv))
-
- when t=y/sqrt(cc-vv), x'=0."
-
- When x'=0, we find that Y' = c*tau = act, just as every
- SRian in the universe agrees.
-
- In any case, the t=y/sqrt(cc-vv) line is the full,
- ridiculous justification Einstein gives for the
- existence of the expression sqrt(1-vv/cc).
-
- Ridiculous? Sure, x'=0 is a rather small subset of
- the possibilities for x'; how do you generalize to
- the full range of the universe from x'=0?
-
- And there is not even the hint of a justification for
- replacing (1-vv/cc) with its square root in his time
- and space (x) transforms.
-
- QED: Einstein's SR time transform derivation is invalid
- by reduction to the absurd: it is eithered based on the
- premise that x'=0 and not x'<>0, or based on nothing.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 6. The time increases as distance decreases absurdity.
-
- Einstein uses his distance to the mirror x' with which
- to derive the differential equation and tau function from
- which he derives the t' and x' transforms of Special Rela-
- tivity. The greater that distance, the more time it takes
- for the light to travel either direction, and roundtrip.
- But Einstein concludes that the slope of tau wrt the dist-
- ance to the mirror is the inverse of the slope wrt the time
- it takes.
-
- Einstein's x' is the distance to the mirror, which also
- defines the distance back to the source at the moving origin.
- This distance shows up in the time expressions in his un-
- known tau functions, and when differentiated wrt x' gives
- a value of 1.00, proving that the x' of the @tau/@x' term
- is indeed the distance to the mirror and not the other x'
- in his model (yes, there are two; the other is the location
- of the light and/or the clock in use at the time).
-
- The greater the distance, the greater time it takes
- for light to cover the total and part-wise distances.
-
- But Einstein's differential equation and his resultant
- tau equation say that although tau increases when the
- distance increases, tau decreases when time increases,
- and vice versa.
-
- His differential equation is:
-
- (@tau/@x') + (v/(cc-vv))(@tau/@t) = 0.
-
- We put the two terms on opposite sides:
-
- (@tau/@x') = - (v/(cc-vv))(@tau/@t).
-
- Thus, either v must always be negative or the slope
- of tau with respect to x' is the negative of the slope
- of tau with respect to t. Yet, his model - for that
- very x' - is that x' and v together fully define t,
- and that the time - with a constant v, which is how
- Einstein treated v - increases as x' increases.
-
- This aburdity is repeated in his immediately
- consequent tau function:
-
- tau = a(t-vx'/(cc-vv)).
-
- There can be no doubt that the x' in the differential
- equation and the resultant tau function are the x'
- that is the distance to the mirror. When he different-
- iates the time expressions in his unknown taus wrt x',
- the slope of that distance x' is 1 wrt to the differen-
- tiating x'.
-
- QED, by reduction to the absurd, his derivation of the
- SR transformations is nonsense. It is based on a model
- in which tau increases with a greater x' and/or a greater
- t - t being an increasing function of an increasing x'
- - but Einstein's conclusion is that tau increases with
- one when it decreases with the other.
-
- Objection:
-
- But, you say, you said there were two x' usages.
- Surely the tau at the time the light returns to the
- moving origin, at location L=0, is later than the tau when
- light reaches the mirror at L=x'. That's a negative
- relationship.
-
- OK. That is saying tau is an obvious inverse function of
- the location coordinate.
-
- But the tau at emission is surely less than at either
- of the other occasions, and its L is zero also, making
- it a direct function of the location coordinate, by
- the same argument.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 7. Simultaneity and Measurement Prologue.
-
- Einstein - and Special Relativity - not only
- mixes apples and oranges, but treats indepen-
- dent variables as dependent variables, and vice
- versa.
-
- One of the first things a child learns about
- algebra is to not add apples and oranges.
-
- Special Relativity adds apples and orangutans.
-
- Apples and oranges are at least both fruit, so
- you could add them and get a fruit total.
-
- But Special Relativity adds space and time, and
- does so without justification. Yes, there is a
- derivation process (with some of the absurdities
- outlined above) but in no way does that derivation
- specify any reason why one should treat time and
- space as dimensions similar enough to add them
- up together.
-
- Yes, the units in the transform equations that
- mix the two together are compatible, but it is
- not a set of compatible measures that are con-
- sidered a four-D coordinate system. It is not
- space and ct that are the four axes, it is space
- and t.
-
- Should we also consider heat and space similar
- dimensions because a balloon will rise to greater
- heights as its gasses warm up?
-
- Should we also consider velocity and distance
- similar measures because we can multiply the
- one by time and get distance? That's identical
- to the math that makes time and space suppos-
- edly compatible measures.
- -----------------------------------------------
- The worst thing about mixing time and space as
- does SR, is that there is no macro-world evidence
- whatsoever that time can ever be a dependent
- variable, which is what the SR transforms make
- of it.
-
- A dependent variable is one that you can control
- indirectly, through control of other variables.
-
- You can REALLY control how great a distance you
- go by choosing to move for only some certain time
- period at the given velocity and then not going
- further than that distance.
-
- But you can NEVER control how long a time you 'go',
- no matter what you do, unless you consider suicide
- as accomplishing that control.
-
- Time is not a dependent variable, but when you
- decide that t'=g(t-xv/cc), you are saying time
- is just such a dependent variable.
- --------------------------------------------------
-
- But it is only by imagining that time is a dependent
- variable - that you can add it somehow with space -
- that allows SR to imagine its transforms are
- rotations and not translations.
-
- Imagine x as the verticle axis on your graph, time
- as the horizontal axis.
-
- If x'=gx-gvt is just moving the x-axis to the right,
- more and more as time goes by, then the transformation
- is just a shift in the axis with no implication that
- x (space) and time are the same stuff.
-
- If x'=gx-gvt is a rotation, as SR says, then the
- graphical equivalent is to tilt the x-axis somewhat
- toward the horizontal, somehow becoming part time
- and part space.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 8. The data scale degradation absurdity.
-
- The SR transforms and the Galilean transforms both
- convert good, ratio scale data to inferior interval
- scale data. The effect is corrected, allowed for,
- when the transforms are conducted on the generalized
- coordinate forms specified by analytic geometry - and
- vector algebra, for that matter - but SR refuses to
- do it right. The consequence is the appearance that
- simultaneity does not hold across inertial frames,
- and the consequence of that is the Twins Paradox
- absurdity.
-
- Both sets of transforms are 'translations' - lateral
- movements of an axis, increasing over time in these
- caes - but with the SR transform also containing a
- rescaling. It is the translation term, -vt in the x
- transform to x', and -xv/cc in the t transform to t',
- that degrades the ratio scale data to interval scale
- data.
-
- SR likes to consider its transforms just rotations,
- however, and in the case of 'good' rotations, ratio
- scale data quality is indeed preserved, but SR violates
- the conditions of good rotations; they are not rigid
- rotations and they don't appropriately rescale all
- the axes that must be rescaled to preserve compati-
- bility.
-
- The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is the
- combination of simple tests of the transformations.
- We can tell if the transformed data are ratio scale
- or interval.
-
- Ratio scale data are like absolute Kelvin. A measure-
- ment of zero means there is zero quantity of the
- stuff being measured. Ratio scale data support add-
- ition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
-
- The test of a ratio scale is that if one measure
- looks like twice as much as another, the stuff
- being measured is actually twice as much. With
- absolute Kelvin, 100 degrees really is twice the
- heat as 50 degrees. 200 degrees really is twice
- as much as 100.
-
- Interval scale data are like relative Celsius, which
- is why your science teacher wouldn't let you use it
- in gas law problems. There is only one mathematical
- operation interval scales support, and that has to
- be between two measures on the same scale: subtraction.
-
- 100 degrees relative (household) Celsius is not twice
- as much as 50; we have to convert the data to absolute
- Kelvin to tell us what the real ratio of termperatures
- is.
-
- However, whether we use absolute Kelvin or relative
- Celsius, the difference in the two temperature readings
- is the same: 50 degrees.
-
- Thus, if we know the real quantities of the 'stuff'
- being measured, we can tell if two measures are on
- a ratio scale by seeing if the ratio of the two
- measures is the same as the ratio of the known quant-
- ities.
-
- If a scale passes the ratio test, the interval scale test
- is automatically a pass.
-
- If the scale fails the ratio test, the interval scale
- test becomes the next in line.
-
- It isn't just the bare differences on an interval
- scale that provides the test, however. Differences
- in two interval scale measures are ratio scale, so
- it is ratios of two differences that tell the tale.
-
- Let's do some testing, and remember as we do that our
- concern is for whether or not the data are messed up,
- not with 'reasons', excuses, or avoidance.
- ------------------------------------------------------
-
- Are we going to take a transformed length and see
- whether that length fits ratio or interval scale
- definitions?
-
- Of course, not. Interval scale data are ratio after
- one measure is subtracted from another. That is the
- major reason the SR transforms can be used in science.
-
- Let there be three rods, A, B, C, of length 10, 20, 40,
- respectively. These lengths are on a known ratio scale,
- our original x-axis, with one end of each rod at the
- origin, where x=0, and the other end at the coordinate
- that tells us the correct lengths.
-
- Note that these x-values are ratio scale only because
- one end of each rod is at x=0. That may remind you of
- the correct way to use a ruler or yard/meter-stick:
- put the zero end at one end of the thing you are
- measuring. Put the one mark there instead of the zero,
- and you have interval scale measures.
-
-
- Let a,b,c be x' at v=.7071c, t=0.
- Let A',B',C' be x' at v=.7071c, t=10.
- g=sqrt(1-(.7071)^2)=.7071.
-
- A B C a b c A' B' C'
- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------
- 10 20 40 14.14 28.28 56.57 4.14 18.28 46.57
- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------
- B/A = 2 b/a = 2 B'/A' = 4.42
- C/A = 4 c/a = 4 C'/A' = 11.25
- C/B = 2 c/b = 2 C'/B' = 2.55
-
- C-A = 10 b-a = 14.14 B'-A' = 14.14
- C-A = 30 c-a = 32.52 C'-A' = 42.42
- C-B = 20 c-b = 28.28 C'-B' = 28.28
-
- (C-A)/(B-A) = 3 (c-a)/(b-a) = 3 (C'-A')/(B'-A') = 3
- (C-B)/(B-A) = 2 (c-b)/(b-a) = 2 (C'-B')/(B'-A') = 2.
-
- The results show that the primed data (a,b,c)
- are ratio scale as we'd expect since the vt term
- is zero.
-
- The ratios b/a, etc, are the same as the known
- ratio scale ratios, B/A, etc.
-
- When vt=0 the data are still ratio scale, but
- the rescaling is why the differences (b-a, etc)
- are not the same as before transform. The simple
- ratios prove the data still ratio, and the ratios
- of differences [(c-a)/(b-a), etc] just support
- that finding.
-
- When vt<>0, the data (A',B',C') are no longer
- ratio scale, which is why the simple ratios now
- differ from both the original and vt=0 data.
-
- However, the ratios of differences show us that
- the data do satisfy the one mathematical operation
- of subtraction, the differences thus being shown
- to be ratio scale.
-
- If you do not understand that the above data table
- proves that the SR transforms did indeed degrade
- the ratio scale to interval scale, please study it
- until you understand.
- ---------------------------------------------------
- If we remember that the only effect of gamma=g
- is to rescale the data, we realize that the
- above results and conclusions also apply to the
- galilean transform.
-
- As we said in the introduction of this Subject,
- use of the generalized cartesian coordinate form
- corrects the interval scale problem. Using this
- form for the galilean transformation upgrades the
- traditional, incompetent, non-invariant transform
- of laws/equations up to invariant (so to speak)
- invariance.
-
- To test the results of the use of the generalized
- cartesian coordinate form, with (x-x0) instead of
- just (x), we can again let the SR version stand
- in for both the galilean and SR results.
-
- Here, our unprimed data were with x0=0.
-
- Let a,b,c be x' at v=.7071c, t=0.
- Let A',B',C' be x' at v=.7071c, t=10.
- g=sqrt(1-(.7071)^2)=.7071.
-
- a'= b'= c'=
- A B C x0 (A-x0)' (B-x0)' (C-x0)' x0'
- ---------------- --------------------------------
- 10 20 40 0 14.14 28.28 56.57 -10
- ---------------- --------------------------------
- B/A = 2 b'/a' = 2
- C/A = 4 c'/a' = 4
- C/B = 2 c'/b' = 2
-
- C-A = 10 b'-a' = 14.14
- C-A = 30 c'-a' = 42.42
- C-B = 20 c'-b' = 28.28
-
- (C-A)/(B-A) = 3 (c'-a')/(b'-a') = 3
- (C-B)/(B-A) = 2 (c'-b')/(b'-a') = 2.
-
- The above data table shows us that focusing on (x-x0),
- instead of just plain x, will give us ratio scale data
- in any equation the transforms are applied to.
-
- Use of the generalized coordinate form verifies the interval
- nature of the transforms. Just as one x' subtracted from
- another on the same scale is a ratio scale result, just so
- does subtracting x0' from every x' create a ratio scale result.
-
- There is absolutely nothing about the SR transform
- derivation that says to not use the generalized
- coordinate form, absolutely nothing to gain by insisting
- - so to speak - on using interval scale data in your
- equations. To do so is absolutely absurd.
-
- Doing so is a sufficient cause of the obvious simultaneity
- problem of Special Relativity, which is itself the cause
- of the absurd Twins Paradox mess.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 9. The absolute simultaneity SR transforms.
-
- Above we have shown that there is a problem with Einstein's
- idea that simultaneity is not absolute across inertial frames.
-
- Here, we add one more demonstration, based on insisting
- on use of the generalized cartesian coordinate form in
- our transformed equations, as a means of avoiding data
- degradation from ratio scale to interval scale.
-
- Using analytic geometry's obvious (x-x0) form, where
- x0 is an important 'anchor' or 'centroid' such as a
- circle center, we apply the SR transforms, x'=gx-gvt,
- and t'=gt-gxv/cc.
-
-
- (a) (x'-x0')=[ g(x-vt) - g(x0-vt) ] = g(x-x0);
- this shows (1) that the transform is thus
- a rescaled invariant, and (2) one x transforms
- to only one x', regardless of t.
-
- (b) (t'-t0')=[ g(t-vx/cc) - g(t0-vx/cc) ] = g(t-t0);
- this shows (1) that the transform is thus
- a rescaled invariant, and (2) one t transforms
- to only one t', regardless of x.
-
- (c) therefore any pair of points (xa,tc), (xb,tc)
- transform to one and only one (xa',tc') and
- (xb',tc') pair, which shows that time transformed
- intervals do not depend on location and therefore
- absolute simultaneity holds.
-
- (d) therefore any pair of points (xc,ta), (xc,tb)
- transform to one and only one (xc',ta') and
- (xc',tb') pair, which shows that spatial transformed
- intervals do not depend on time, and therefore absolute
- spatial congruence holds.
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 10. The Relativistic Maxwell absurdity.
-
-
- When True Believer crackpots are shown the simple
- demonstration that the galilean transform on
- generalized cartesian coordinates is invariant,
- their first defense is usually an incredibly stupid
- "x0'=x0, because the coordinate of a circle center,
- or point of emission, etc, is a constant and can't
- be transformed."
-
- The last defense is "but Maxwell's equations are not
- invariant under that coordinate transform." When
- asked just what magic occurs in Maxwell that would
- prevent the simple algebra
-
- (x'-x0')=[ (x-vt)-(x0-vt) ]=(x-x0)
-
- from working, and when asked them for a demonstration,
- they will never do so, however many hundreds of
- times their defense is asserted.
-
- The reason may help you understand part of Einstein's
- 1905 paper in which he gave us his absurd Special
- Relativity derivation:
-
- THERE ARE NO COORDINATES IN THE EQUATIONS TO BE TRANSFORMED.
-
- Einstein gave the electric force vector as E=(X,Y,Z)
- and the magnetic force vector as B=(L,M,N), where the
- force components in the direction of the x axis are
- X and L, Y and M are in the y direction, Z and N in
- the z direction.
-
- Those values are not, however, coordinates, but values
- very much like acceleration values.
-
- BTW, the current fad is that E and B are 'fields', having
- been 'force fields' for a while, after being 'forces'.
-
- So, when Einstein says he is applying his coordinate
- transforms to the Maxwell form he presented, he is
- either delusive or lying.
-
- (a) there are no coordinates in the transform equations
- he gives us for the Maxwell transforms, where
- B=beta=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2):
-
- X'=X. L'=L.
- Y'=B(Y-(v/c)N). M'=B(M+(v/c)Z).
- Z'=B(Z+(v/c)M). N'=B(N-(v/c)Y).
-
- X is in the same direction as x, but is not a coordinate.
- Ditto for L. They are not locations, coordinates on the
- x-axis, but force magnitudes in that direction.
-
- Similarly for Y and M and y, Z and N and z.
-
- (b) the v of the "coordinate transforms" are in Maxwell
- before any transform is imposed; Einstein's transform
- v is the velocity of a coordinate axis, not the velocity
- of a particle, which is what was in the equation before
- he touched it.
-
- (c) if they were honest Einsteinian transforms, they'd be
- incompetent. The direction of the particle's movement is
- x, which means it is X and L that are supposed to be
- transformed, not Y and M, and Z and N. And when SR does
- transform more than one axis, each axis has its own
- velocity term; using the v along the x-axis as the v
- for a y-axis and z-axis transform is thus trebly absurd:
- the axes perpendicular to the motion are not changed
- according to SR, the v used is not their v, and the v
- is not a transform velocity anyway.
-
- (d) as everyone knows, the effect of E and B are on the
- particle's velocity, which is a speed in a particular
- direction. Both the speed and direction are changed
- by E and B, but v - the speed - is a constant in SR.
-
- As absurd as are the previously demonstrated Einsteinian
- blunders, this one transcends error and is an incredible
- example of True Believer delusion propagating over decades.
-
- The equations can be put in a coordinate dependent form,
- where one or more E or B component is expressed as a
- function of location, but internal to those functions
- each coordinate may be put in gemeralized coordinate
- form and transformed. Invariantly, of course.
- -------------------------------------------------------------
-
- The SR crackpots don't know what coordinates are. The
- various things they call coordinates include coordin-
- nates, but also include a variety of other quantities.
-
- ------------------------------------------------------
-
- 1. One may express coordinates in a one-axis-at-a-time
- manner [like x^2+y^2=r^2] but it is the use of vector
- notation that shows us what is going on. In vector
- notation the triplet x,y,z [or x1,x2,x3, whatever]
- represents the three spatial coordinates, but there
- are so-called basis vectors that underlie them. Those
- may be called i,j,k. Thus, what we normally treat as
- x,y,z is a set of three numbers TIMES a basis vector
- each.
-
- 2. These e*i, f*j, g*k products can have a lot of meanings.
-
- If e, f, j are distances from the origin of i,j,k then
- e*i, f*j, g*k are coordinates: distances in the directions
- of i,j,k respectively, from their origin. That makes the
- triplet a coordinate vector that we describe as being an
- x,y,z triplet; perhaps X=(x,y,z).
-
- The e*i, f*j, g*k products could be directions; take any
- of the other vectors described above or below and divide the
- e,f,g numbers by the length of the vector [sqrt(e^2+f^2+g^2)].
- That gives us a vector of length=1.0, the e,f,g values of
- which show us the direction of the original vector. That
- makes the triplet a direction vector that we describe as
- being an x,y,z triplet; perhaps D=(x,y,z).
-
- The e*i, f*j, g*k products could be velocities; take any
- of the unit direction vectors described above and multiply
- by a given speed, perhaps v. That gives a vector of length
- v in the direction specified. That makes the triplet a
- velocity vector that we describe as being an x,y,z triplet;
- perhaps V=(x,y,z). Each of the three values, e,f,g, is the
- velocity in the direction of i,j,k respectively.
-
- The e*i, f*j, g*k products could be accelerations; take any
- of the unit direction vectors described above and multiply
- by a given acceleration, perhaps a. That gives a vector of
- length a in the direction specified. That makes the triplet
- an acceleration vector that we describe as being an x,y,z
- triplet; perhaps A=(x,y,z). Each of the three values, e,f,g,
- is the acceleration in the direction of i,j,k respectively.
-
- The e*i, f*j, g*k products could be forces (much like accel-
- erations); take any of the unit direction vectors described
- above and multiply by a given force, perhaps E or B. That
- gives a vector of length E or B in the direction specified.
- That makes the triplet a force vector that we describe as
- being an x,y,z triplet; perhaps E=(x,y,z) or B=(x,y,z). Each
- of the three values, e,f,g, is the force in the direction of
- i,j,k respectively.
-
-
- Einstein's - and Maxwell's - E and B are
- not coordinate vectors.
-
- ============================================================
-
- There is another variety of intellectual befuddlement that
- misinforms the idea that Maxwell isn't invariant under the
- galilean transform: confusions about velocities.
-
- Velocities With Respect to Coordinate Systems.
- -----------------------------------------------
- Aaron Bergman supplied the background in a post to a sci.physics.*
- newsgroup:
- ===============================================================
-
- Imagine two wires next to each other with a current I in each.
- Now, according to simple E&M, each current generates a magnetic
- field and this causes either a repulsion or attraction between
- the wires due to the interaction of the magnetic field and the
- current. Let's just use the case where the currents are parallel.
- Now, suppose you are running at the speed of the current between
- the wires. If you simply use a galilean transform, each wire,
- having an equal number of protons and electrons is neutral. So,
- in this frame, there is no force between the wires. But this is a
- contradiction.
-
- ================================================================
-
- First of all, the invariance of the galilean transform, (x'-x.c')
- =(x-x.c), insures that it is an error to imagine there is any
- difference between the data and law in one frame and in another;
- the usual, convenient rest frame is the best frame and only frame
- required for universal analysis. [Well, (x'<>x, x,c'<>x.c, but
- (x'-x.c')=(x-x.c).]
-
- Second, given that you decide unnecessarily to adapt a law to
- a moving frame, don't confuse coordinate systems with meaningful
- physical objects, like the velocity relative to a coordinate
- system instead of relative to a physical body or field.
-
- In other words, what does current velocity with respect to a
- coordinate system have to do with physics?
-
- Nothing. Certainly not anything in the example Bergman gave.
-
- What is relevant is not current velocity with respect to a
- coordinate system, but current velocity with respect to wires
- and/or a medium. The velocity of an imaginary coordinate sys-
- tem has absolutely nothing to do with meaningful physical vel-
- ocity. You can - if you are insightful enough and don't violate
- item (e) - identify a coordinate system and a relevant physical
- object, but where some v term in the pre-transformed law is
- in use, don't confuse it with the velocity of the coordinate
- transform.
-
-
- Velocities With Respect to ... What?
- -----------------------------------------------
- Albert Einstein opened his 1905 paper on Special Relativity
- with this ancient incompetency:
- ===============================================================
-
- The equations of the day had a velocity term that was taken
- as meaning that moving a magnet near a conductor would create
- a current in the conductor, but moving a conductor near a
- wire would not. This was belied by fact, of course.
-
- The important velocity quantity is the velocity of the
- magnet and conductor with respect to each other, not to
- some absolute coordinate frame (as far as we know) and
- not to an arbitrary coordinate system.
-
- One possible cause was the idea: "but the equation says the magnet
- must be moving wrt the coordinate system" or "... the absolute
- rest frame".
-
- There not being anything in the equation(s) to say either of
- those, it is amazing that folk will still insist the velocity
- term has nothing to do with velocity of the two bodies wrt
- each other.
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 11. The Twins Paradox absurdity.
-
- Most of SR demonstrates a symmetry. The contractions and
- dilations one oberver supposedly sees for another system,
- are exactly what the other system sees for him.
-
- The Twins Paradox says, however, that this symmetry fails.
- If the travelling twin left at t=0 and returned at t=100,
- then t'=g(t-xv/cc) and t' > t, which would say that the
- travelling twin's clock is ticking away faster. The symmetry
- would say the traveller sees the stationary clock ticking
- away faster than his.
-
- However, the traveller has to change direction, and thus
- by magic, as it were, the supposed lack of simultaneity
- forces the travelling twins clock to somehow be the ruling
- clock.
-
- As we have seen on a number of grounds, the idea that
- simultaneity does not hold across inertial frames is
- absurd, and the correct use of generalized coordinates,
- which preserves ratio scale quality shows it to be
- true that simultaneity holds reign.
-
- There is no lack of simultaneity, and there is no
- differential aging of such twins.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 12. The "how does an absurd SR work" non-absurdity.
-
- If you have understood the ratio versus interval scale
- discussion, you know a lot of it already.
-
- (a) anytime SR uses a difference of transformed values
- it creates ratio scale data out of the degraded interal
- scale data. Most of SR does just that in practice. We
- have shown that such ratio scale data is 'just' rescaled
- galilean data.
-
- (b) as often as not it is E=mc^2 that is what is meant
- about SR working. Even if it is true that it is basic
- SR - and there are some who say that identity was known
- before Einstein - it has nothing directly to do with
- the derivation and transform absurdities.
-
- (c) sometimes it is meant that instead of galilean
- force, F, being F=ma, it is the relativistic force
- equation that is supported daily at every second of
- the day at accelerators like CERN. However, F=ma
- came from long before accelerators and Maxwell,
- and non-relativistic force models exist that at
- least come much closer than F=ma.
-
- (d) to show that Einstein's work is absurd in no way
- says that his Second Principle is wrong, only that
- his implementation is absurd. A correct implementation
- may be much closer to T'=T/g than to T'=T, etc. This
- would still require differences of the interval data
- to be used, unless there is some true, non-distorting
- ratio scale transform available.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 13. The "strange effects of nothing" absurdities.
-
- According to Special Relativity, nothing can have
- amazing effects.
-
- There are no coordinate systems in nature; they're 'just'
- imaginary. But in SR, they are supposed to have real effects.
-
- One you see being talked about fairly frequently.
-
- Let a charged particle move at velocity v through an
- electromagnetic field.
-
- Now, imagine a coordinate system moving at that same velocity.
- The velocity of the charged particle is thus zero, they say,
- and there is no effect of the electromagnetic field.
-
- They really do say such stupid things, folks.
-
- Einstein started his SR paper in somewhat that way.
-
- Before Maxwell, there was an equation for the effect of
- an electric field, and another equation for a magnetic
- field. The magnetic one had a velocity term in it, the
- electric one didn't.
-
- So, they decided back then, the equations insisted that
- if you moved the magnetic near conducting wires there
- would be an induced electric current; after all, there
- is a velocity term in the magnetic equation.
-
- But, they said, the electric equation equation said there
- was no effect if you waved the wires near a magnetic; after
- all, there was no velocity term in the electric equation.
-
- In other words, the v in the magnetic field was not a
- velocity of a magnet and a wire wrt each other, but
- with respect to something that doesn't exist in nature:
- a coordinate system.
-
- You will hear it said to this very day by trained SRians,
- that Galilean physics says moving the wires will give
- you no current.
-
- And they will say that if you transform the Maxwell equations
- - with the SR transforms - so that the imaginary coordinate
- system is moving at the velocity of the magnet, there is no
- induced current.
-
- In other words - that they won't use - if you draw a
- coordinate axes system on a piece of paper and put the
- wires on it and move the magnet, you'll get a current,
- but if you tape the coordinate system to the magnet
- and move the magnet, you'll get no current.
-
- That is what SR says.
-
- But if you think about it deeply enough, in terms of the
- ratio scale versus interval scale discussion, you'll see
- why they have to say such idiotic things.
-
- You see, when you take the generalized form, such as
- (x-x0) and transform it, the velocity terms drop out,
- or cancel each other arithmetically if you leave the
- equation in primed form instead of simplifying it back
- to the unprimed form.
-
- But if you don't mind using the degraded interval data
- and transform you have only one transform velocity term
- in the bag, and so the transform velocity term doesn't
- drop out.
-
- And if you already had a velocity term in the equation,
- at the same speed, it is true that the algebraic effect
- is that there might now be a zero result.
-
- Sure, subtract the velocity of an imaginary velocity
- from a real one (perhaps the velocity of a charged
- particle or a magnet) and you get a zero result if
- the two are the same.
-
- Try telling your mortgage company that you now owe
- them nothing because you subtracted an imaginary
- payment from the amount you owed them. Hey. If it
- works in physics - SCIENCE! - how can a mere finance
- company or bank deny your logic?
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 14. The "lasting effects of no effect" absurdity.
-
- You know about length 'contraction': a moving object
- is shortened by the fact of its movement, according to
- SR, even though you can't tell it is really moving or
- not if it isn't accelerating.
-
- Inertial movement is obviously relative. I see something
- moving wrt me, and I see you moving wrt me, so you may
- or may not see the thing moving wrt you. You will unless
- the object and you are moving at the same speed in the
- same direction wrt me.
-
- And what speed you see the object moving at determines
- how much shorter the thing is while moving.
-
- So, SR says every object has an infinite number of different
- lengths all at the one time: one for every possible velocity
- it can be seen moving at.
-
- No mathematician would try solving a set of simultaneous
- equations including: v=40; v=-20; v=10000000, but SR implies
- a universe in which an infinite number of such equations
- will work fine.
-
- So, how to get around such absurdities?
-
- Why it's simple. Just claim the effects are only observations,
- not real effects.
-
- People do this right here on the Internet in these newsgroups.
-
- The title of this section is:
-
- The "lasting effects of no effect" absurdity.
-
- Let's list some of the supposed, lasting consequences
- of the non-real effects:
-
- A travelling twin comes back younger than his stay at
- home brother.
-
- A muon coming to earth from space lasts longer than
- one in the laboratory.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 15. The "brag about your absurdities" absurdity.
-
- The Special Relativity transformations terribly screw
- up almost every equation known to humankind, and probably
- those of every alien species in the universe, as well as
- any in heaven and hell.
-
- But Special Relativity makes a virtue of this, proudly
- claiming that it is the quantity dx'^2+dy'^2+dz'^2+(icdt')^2
- that is invariant.
-
- Even the simplest formulas no longer work on the data
- after tranform, for instance the circle formula: x^2+y^2=r^2.
- You can find points that fit x'^2+y'^2=r^2, of course; they
- just don't correspond to the circle you started with.
-
- "So, the 'repairs' we made to your automobile just made
- things worse and destroyed most of what had been working?
- So what? It is our ashtray repairs that are world famous."
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 16. The "contraction circus" absurdity.
-
- Just what is it that contracts?
-
- There are three basic possibilities:
-
- (I) The whole universe contracts, parallel to the
- line of the moving object's direction.
-
- (II) The whole universe contained in a cylinder centered on
- the moving object and extending forwards and rearwards
- contracts.
-
- (III) The moving object only contracts.
-
- The really 'cute' one is (II).
- ============================================================
-
- (III) The moving object only.
-
- Let there be two markers in space at a constant distance
- of 10^10 kilometers from each other, as measured by an
- observer at rest wrt the markers.
-
- Let a spaceship exist that is measured by the observer as
- one kilometer long while it is a rest wrt the observer.
-
- The distance between the markers is thus 10^10 spaceship
- lengths.
-
- Let the spaceship depart the observer and eventually pass
- one marker at .7071c. The observer sees the spaceship now
- as being .5 kilometers in length at t=0, and the moving
- clock to be ticking only half as fast as his own.
-
- The spaceship does not see his length as having changed,
- and if the distance between the objects didn't also
- change, then its perceived distance to the second marker
- is now 2*10^10 kilometers, so it takes twice the time
- to get to the second marker as one might have supposed,
- so according to both the stationary and moving clocks,
- the transit time from one marker to the other will be
- the same.
-
- QED: if only the object contracts, there is no transit
- time difference between the two systems at a given
- velocity.
- ========================================================
-
- (I) The whole universe contracts.
-
- (a) Is the contraction instantaneous throughout the universe?
-
- How could you tell? And what possible difference
- could it make? Those are not rhtorical questions.
- There would be no way SR could have a meaningful
- application, right? If you suggest that time would
- not similarly be dilated throughout the universe,
- you are suggesting an apparent change in v, for
- v is constant in SR only because d/t=d'/t', and
- in this case we have no possible d'<>d because
- all the universe's measuring sticks contract sim-
- ilarly. Similarly? Identically!
-
-
- (b) Does the contraction propagate through the universe at
- the speed of light from the location of the moving object?
-
- Except for questions like "speed of light from any
- viewpoint?" this might not be different that the
- instantaneous model. Hmm. Or maybe a number of widely
- distributed observers in one frame could tell that
- something had happened? Again, none of these are
- rhetorical questions.
-
- (c) Does the contraction propagate through the universe at
- less than the speed of light from the location of the
- moving object?
-
- One could see that parts of the universe had contracted.
- Your own measuring stick wouldn't contract until after
- it had measured the distant contraction.
-
-
- Whole Universe Summary: who knows what effect could be
- eventually discovered; what is knowable is that there would
- be no simple(ton) visible contraction.
-
- ===========================================================
-
- (II) The whole universe contained in a cylinder centered on
- the moving object, and extending forwards and rearward,
- contracts.
-
- This is compatible with standard SR; elsewise a transit time
- between two markers would show the same elapsed time as for
- an observer at rest wrt the markers, as we saw in the dis-
- cussion of the 'object only' case.
-
- Let there be a spaceship be at rest between two stars, and
- with its axis of incipient motion passing through both stars.
-
- When it accelerates to any appreciable velocity, is it the
- center cylinder of the forward star that is snatched from
- its guts and hurtles toward the spaceship, or the rearward
- star's guts? Or both?
-
- That assumes the center of contraction is at least somewhere
- from the rearward star almost to the forward star. If the
- center of contraction were somewhere very distant from the
- ship, it could be that both star centers and the spaceship
- would all be yanked instaneously through the center of one
- start to a point that could be light years distant. Unless
- the contraction wasn't instantaneous, and then we'd have
- some mess indeed, figuring out how much and how far the
- contraction had taken effect before the ship once again
- changed velocity.
-
- At a simpler level, of course, contraction along the line
- of movement implies faster than light transit of information
- if the contraction is instantaneous, or at least faster than
- light.
-
- In any case, we'd certainly see some calamitous effects were
- objects other than light moving at high v anywhere in the
- near universe, wouldn't we? If SR were correct.
- ============================================================
-
- Summary.
- ============================================================
-
- For our three possibilities in the contraction circus,
-
- (I) The whole universe, parallel to the line of a
- moving object's direction contracts, and why
- wouldn't time also dilate universally?
-
-
- (II) The whole universe contained in a cylinder centered on
- the moving object and extending forewards and rearwards
- contracts, and would yield stellar catastrophes we'd
- almost surely have seen by now.
-
- (III) The moving object only contracts, and SR's claim
- about transit time differences would be invalid.
-
- The less unlikely possibility seems to be the one where
- you not only couldn't tell there had been contraction,
- but you'd be darn silly saying there had been.
-
- Then again, that last is the standard SR position, isn't
- it? The contractions don't really occur, they're just
- observational differences (which you couln't see in the
- whole universe case). That's what SRians on these newsgroups
- say; and they also say the time differences are real and
- lasting, except when they aren't. <g>
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 16. Einstein's anti-simultaneity argument.
-
- Einstein
-
- (a) defined a test for clocks at rest wrt each other
- in a stationary system (we'd now say inertial),
- to determine that they are synchronized. [At
- clock A at time ta send light to clock B which
- reflects it at tb to clock A at ta', with observers
- at each clock noting the time the clock says at the
- three events. If tb-ta=tb-ta' then the clocks are
- synchronized.]
-
- (b) had a stationary system thereby synchronize its
- clocks.
-
- (c) posited a second inertial - but moving - system
- whose clocks at all times and places would show
- the first system's times at the immediately
- adjacent first system location.
-
- (d) posited the first system running the synchroni-
- zation test on the second system clocks; that is, with
- a completely non-definition test. With r=distance
- between the clocks - per stationary system - he
- got tb-ta=r/(c-v) and tb-ta'=r/(c+v).
-
-
- He concluded that clocks synchronized in one inertial
- system cannot satisfy the definitional test for
- synchronization in a second inertial frame.
-
- If the second system had indeed run its synchronization
- test like the first system had, the times would be
- tb-ta=r/c and tb-ta=r/c.
-
- His proof is much like having a stationary pianist
- playing a stationary piano and then turning on his
- stationary piano stool to play a second piano that
- is moving past him, while he stays stationary.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: 17. A straightforward pro-simultaneity argument.
-
-
- The SR formula for time dilation holds true if SR holds
- true; it says that for a fixed location, x, T'=T/(sqrt(cc-vv).
-
- Because his stationary system clocks are synchronized,
- the three times in the stationary system clock synchron-
- ization are valid times at any fixed location, x, in
- the stationary system, and for any such fixed location,
- t'=t/sqrt(cc-vv), whether t=tb-ta or t=tb-ta'. This is
- to say, equal intervals in one inertial system are nec-
- essarily equal intervals in any other.
-
- As shown earlier in this faq, non-simultaneity is an
- artifact of poor usage. The generalized coordinate
- form (x-x0), etc, of an equation should be used; if
- you do so, there is no time difference in t' at
- different locations of x, etc.
-
- Simultaneity is absolute.
-
- Eleaticus
-
- !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
- ! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster ThnkTank@concentric.net ?
- ! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
- ! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
- !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
-