Tom Roberts wrote in message . com...

Harry wrote:
I still wonder how real and unreal these things are in the Einsteinian
interpretation.

In SR, no rod "contracts" in any way due to its velocity relative to any
inertial frame; similarly no clock "dilates" in any way due to its
velocity relative to any inertial frame. Just think about it -- since
all inertial frames have equal standing, and there are an infinite
number of them moving with different velocitites, how could a rod or
clock possible "change" due to any such relative velocity?

In SR what changes is the relationship between the rod or clock and the
various inertial frames. Measurements in each inertial frame, of course,
depend on that relationship, and this leads to "length contraction" and
"time dilation".


As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
that the observer in S measures the rod short.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
Tom Roberts wrote in message
. com...

Harry wrote:
I still wonder how real and unreal these things are in the Einsteinian
interpretation.

In SR, no rod "contracts" in any way due to its velocity relative to any
inertial frame; similarly no clock "dilates" in any way due to its
velocity relative to any inertial frame. Just think about it -- since
all inertial frames have equal standing, and there are an infinite
number of them moving with different velocitites, how could a rod or
clock possible "change" due to any such relative velocity?

In SR what changes is the relationship between the rod or clock and the
various inertial frames. Measurements in each inertial frame, of course,
depend on that relationship, and this leads to "length contraction" and
"time dilation".


As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
that the observer in S measures the rod short.

Pentcho Valev

We only have to show one possible way that it can work, to invalidate your
claim. I'll leave it to Tom Roberts or someone else to give you the
Einstein-Minkowski explanation.

Here is the explanation of Lorentz-Poincare, who assumed length contraction
and time dilation, and that matter is a kind of wave phenomenon:

- If S is at rest in the ether, S will correctly measure the contracted rod
short and "catch" it.
*In reality it's not "catching" but _crashing_ into the front barrier, with
the rear barrier only used for measurement confirmation.
- If S is moving with respect to the ether, "simultaneous" in S is erroneous
(due to the mistake made about the light speed) in such a way that S
measures the rod short - just as if S was not moving at all. The catching
will be done asynchronous, so that the front crashes into the front barrier
before the rear barrier is activated (the undeformable things that you have
in your mind don't exist and can't exist).
- Simple math shows that the same will be true for all intermediate
situations.

I hope you now _finally_ "got" it!

Harald

Pentcho Valev wrote:
As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
that the observer in S measures the rod short.

That is too ambiguous -- the rod crashes into the barriers, and you have
no way of understanding details. Let me modify it for clarity:

In frame S, construct two doors in advance of the moving rod, set apart
by the length of the rod measured in S; start with the front door closed
and the rear door open. Just as the rod would crash into the closed
front door, close the rear door and open the front door, simultaneously
in S. This can only happen without either door smashing the rod if the
rod "really has "its "contracted length" in frame S. The rod sails
through without crashing into either door; at any time in S one of the
doors is closed.

An observer moving with the rod, of course, has a completely different
view of this: the doors are closer together than the rod is long, but
the front door opens before the rear door closes, so there is no
collision between rod and either door -- the front door opens just as
the front of the rod reaches it, both doors remain open for a period
while the rod passes through both of them, and the rear door closes just
as the rear end of the rod passes through.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
| also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
| barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
| barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
| must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
| S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
| successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
| that the observer in S measures the rod short.
|
| That is too ambiguous -- the rod crashes into the barriers, and you have
| no way of understanding details. Let me modify it for clarity:
|
| In frame S, construct two doors in advance of the moving rod, set apart
| by the length of the rod measured in S; start with the front door closed
| and the rear door open. Just as the rod would crash into the closed
| front door, close the rear door and open the front door, simultaneously
| in S. This can only happen without either door smashing the rod if the
| rod "really has "its "contracted length" in frame S. The rod sails
| through without crashing into either door; at any time in S one of the
| doors is closed.
|
| An observer moving with the rod, of course, has a completely different
| view of this:

"They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold
good". - Einstein.
This same law of optics suggests that the moving observer has a completely
different view the that of the stationary observer, according to Roberts (of
course). The question is whether Roberts is giving us relativity according
to Einstein or relativity acording to Roberts.
Some of us are not as susceptible to Einstein's suggestions as Roberts is.
Androcles.



the doors are closer together than the rod is long, but
| the front door opens before the rear door closes, so there is no
| collision between rod and either door -- the front door opens just as
| the front of the rod reaches it, both doors remain open for a period
| while the rod passes through both of them, and the rear door closes just
| as the rear end of the rod passes through.
|
|
| Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
that the observer in S measures the rod short.

That is too ambiguous -- the rod crashes into the barriers, and you have
no way of understanding details. Let me modify it for clarity:

In frame S, construct two doors in advance of the moving rod, set apart
by the length of the rod measured in S; start with the front door closed
and the rear door open. Just as the rod would crash into the closed
front door, close the rear door and open the front door, simultaneously
in S. This can only happen without either door smashing the rod if the
rod "really has "its "contracted length" in frame S. The rod sails
through without crashing into either door; at any time in S one of the
doors is closed.

You seem to have discovered the perfect strategy: any argument that
demonstrates the contradictory nature of relativity is either
"inherently" or "too" ambiguous. So, after your intervention, the
theory's ambiguity goes to particular arguments whereas its essence
remains unambiguous. However in this case the strategy does not work.
There are two LEGITIMATE types of arguments in SR: ones presupposing a
crash and ones not presupposing a crash. The former allow one to PROVE
a contradiction in SR whereas the latter don't. If relativity priests
had known how dangerous "crash" arguments are, they would have removed
them from textbooks and confused everything so that now nobody would
even suspect that such a problem might exist. Fortunately priests were
not so clever. The contradiction described above is the result of
reductio ad absurdum and in such cases the theory must be rejected.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
| Tom Roberts wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
| also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
| barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
| barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
| must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
| S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
| successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
| that the observer in S measures the rod short.
|
| That is too ambiguous -- the rod crashes into the barriers, and you have
| no way of understanding details. Let me modify it for clarity:
|
| In frame S, construct two doors in advance of the moving rod, set apart
| by the length of the rod measured in S; start with the front door closed
| and the rear door open. Just as the rod would crash into the closed
| front door, close the rear door and open the front door, simultaneously
| in S. This can only happen without either door smashing the rod if the
| rod "really has "its "contracted length" in frame S. The rod sails
| through without crashing into either door; at any time in S one of the
| doors is closed.
|
| You seem to have discovered the perfect strategy: any argument that
| demonstrates the contradictory nature of relativity is either
| "inherently" or "too" ambiguous. So, after your intervention, the
| theory's ambiguity goes to particular arguments whereas its essence
| remains unambiguous. However in this case the strategy does not work.
| There are two LEGITIMATE types of arguments in SR: ones presupposing a
| crash and ones not presupposing a crash. The former allow one to PROVE
| a contradiction in SR whereas the latter don't. If relativity priests
| had known how dangerous "crash" arguments are, they would have removed
| them from textbooks and confused everything so that now nobody would
| even suspect that such a problem might exist. Fortunately priests were
| not so clever. The contradiction described above is the result of
| reductio ad absurdum and in such cases the theory must be rejected.
|
| Pentcho Valev

Almost perfect, Pentcho. His backup tactic is to ignore anything he doesn't
like
and then claim experiments 'prove' his assumptions.


The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it, and
a great deal of evidence against it.


2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

The so-called "Lorentz transforms", which were aether dependent anyway,
cannot be derived.

Androcles.

(Pentcho Valev) wrote in message . com...
Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
that the observer in S measures the rod short.

That is too ambiguous -- the rod crashes into the barriers, and you have
no way of understanding details. Let me modify it for clarity:

In frame S, construct two doors in advance of the moving rod, set apart
by the length of the rod measured in S; start with the front door closed
and the rear door open. Just as the rod would crash into the closed
front door, close the rear door and open the front door, simultaneously
in S. This can only happen without either door smashing the rod if the
rod "really has "its "contracted length" in frame S. The rod sails
through without crashing into either door; at any time in S one of the
doors is closed.

You seem to have discovered the perfect strategy: any argument that
demonstrates the contradictory nature of relativity is either
"inherently" or "too" ambiguous. So, after your intervention, the
theory's ambiguity goes to particular arguments whereas its essence
remains unambiguous. However in this case the strategy does not work.
There are two LEGITIMATE types of arguments in SR: ones presupposing a
crash and ones not presupposing a crash. The former allow one to PROVE
a contradiction in SR whereas the latter don't. If relativity priests
had known how dangerous "crash" arguments are, they would have removed
them from textbooks and confused everything so that now nobody would
even suspect that such a problem might exist. Fortunately priests were
not so clever. The contradiction described above is the result of
reductio ad absurdum and in such cases the theory must be rejected.

Pentcho Valev

I ran this by scientists one time in this form. Lightning strikes the
front and rear of a train simultaneously in the frame of reference of
the track, leaving two marks on the train and two marks on the track.
How far apart are the marks on the track?
Scientists come up with the answer that the marks on the track are
closer together than the length of the train. In their equations, if
two events are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they cannot be
simultaneous in a frame of reference that is moving relative to the
first. I have studied this in some detail. I never did believe this
distance contraction. It changed the entire thinking of mankind. It
teaches people that they are incompetent to make their own decisions.
All decisions need to be made by scientists who understand the theory
of relativity. Otherwise, as you point out, they are going to be
where a door gets closed at the wrong time because they do not
understand.
At any rate, I figured out the equations that Einstein was
referring to when he first solved the problem presented by the
Michelson-Morley experiment. If you will notice, Einstein in his
original papers referred to "velocity of light" instead of "speed of
light" as scientists do today.
The problem is solved this way. With regard to two frames of
reference S and S', as you present it, with regard to light we use
Einstein's own invention, the photon, to determine what is actually
happening. For instance, We can send two photons, one in each
direction, when the origins of S and S' coincide. The coordinates of
each photon are given by the equations

x=wt
x'=wt'
where w is the velocity of each photon relative to S and S'.
According to present scientific interpretation of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, for a photon going in the +x direction,
w=c in both frames of reference. For a photon going in the -x
direction w= -c in both frames of reference. If we say

x'=x-vt
then for a photon going in the +x direction we have
ct'=ct-vt
t'=t(c-v)/c
For a photon going the -x direction, we have
-ct'=-ct-vt
t'=t(c+v)/c

What these equations are saying is that a photon can be used as a
clock. If we know how far the photon as gone, we know how much time
it takes the photon to travel that distance. Now we compare these
equations with the Lorentz equations.

c= x/t =x'/t' = (x-vt)/t(c-v)/c = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma
So what scientists do is take these equations and divide by gamma so
that they will have a distance contraction and events in S cannot be
simultaneous with events in S'.
Now looking at the -x photon

-c = x/t = x'/t'= (x-vt)/t(c+v)/c =
(x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma

What appears to me is that scientists were too lazy to solve the
problem using velocity, so they used the Lorentz equations, which
resolve the problem of velocity of light by complicating the equation
for the term t' so that velocity is disquised in x, and there is
nothing but c in denominator, whereas, if the equation was taken to
the lowest common denominator, the common denominator would be -c for
a photon going in the -x direction.
But if transmission of light is really source independent, then
there is no need for dividing by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to find out how long
it takes light to go a distance of x or x' in a frame of reference.
All you need to do is know which direction the photon is going and use
its velocity.
This eliminates the need for any distance contraction, oblate
spheroids, relativity of simultaneity, and the other things that
scientists are so proud of today.
From K' the equations are

x=wt
x'=wt'
x=x'-v't'

where v'=-v in the first equations.
It appears to me that all you have to do is keep the velocities
straight. If the Michelson-Morley apparatus was mirrors which changed
the direction of photons then it appears to me that if a photon is
reflected 180 degrees, the sign of its velocity changes relative to
what it was when it was traveling the other way.
Scientists do not want to discuss this subject. Before I started
using velocity of light, scientists would write lengthy dissertations
on sci.physics.relativity about why I was wrong. Now they have
nothing to say to me.
Robert B. Winn