View Full Version : Major Discrepancy in General Relativity

Rybczyk

08-20-2009, 03:55 AM

August 20, 2009

4:54 AM

I think I have discovered a major discrepancy in General Relativity that might explain why the theory falls apart at high gravitational potentials whether resulting from black holes or the perceived increase in mass of celestial bodies approaching the speed of light at the edge of the universe. What I have found might be the ultimate explanation behind dark matter, dark energy, and the pioneer anomaly. As soon as I finish up with the paper on relativistic escape velocity I will begin work on this latest discovery.

I have been up all night working on the issues that have led to this discovery. Maybe I can get some sleep now.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

08-21-2009, 09:29 PM

I have now begun working on the discrepancy discovered earlier in general relativity. In the process I succeeded in unraveling another mystery by use of a principle discovered at the beginning of my work on relativistic theory. Little by little I am uncovering and finding the solutions for problems in general relativity. I am now positive that my paper on the relativistic escape velocity formula is correct. This, of course, means the one used in general relativity is incorrect; at least at relativistic speeds. But it goes beyond that and into the area of research I am concentrating on now. Soon I will have enough information to begin my next paper that will explain what I have found.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

rfreeland

09-01-2009, 10:40 PM

I have been wondering about the dark matter question since reading Joe's conclusions refuting relativistic mass increase. It seems that these conclusions beg for a wholesale recalculation of the mass of the Universe. Joe's Doppler shift adjustments probably warrant a recalculation of the Universe's rate of expansion too, so the whole Hubble question needs to be revisited. I'm really curious to see how this shakes out.

FWIW, I never really understood how relativistic mass increase was supposed to be calculated anyway for distant galaxies receding from us at nearly the speed of light. In my naive view of it all, wouldn't this mean that they're all super-massive? And yet don't we all agree that our choice of reference frame centered in the Milky Way is purely arbitrary? So how do you go about calculating the mass of the Universe at all?

I think that there was some kind of hand-waving to get around that, by saying that the fabric of the Universe itself is expanding, so the distant galaxies aren't actually moving that fast. Even if I accept that all that's true, I still don't know how one was supposed to do the math, and by what justification. If an Einsteinian relativity expert could explain all that to me, I'd be much obliged.

cincirob

09-03-2009, 05:11 AM

rfreeland: FWIW, I never really understood how relativistic mass increase was supposed to be calculated anyway for distant galaxies receding from us at nearly the speed of light. In my naive view of it all, wouldn't this mean that they're all super-massive? And yet don't we all agree that our choice of reference frame centered in the Milky Way is purely arbitrary? So how do you go about calculating the mass of the Universe at all?

I think that there was some kind of hand-waving to get around that, by saying that the fabric of the Universe itself is expanding, so the distant galaxies aren't actually moving that fast. Even if I accept that all that's true, I still don't know how one was supposed to do the math, and by what justification. If an Einsteinian relativity expert could explain all that to me, I'd be much obliged.

cinci: It's too complicated and I'm not familiar enough to explain it in any simple way, but any intrductory cosmology book will give a pretty good idea of why cosmologists believe as they do. Basically it amounts to building a mathematical model that describes an expanding universe and then checking what it predicts by observation. Currently the model and the observations seem pretty consistent.

As for explaining why cosmolgists believe expansion causes redshift instead of relative velocity I would refer you again to a good text. One of the problems is that it's difficult to explain the Hubble distance-redshift distribution if it velocity through space that causes the redshift. It is difficult to imagine any process that would produce that realtionship. Secondly, it implies that there are galaxies that are travelling through space faster than c and we don't think that is possible.

************************************

rfreeland

09-03-2009, 01:23 PM

Right -- so thus my question about how exactly the astrophysicist are calculating the mass of the Universe, if they simultaneously observe the speed of these distant galaxies via redshift, and yet somehow deny that they're well-nigh infinitely massive due to relativistic mass increase.

Of course, Rybczyk argues that mass increase is an illusion in the first place, so that's the simple explanation. These distant galaxies aren't super-massive because their relative velocities have no impact on their masses. IMHO, this makes a lot more sense than the Einsteinian claim.

cincirob

09-06-2009, 09:42 PM

rfreeland: Right -- so thus my question about how exactly the astrophysicist are calculating the mass of the Universe, if they simultaneously observe the speed of these distant galaxies via redshift, and yet somehow deny that they're well-nigh infinitely massive due to relativistic mass increase.

Of course, Rybczyk argues that mass increase is an illusion in the first place, so that's the simple explanation. These distant galaxies aren't super-massive because their relative velocities have no impact on their masses. IMHO, this makes a lot more sense than the Einsteinian claim.

cinci: They aren't supermassive because they are not moving through space at a high rate of speed, but rather they are being carried along with space as it expands. Relativistic mass, like length contraction and time dilation are local effects. The redshift is not a Dopler effect but a lenghtening of wavelength due to the expansion. So the redshift occurs after the light has left the distant object.

The flaw in special relativity that all the anti-relativity people are looking for is expansion of the universe. That expansion is not included in the theory. It is a very small error, well below our ability to measure it.

***************************

Rybczyk

09-06-2009, 11:12 PM

cinci,

I can take issue with pretty much everything you just said right now, but I am in the middle of the process of preparing a new proposal to the National Science Foundation and simply do not have the time.

Joseph

rfreeland

09-07-2009, 06:15 PM

Hi Cinci,

I'm afraid I don't understand how SR can be a "local" effect only. Or rather WHY such a statement would be true. It seems to violate Einstein's initial premise that the laws of physics are constant in every inertial frame.

I get the whole "expanding beach ball" model of the Universe, but by my reading of Einstein, the CAUSE of apparent motion really isn't relevant to the calculation of relativistic effects. It seems to me that some rather peculiar gyrations must be made to avoid the "nearly infinitely massive" universe conclusion.

Again, Rybczyk's Relativity just says, "There's no such thing as mass increase," so all this hocus-pocus isn't needed.

- Robert

cincirob

09-28-2009, 09:04 PM

Joseph: I can take issue with pretty much everything you just said right now, but I am in the middle of the process of preparing a new proposal to the National Science Foundation and simply do not have the time.

cinci: Take all the issues you wish. What I said here is correct.

**********************

cincirob

09-28-2009, 09:32 PM

RF: I'm afraid I don't understand how SR can be a "local" effect only. Or rather WHY such a statement would be true. It seems to violate Einstein's initial premise that the laws of physics are constant in every inertial frame.

cinci: The basis of the theory of relativity is the observation of the speed of light and the fact that all observers measure it at the same speed. This observation is made locally.

We recieve light from objects billions of light years away. But when that light was emitted, these objects were much closer to us. If you took the distance to the objects when the light was emitted and divided it by the time it took to reach us, you would get a lower value for c. This is because the space between us and these objects stretched or expanded while the light was in transit. So the idea of velocity through space over large distances is problematic.

Cosmologists apply relativity to and expanding universe to sort out all these mechanisms. In fact, the farthest objects we can see have moved well beyond the "horizon". The space between us and them now exceeds c which means we can never visit them. In osme distant future, observers here on Earth will not even be able to see them.

***********************

RF: I get the whole "expanding beach ball" model of the Universe, but by my reading of Einstein, the CAUSE of apparent motion really isn't relevant to the calculation of relativistic effects. It seems to me that some rather peculiar gyrations must be made to avoid the "nearly infinitely massive" universe conclusion.

cinci: Einstein developed relativity between 1905 and 1916. The knowledge of the expansion of the universe was unknown until the 1930s. So none of his early works will explain any of this. He believed in a static universe at the time. Other investigators took his equations and theorized that the universe must be expanding or contracting and Hubble showed it to be expanidng in the 1930s. Try to find a book on cosmology. The simplest one I have found is "Introduciton to Cosmology" by Ryden.

If these "gyrations" seem peculiar to you, it is because the universe is peculiar compared to our everyday observations. Out of 2,000,000 years of human existence, we have known about these things for only 80 years.

******************

RF: Again, Rybczyk's Relativity just says, "There's no such thing as mass increase," so all this hocus-pocus isn't needed.

cinci: Joseph is mistaken. All of this "hocus-pocus" derives from two simple equations called the Lorentz transformations which are derivable with highschool algebra. The phenomena of time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase follow as a mathematical certainty. Experimental verification of all aspects of the theory exist.

*****************************************

rfreeland

09-29-2009, 09:10 AM

Hi Cinci -- it seems you've just talked around the questions I raised in my earlier post. For instance, are you saying that because Einstein believed in a static universe, we can just go ahead and invalidate his underlying premises because the universe happens to be expanding? And that we can then nevertheless retain his conclusions? By repeating what the textbooks all say, you have simply avoided the questions.

And yes, I have read plenty of books on cosmology over the last 20 years. It's rather remarkable to me what we think we "know" from sitting here on our little rock studying distant lights. Every step in our understanding of the cosmos is predicated on earlier interpretations -- like Doppler shift, for instance. It is profound hubris to believe that our current interpretations are necessarily correct because they happen to be the most recent. Back in 1900, everyone was certain that Newton's interpretations of orbital observations were perfect... then along came Einstein. Theories rise and fall as our understanding improves, so I don't take anything as gospel (like Hubble's expanding universe, for instance).

BTW, there is NO experimental verification for length contraction or mass increase. The only experimental verification of Einstein's Relativity thusfar involves time dilation -- the one point on which Einstein and Rybczyk agree. Have you actually read Rybczyk's papers? His arguments on these points are rather convincing.

cincirob

09-29-2009, 02:48 PM

RF: Hi Cinci -- it seems you've just talked around the questions I raised in my earlier post. For instance, are you saying that because Einstein believed in a static universe, we can just go ahead and invalidate his underlying premises because the universe happens to be expanding? And that we can then nevertheless retain his conclusions? By repeating what the textbooks all say, you have simply avoided the questions.

cinci: Einstein's general relativity is a theory of gravity, not a theory of how the universe works. it stands on its own without regard to what we know about how the universe is structured. Einstein and others used his theory of gravity to see if they could describe the universe. Einstein's own analysis indicated that the universes hould be expanding or contracting and he added a factor to the equations to make it static. Even before Hubble discovered the expansion, it was determined mathematically that the universe must either be contracting onr expanding. A static universe is not stable.

********************

RF: And yes, I have read plenty of books on cosmology over the last 20 years. It's rather remarkable to me what we think we "know" from sitting here on our little rock studying distant lights. Every step in our understanding of the cosmos is predicated on earlier interpretations -- like Doppler shift, for instance. It is profound hubris to believe that our current interpretations are necessarily correct because they happen to be the most recent. Back in 1900, everyone was certain that Newton's interpretations of orbital observations were perfect... then along came Einstein.

cinci: The perihelion shift of Mercury was know before relativity was developed and no reason fo it was known.

**********************

RF: Theories rise and fall as our understanding improves, so I don't take anything as gospel (like Hubble's expanding universe, for instance).

cinci: Most theories don't rise and fall. Usually they are replaced by better theories. Newtonian physics and gravity haven't been replaced at all. They are still taught and used. We only invoke relativity in cases where the effects are large enough to matter.

******************

RF: BTW, there is NO experimental verification for length contraction or mass increase. The only experimental verification of Einstein's Relativity thusfar involves time dilation -- the one point on which Einstein and Rybczyk agree. Have you actually read Rybczyk's papers? His arguments on these points are rather convincing.

cinci: The Michelson Morley experiment demonstrates length contraction. Increased mass was noted even before 1905. The colliders used in physics depend on this mass increase and demontrate it quite graphically. I have read his papers and his arguments don't convince me.

************************

rfreeland

09-29-2009, 05:41 PM

Cinci,

I had always remembered Michelson-Morley as an experiment to detect the supposed aether that permeates the Universe and provides a medium for the travel of light. Famously, the experiment was unable to detect any aether at all. I had never heard any reference to this in conjunction with Einstein's theories, so I Googled around a bit on that point.

Indeed, Einstein's theory WAS proposed as an explanation for how the aether might not be detected, in as much as the distance between the mirrors in the direction of the Earth's motion through the aether might presumably be contracted by exactly the right amount to counter the "drag" of the "aether wind" on the beam of light in that direction. This entire aether premise -- along with the length contraction "solution" to it -- has since been completely discredited.

Wikipedia even notes:

"Lorentz later believed that relativity had introduced some doubt about whether the length contraction was apparent or real."

"In 1959 Roger Penrose and James Terrell published papers saying that the Length contraction cannot be observed."

================================================

So on to mass increase...

As Rybczyk explains in his Milennium Relativity paper, Einstein only postulated mass increase as a mathematical solution to relativistic conservation of momentum. Einstein recognized that momentum and energy must be reconciled, and, faced with two factors that might be altered in the equation for momentum (m or v), he chose m. Rybczyk argues very effectively that the correct choice should have been v. And moreover, that's because v is ALREADY altered by time dilation. So anyway, that's the summary in case you didn't make it that far in Rybczyk's paper.

-----------------------------------------

In fact, Rybczyk's take on this isn't so out of the mainstream anymore. Consider these quotes, again from Wikipedia:

"Contemporary authors like Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether: 'The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself.' "

"According to Lev Okun, Einstein himself always meant the invariant mass when he wrote "m" in his equations, and never used an unqualified "m" symbol for any other kind of mass. Okun and followers reject the concept of relativistic mass. Arnold B. Arons has argued against teaching the concept of relativistic mass: 'For many years it was conventional to enter the discussion of dynamics through derivation of the relativistic mass, that is the mass–velocity relation, and this is probably still the dominant mode in textbooks. More recently, however, it has been increasingly recognized that relativistic mass is a troublesome and dubious concept. The sound and rigorous approach to relativistic dynamics is through direct development of that expression for momentum that ensures conservation of momentum in all frames."

-----------------------------------------

Nevertheless, you claim that mass increase is routinely observed in super-colliders. Not really. What's observed is an increase in MOMENTUM, and everyone (Einstein, Rybczyk, etc.) agrees on that. For instance, consider this quote from an article on particle accelerators (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/particle_accelerator.jsp):

"In the isochronous cyclotron, the magnet is constructed so the magnetic field is stronger near the circumference than at the center, thus compensating for the mass increase and maintaining a constant frequency of revolution."

In that context, it's clear that the "mass increase" is actually "momentum increase". Keep Googling around on "mass increase" and "supercollider", and these kinds of references are the only ones you'll find, because the mass of these particles can't actually be measured.

- Robert

cincirob

09-29-2009, 09:37 PM

RF: I had always remembered Michelson-Morley as an experiment to detect the supposed aether that permeates the Universe and provides a medium for the travel of light. Famously, the experiment was unable to detect any aether at all. I had never heard any reference to this in conjunction with Einstein's theories, so I Googled around a bit on that point.

Indeed, Einstein's theory WAS proposed as an explanation for how the aether might not be detected, in as much as the distance between the mirrors in the direction of the Earth's motion through the aether might presumably be contracted by exactly the right amount to counter the "drag" of the "aether wind" on the beam of light in that direction. This entire aether premise -- along with the length contraction "solution" to it -- has since been completely discredited.

cinci: The idea the null result of the experiment was caused by length contraction was and is the only explanation. The idea that the length contraction is caused by aether drag that was proposed by Anto Lorentz was and is incorrect and has been discredited. Einstein's 1905 theory shows that the eloctrodynamics of moving bodies can be explained without recourse to luminiferous ehter. From OEMB: "These two postulates suffice for the

attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."

So thie idea of ether has been discredited, the theory of relativity has not.

*******************

RF: Wikipedia even notes:

"Lorentz later believed that relativity had introduced some doubt about whether the length contraction was apparent or real."

"In 1959 Roger Penrose and James Terrell published papers saying that the Length contraction cannot be observed."

cinci: As always, one must be careful about what one reads in Wikipedia. Lorentz's theories are what have been discredited so the comment by Lorentz is moot.

The comment about what Penrose and Terrell did isn't accurate. What they did was show that the visual appearance of high velocity objects is complicated. For instance, objects appear to be rotated. The cause of this is the time differences it takes light to reach an observer from different parts of the object affect the visual appearance. However, if you set up an experiment and time the leading and trailing edges of a rod as it passed a clock, then the time difference would indicate the contraction.

Google "Penrsoe and Terrel" and you can read about it.

********************

RF: So on to mass increase...

As Rybczyk explains in his Milennium Relativity paper, Einstein only postulated mass increase as a mathematical solution to relativistic conservation of momentum. Einstein recognized that momentum and energy must be reconciled, and, faced with two factors that might be altered in the equation for momentum (m or v), he chose m. Rybczyk argues very effectively that the correct choice should have been v. And moreover, that's because v is ALREADY altered by time dilation. So anyway, that's the summary in case you didn't make it that far in Rybczyk's paper.

cinci: Relative velocity is not affected by time dilation alone. If I measure your velocity past me at v, you will measure my velocity past you at v. This is a result of both time dilation and length contraction.

In the Large Hadron Collider, the velocity of the particles is .9999c. The mass of these particles is thousands of times their rest mass. You can't have a velocity increase of thousands of times .9999c.

********************

RF: In fact, Rybczyk's take on this isn't so out of the mainstream anymore. Consider these quotes, again from Wikipedia:

"Contemporary authors like Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether: 'The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself.' "

"According to Lev Okun, Einstein himself always meant the invariant mass when he wrote "m" in his equations, and never used an unqualified "m" symbol for any other kind of mass. Okun and followers reject the concept of relativistic mass. Arnold B. Arons has argued against teaching the concept of relativistic mass: 'For many years it was conventional to enter the discussion of dynamics through derivation of the relativistic mass, that is the mass–velocity relation, and this is probably still the dominant mode in textbooks. More recently, however, it has been increasingly recognized that relativistic mass is a troublesome and dubious concept. The sound and rigorous approach to relativistic dynamics is through direct development of that expression for momentum that ensures conservation of momentum in all frames."

-----------------------------------------

Nevertheless, you claim that mass increase is routinely observed in super-colliders. Not really. What's observed is an increase in MOMENTUM, and everyone (Einstein, Rybczyk, etc.) agrees on that. For instance, consider this quote from an article on particle accelerators (http://www.questia.com/library/encyc...elerator.jsp):

"In the isochronous cyclotron, the magnet is constructed so the magnetic field is stronger near the circumference than at the center, thus compensating for the mass increase and maintaining a constant frequency of revolution."

In that context, it's clear that the "mass increase" is actually "momentum increase". Keep Googling around on "mass increase" and "supercollider", and these kinds of references are the only ones you'll find, because the mass of these particles can't actually be measured.

cinci: None of this says that the phenomenon is time dilation as Joseph suggests.

When you say that it is clear that "mass increase" is "momentum increase" I have no idea what you mean. Mass is necessary to have momentum since momentum is the product of mass and velocity. You can't separate the two. I quote Rindler who says that the mass increases with speed and approaches infinity as velocity approaches c. Momentum, p, is defined as

p = mv.

If mass increases with velocity, then p increases for two reasons, the velocity increase and the mass increase that goes with it. And nobody will find will deny this.

Taylor and Wheeler have different fish to fry. They are working with general relativity and applying it to eveything from black holes to subatomic particles. And so they have to be careful about how they handle the term mass. In genreral relativity, mass influences the situation in ways that are not important in special relativity.

********************

rfreeland

09-29-2009, 11:27 PM

Hi Cinci,

I don't follow your chain of reasoning on much of that response.

(1) If the concept of aether has been discredited (as we both agree), then why did you cite Michelson-Morley as a "proof" of Einsteinian length contraction? As I explained, length contraction was only postulated to explain how the aether might still somehow exist, despite the null result of the experiment. The whole aether idea is now bunk, so that "proof" of length contraction is too.

(2) Your comments regarding Penrose & Terrell completely support Rybczyk's argument that length contraction is an illusion created by time dilation. Perhaps you already realize this?

(3) On mass increase, you cite the large hadron collider, which reputedly accelerates particles to 0.9999c. How do they know how fast the particle is actually moving? Isn't that number just a derived quantity based on energy and/or momentum calculations? If so, then the number is only as good as the kinetic energy and momentum equations that spit that number out, and those equations are the very ones in dispute here. No pun intended, but it's a circular argument.

A speed of 0.9999c produces a gamma of ~70, meaning that the momentum of the particles appears to be about p=70*mv (not thousands as you suggest, but that's beside the point). Rybczyk (and others now) argue that it is incorrect to attribute this increase in momentum to an increase in mass; rather the gamma factor is introduced by the temporal denominator in the "v" component. On Page 2 of his paper, "Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity", Rybczyk rederives Einstein's momentum formula and explains why it's unreasonable and inconsistent to attribute the gamma to mass increase. I really can't begin to explain it any better than Rybczyk does.

(4) You say, "If mass increases with velocity, then p increases for two reasons, the velocity increase and the mass increase that goes with it." If that's the case, then why doesn't gamma appear SQUARED in the Einsteinian relativistic equation for momentum? It does NOT appear twice because EINSTEIN IGNORED TIME DILATION. That's what Rybczyk and a growing chorus of physicists have been trying to say.

- Robert

cincirob

09-30-2009, 08:54 AM

RF: I don't follow your chain of reasoning on much of that response.

(1) If the concept of aether has been discredited (as we both agree), then why did you cite Michelson-Morley as a "proof" of Einsteinian length contraction? As I explained, length contraction was only postulated to explain how the aether might still somehow exist, despite the null result of the experiment. The whole aether idea is now bunk, so that "proof" of length contraction is too.

cinci: If ether had existed, the experiment would have had a non-null result. What he did was calculate the time it would take for the light to traverse and return along each arm. If the ether was moving (or if the device was moving relative to it), there would have been a non-null result; that is, when the device was rotated, the interference pattern would have changed. What happened was no shift in the pattern. No theory of ether can explain that outcome and no other theory available at the time could explain it.

Two physicists, Lorentz and Fitzgerald looked at the calculations and noticed that if the arm along the direction of motion contracted by the factor (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5, it would predict the null result. Relativity explains it.

Here is Michelson's paper. If you work through his math and you will see that he made a simplifying step at the end; that is, he expanded the factor above as a series. If you don't do the simplifying step, you can see how Lorentz and Fitzgerald arived at that concolusion.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/refs/mm.html

**********************

RF: (2) Your comments regarding Penrose & Terrell completely support Rybczyk's argument that length contraction is an illusion created by time dilation. Perhaps you already realize this?

cinci: No, they don't. Joseph does not do the calculations required to determine the visual distortions. I've read about Penrose and Terrell's and others who have determined this phenomenon. The visual illusion one gets would occur even if there were no length contraction. Their analysis calculates the length contraction and then applies the visual distortion to it.

**********************

RF: (3) On mass increase, you cite the large hadron collider, which reputedly accelerates particles to 0.9999c. How do they know how fast the particle is actually moving? Isn't that number just a derived quantity based on energy and/or momentum calculations? If so, then the number is only as good as the kinetic energy and momentum equations that spit that number out, and those equations are the very ones in dispute here. No pun intended, but it's a circular argument.

A speed of 0.9999c produces a gamma of ~70, meaning that the momentum of the particles appears to be about p=70*mv (not thousands as you suggest, but that's beside the point). Rybczyk (and others now) argue that it is incorrect to attribute this increase in momentum to an increase in mass; rather the gamma factor is introduced by the temporal denominator in the "v" component. On Page 2 of his paper, "Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity", Rybczyk rederives Einstein's momentum formula and explains why it's unreasonable and inconsistent to attribute the gamma to mass increase. I really can't begin to explain it any better than Rybczyk does.

cinci: I didn't know what the actual speed was. One of the articles I looked at when I was responding used that figure. Here is an article with a better figure:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11447-LA-Science-and-Tech-News-Examiner~y2009m8d27-The-Large-Hardon-Collider-vs-Cosmic-Rays-which-wins-the-energy-battle

It says: "In those articles I described the process whereby the LHC will propel protons, in opposite directions, at speeds approaching 99.999999% the speed of light (c)."

There are only two paramenters in the equation for momentum, mass and velocity. Velocity cannot be increased by multiples of thousands of even by 70 becasue c is the limit. So if you going to predict momentum of the magnitude of even 70 times the rest mass of the particle, you can't do it with the speed.

*********************

RF: (4) You say, "If mass increases with velocity, then p increases for two reasons, the velocity increase and the mass increase that goes with it." If that's the case, then why doesn't gamma appear SQUARED in the Einsteinian relativistic equation for momentum? It does NOT appear twice because EINSTEIN IGNORED TIME DILATION. That's what Rybczyk and a growing chorus of physicists have been trying to say.

cinci: I'm sorry, but that is funny. To say that the first man who even recognized that there was such a thing as time dilation and who rose to world-wide fame as a result ignored time dilation is ridiculous. It doesn't appear twice because the relative velocity of two frames is the same in both frames. The reason is length contraction.

Velocity = (distance)/(time)

If I want to analyze how you, in a relatively moving frame, calculate our relative velocity, then I will note that the distances you measure are reduced by the factor (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. And I will not that your time is reduced by the same amount.

V = [(distance)(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5]/[(time)(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5] = (distance)/(time)

So the factor does not appear twice.

********************

rfreeland

09-30-2009, 11:32 AM

Hi Cinci,

It's hard for me to follow your thinking on some of this.

(1) You describe the Michelson-Morley experiment in more detail, then you repeat what I said about Lorentz (and Fitzgerald) proposing relativistic length contraction as a way to explain the null result, ASSUMING THAT THE AETHER STILL EXISTS. We both recognize (and agree) that the whole aether concept has been refuted, so THERE'S NO REASON TO POSTULATE LENGTH CONTRACTION AS A WAY TO "FIX" THE FACT THAT THE AETHER WASN'T DETECTED. The Michelson-Morley experiment definitely does NOT demonstrate length contraction.

(2) I don't know enough about Penrose & Terrel to argue this one, so I'll just let it go. It doesn't prove any of your points, and I'll just accept that it doesn't prove any of mine either.

(3) The actual size of gamma doesn't really matter for the purposes of the argument about mass increase. I was just working from your velocity number.

The bigger issue is your statement, "There are only two paramenters in the equation for momentum, mass and velocity. Velocity cannot be increased by multiples of thousands of even by 70 because c is the limit."

In classical mechanics, the equation for momentum is p=mv. But in relativistic mechanics (either Einstein's or Rybczyk's), p=mv*gamma. So the debate is whether that gamma:

(a) modifies the actual mass of the particle,

(b) modifies the actual velocity of the particle, or

(c) modifies the temporal framework under which we measure the velocity, and therefore doesn't have any real-world meaning with respect to either mass or velocity.

Einstein chose "a". I invite Joe to comment here, but I believe he is arguing "c". I'd frankly like to understand this better myself.

- Robert

Rybczyk

09-30-2009, 01:43 PM

Hi Robert,

I was trying to stay out of it so as to not unfairly bias the argument in favor of my theory. Quite frankly you were doing quite fine without my help.

The short answer to your final question involving my choice of options (a), (b), and (c) is that you were correct in assuming if I were given only those three options I would chose (c). Actually, however, the question can be answered even more specifically as discussed next.

As a matter of fact, the question involving the confusion associated with v is raised at end of Section 11 and treated in Section 12 of the Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity (http://www.mrelativity.net/TimeEnergyIG/TimeEnergyIG2.htm) paper. There it is shown that the transformation factor can be re-derived using the constant rate of acceleration and the associated time interval (either that of the stationary frame, or the visited moving frame at that instant) to avoid the confusion altogether. Nonetheless, it is perfectly legitimate to use the form of the factor that uses velocity v. When so doing it should be understood that the same value is used for the velocity v acted upon by the transformation factor as used within the factor. Quite obviously, when v approaches c in the gamma version of the factor, the factor approaches infinity, i.e. (c/0). Thus, the value of v acted upon is near the value of c but because of its asymptotic nature, the effect it has on momentum is dramatically increased by the gamma factor that with the same value of v is approaching infinity. This is no different mathematically than any other operation whereupon a normal given value for some variable is used in a way that increases its effect within the formula; for example, v^2, or v^3, etc. In such cases, no one argues that the value of v is affected by the fact that it is raised to a higher power. It is understood that the value of the variable, in this case v, is unaffected. We are simply magnifying the effect it has in a given formula as supported by experimental evidence.

The only problem with my getting involved here is, as I am sure you are aware, it will do nothing to change cinci’s mind. He will just do his usual evasive distortions to show he is right and I am wrong. He is not the kind of person you can reason with, at least not on this particular subject. Why that is, I can only guess. (And I do have some thoughts about what it might really be, but it’s not worth getting into.)

Joseph

cincirob

09-30-2009, 09:15 PM

RF: It's hard for me to follow your thinking on some of this.

cinci: Not surprising. This theory goes against a lot of everyday lore that's been around for 2,000,000 years of human hsitory.

********************

RF: (1) You describe the Michelson-Morley experiment in more detail, then you repeat what I said about Lorentz (and Fitzgerald) proposing relativistic length contraction as a way to explain the null result, ASSUMING THAT THE AETHER STILL EXISTS. We both recognize (and agree) that the whole aether concept has been refuted, so THERE'S NO REASON TO POSTULATE LENGTH CONTRACTION AS A WAY TO "FIX" THE FACT THAT THE AETHER WASN'T DETECTED. The Michelson-Morley experiment definitely does NOT demonstrate length contraction.

cinci: Then how do you explain the null-result of the experiment? Yes, it showed that ether theory was wrong, but it also showed something was going on that we didn't understand. The physics community was in crisis as a result of this experiment. Relativity theory doesn't use the concept of ether and explains the experiment result as length contraction.

*********************

RF: (2) I don't know enough about Penrose & Terrel to argue this one, so I'll just let it go. It doesn't prove any of your points, and I'll just accept that it doesn't prove any of mine either.

cinci: You can find descriptions of it on the internet. If you find something that disagrees with my statements, I'd appreciate it if you would let me know.

********************

RF: (3) The actual size of gamma doesn't really matter for the purposes of the argument about mass increase. I was just working from your velocity number.

The bigger issue is your statement, "There are only two paramenters in the equation for momentum, mass and velocity. Velocity cannot be increased by multiples of thousands of even by 70 because c is the limit."

In classical mechanics, the equation for momentum is p=mv. But in relativistic mechanics (either Einstein's or Rybczyk's), p=mv*gamma. So the debate is whether that gamma:

(a) modifies the actual mass of the particle,

(b) modifies the actual velocity of the particle, or

(c) modifies the temporal framework under which we measure the velocity, and therefore doesn't have any real-world meaning with respect to either mass or velocity.

Einstein chose "a". I invite Joe to comment here, but I believe he is arguing "c". I'd frankly like to understand this better myself.

cinci: (b) doesn't appear to make any sense. If you modify the velocity by a factor of 7000 which the LHC velocity works out to, then you're saying the particle is not going .9999999c but 7000 times that. 7000 times the speed of light makes no sense at all. I've read recent artlcles about the start-up of the LHC. They send bunches of particles around the track and they know how long it takes them to go around and it isn't 7000 times the speed of light. This isn't the first collider anyone ever built, and the reason they build bigger ones is to accelerate the particles to higher speeds to increase the energy of the collisons to produce larger particles. In this case they are looking for the Higgs boson and expect it to be easily produced at these energies. The Tevatron at Fermilab in Illinois couldn't produce the energy needed an it probably operates at .9999c.

(c) stikes me a jargonese. I have no idea what it means.

(a) makes sense and has made sense for over 100 years. We have been building mass spectrographs, cathode ray tubes, and colliders for a long time now and if there were something wrong with the formulation for mass, then somebody would have noticed. It is also the case that the increase in mass is natures way of preventing superluminal speeds. And the search for a way to do that has turned up nothing so far. There is a sort of warp drive idea but I havenot idea of whether it is really feasible.

**********************

cincirob

09-30-2009, 09:23 PM

Joseph: The only problem with my getting involved here is, as I am sure you are aware, it will do nothing to change cinci’s mind. He will just do his usual evasive distortions to show he is right and I am wrong. He is not the kind of person you can reason with, at least not on this particular subject. Why that is, I can only guess. (And I do have some thoughts about what it might really be, but it’s not worth getting into.)

cinci: Joseph, you are welcome to your scientific ideas and I am to mine. What you are not welcome to do is distort my actions or impugn my character. I have not been evasive with rfreeland or with you. Everything I have said with regard to this subject can be found in any standard text on the subject you care to pick up. It is not a distortion to believe what every mainstream physicist in the world believes.

The fact that you always resort ad hominum attacks speaks volumes about you and your theories.

**********************

rfreeland

10-01-2009, 02:35 PM

Cinci,

I don't think you really understand the Michelson-Morley experiment at all. The light beam was split at right angles, and then each beam travelled a path of equal length. Michelson and Morley expected to find that the beam travelling against the supposed aether would be delayed vs. the beam travelling across the supposed aether. In practice, neither beam was delayed.

The Einsteinians (Lorentz, in particular) suggested that the aether may nevertheless exist, provided the distance along the Earth's direction of motion (i.e. - against the aether) were shortened by length contraction. Thus, the beam would have been retarded by the aether, but travel a shorter distance due to length contraction, thus allowing it to remain in synch with the other (transverse) beam. This whole suggestion was a PATCH to show how the Michelson-Morley experiment could produce a null result IN THE PRESENCE OF AETHER.

As I've stated in three other posts above: If you don't postulate an aether, then you don't need to patch the experiment to account for the null result. The simple (and universally accepted conclusion) from Michelson-Morley is that THERE IS NO AETHER. Thus, the beams would naturally remain in synch because the arms are the same length. No aether, no length contraction.

------------------------------

On the super-collider question, I agree that (b) doesn't make much sense, unless it involves some mixing of reference frames. I do not, however, think that (c) is "jargonese". It just says that the gamma doesn't modify either the mass or the velocity directly, but rather that it's simply part of the relativistic formula for momentum.

Rybczyk actually goes a step further to show that this approach is also consistent with the formula for relativistic kinetic energy, and that Einstein's interpretation is not. Again, I encourage you to actually read Rybczyk's paper and THINK ABOUT IT with an open mind. It really does make far more sense than the mass-increase / length contraction interpretation that Einstein gave (100 years ago). Science DOES progress, and it's profound hubris to believe that the entirety of relativistic physics was completely solved by one man 100 years ago, no matter how great his contribution. In 1900, all the Newtonians sounded just like you.

BTW, how do mass spectrographs and cathode ray tubes demonstrate mass increase? Those are both low-energy electromagnetic devices!

- Robert

cincirob

10-01-2009, 03:27 PM

RF: I don't think you really understand the Michelson-Morley experiment at all. The light beam was split at right angles, and then each beam travelled a path of equal length. Michelson and Morley expected to find that the beam travelling against the supposed aether would be delayed vs. the beam travelling across the supposed aether. In practice, neither beam was delayed.

cinci: Yes, and if the Earth were pefectly stationary that would be the expected result. But the Earth is moving through the cosmos at about 300 km/sec. Michelson predicted an effect would be observable if the Earth were moving at only 22 km/sec. If you read his paper, you will find that his calculations don't include any effect of ether. He had no idea what the velocity of the ether would be relative to the Earth. The effect he calculated is based only on the velocity of the Earth and whether the arms were oriented along that direction of perpendicular to it.

Do the analysis. You will find, as Michelson did, that even though the arms are of equal length, the velocity of the device through space will affect the round trip time of the rays....unless you consider a contraction in the direction of motion.

If you want to assume I don't know what I'm talking about go ahead and assume it. But you're also assuming that Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and any noted physicist you care to name don't know what they are talking about either.

**********************

RF: The Einsteinians (Lorentz, in particular) suggested that the aether may nevertheless exist, provided the distance along the Earth's direction of motion (i.e. - against the aether) were shortened by length contraction. Thus, the beam would have been retarded by the aether, but travel a shorter distance due to length contraction, thus allowing it to remain in synch with the other (transverse) beam. This whole suggestion was a PATCH to show how the Michelson-Morley experiment could produce a null result IN THE PRESENCE OF AETHER.

cinci: First, Lorentz was not an Einsteinian. He continued to believe in ether for the rest of his life, as did Michelson. Lorentz was correct about the contraction because he deduced it from an actual experiment. What he did next was to try to explain it in terms of ether and in that respect you are correct. Lorentz patched up the theory of ether.

Einstein dismisses ether in the first few paragraphs of his 1905 paper and makes no allusion at all to the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is not clear the he even knew of the experiment. Length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase arise as a logical consequence of the assumption that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.

*********************

RF: As I've stated in three other posts above: If you don't postulate an aether, then you don't need to patch the experiment to account for the null result. The simple (and universally accepted conclusion) from Michelson-Morley is that THERE IS NO AETHER. Thus, the beams would naturally remain in synch because the arms are the same length. No aether, no length contraction.

cinci: I suggest you do the math. It's very simple and will show you are incorrect here. There is no factor in the analysis for ether. If there were an ether, the result would have been non-null but different that predicted. If you don't want to believe me, then google other sources.

***********************

RF: On the super-collider question, I agree that (b) doesn't make much sense, unless it involves some mixing of reference frames. I do not, however, think that (c) is "jargonese". It just says that the gamma doesn't modify either the mass or the velocity directly, but rather that it's simply part of the relativistic formula for momentum.

cinci: Gamma is a dimensionless number. It cannot account for momentum.

*************************

RF: Rybczyk actually goes a step further to show that this approach is also consistent with the formula for relativistic kinetic energy, and that Einstein's interpretation is not. Again, I encourage you to actually read Rybczyk's paper and THINK ABOUT IT with an open mind. It really does make far more sense than the mass-increase / length contraction interpretation that Einstein gave (100 years ago). Science DOES progress, and it's profound hubris to believe that the entirety of relativistic physics was completely solved by one man 100 years ago, no matter how great his contribution. In 1900, all the Newtonians sounded just like you.

cinci: No, whether Joseph is right or wrong, his interpretation doesn't make more sense. Einstein's equation is perfectly sensible. I'm afraid you're underestimating Einstein and overestimating Joseph. Whatever you think of relativity, the only way to prove it is wrong is to show that one of its predictions is wrong. You can't "think it away" and you can't take one of his equations, reinterpret it and say he's wrong.

Joseph doesn't say the prediction of momentum is wrong he just says everybody but he is interpretting it wrong.

As far as ignoring progress is concerned, general relativity is not yet considered to be fully investigated and is currently one of the more active areas of research. Shortly after general relativity was developed, quantum mechanics took center stage and most of the effort in physics was devoted to its development. Only in the past 25 years have important physicists like Stephen Hawking have returned to the study of relativity and investigated its full power. It is beyond comprehension to think there is some glaring flaw in the theory when it is used to develop the GPS system which works exactly as the theory predicts.

***********************

RF: BTW, how do mass spectrographs and cathode ray tubes demonstrate mass increase? Those are both low-energy electromagnetic devices!

cinci: You are correct. I thought they operated at higher energies. But the effect is clearly there in accelerators.

***********************

Rybczyk

10-01-2009, 08:26 PM

As regards the Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment the following is about as simple an explanation as I can give:

1. You either believe in the principle of relativity, or you don’t. If you don’t then you don’t believe in the theory of relativity no matter how many times you claim you do.

2. If you do believe in the principle of relativity then you accept the self-evident proposition that uniform motion is a relative condition. It does not exist independent of a second object or body to which the motion can be reference. In plain words, uniform motion and a state of rest are the exact same thing. Any object that is not accelerating is in such an absolute state of rest. There is no experiment of any kind that, when contained entirely within the reference frame of such a body, can be used to prove it is in motion. For example, an experiment conducted in an electromagnetically shielded room on such a body with no contact of any kind with another body that is in motion relative to it. The fact of the matter is, under such conditions the body is not in motion. It is in a state of rest. There is nothing to detect.

3. The Michelson and Morley experiment was just such an experiment. It used light that was propagated from a source contained within the very same piece of equipment that the detector was contained in. How then could anything other than a null result be obtained?

4. On the other hand, if the Earth were actually moving through a medium required for light propagation, then there is not only relative motion in regard to such medium but since it is required for light propagation there is also physical contact interaction with such medium. In that regard the medium, in a manner, substitutes for the second body, and the fact that the speed of light is regulated by such a medium, it is to be expected that light traveling thorough it in one direction will have a different speed from light traveling simultaneously at a right angle to that direction if the experimental apparatus is moving through it.

5. Since the Michelson and Morley experiment produced a null result it provided strong evidence against the concept of a medium required for light propagation. Thus, with regard to that experiment no other explanation is need and in fact would be superfluous.

6. Why then is any discussion at all needed involving distance contraction with regard to the principles of relativity? The reason is simple. There is, in fact, constant physical interaction between bodies in uniform motion relative to each other throughout the entire universe in the form of electromagnetic energy including the more obvious form involving the visible light spectrum. To claim that this light has the same speed c relative to the receiving body that it has relative to the emitting body that is in motion relative to the receiving body requires a very convincing explanation. The explanation comes in the form of time dilation that can be indirectly viewed as distance contraction. I.e., if time is running slower in the frame of the opposite body, then light will travel shorter distances relative to that body as compared to the distance it travels in the other body during that same time interval.

7. As can be seen then, the Lorentz transformation is not required to explain away the null result of the Michelson and Morley experiment. The only explanation needed is that involving the rejection of the ether light medium. But that doesn’t explain how light received from a moving star can have the same speed upon its reception on Earth that it had when emitted on the star. For that we do need the Lorentz transformation.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

10-02-2009, 12:31 AM

Joseph:

As regards the Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment the following is about as simple an explanation as I can give:

1. You either believe in the principle of relativity, or you don’t. If you don’t then you don’t believe in the theory of relativity no matter how many times you claim you do.

2. If you do believe in the principle of relativity then you accept the self-evident proposition that uniform motion is a relative condition. It does not exist independent of a second object or body to which the motion can be reference. In plain words, uniform motion and a state of rest are the exact same thing. Any object that is not accelerating is in such an absolute state of rest. There is no experiment of any kind that, when contained entirely within the reference frame of such a body, can be used to prove it is in motion. For example, an experiment conducted in an electromagnetically shield room on such a body with no contact of any kind with another body that is in motion relative to it. The fact of the matter is, under such conditions the body is not in motion. It is in a state of rest. There is nothing to detect.

3. The Michelson and Morley experiment was just such an experiment. It used light that was propagated from a source contained within the very same piece of equipment that the detector was contained in. How then could anything other than a null result be obtained?

4. On the other hand, if the Earth were actually moving through a medium required for light propagation, then there is not only relative motion in regard to such medium but since it is required for light propagation there is also physical contact interaction with such medium. In that regard the medium, in a manner, substitutes for the second body, and the fact that the speed of light is regulated by such a medium, it is to be expected that light traveling thorough it in one direction will have a different speed from light traveling simultaneously at a right angle to that direction if the experimental apparatus is moving through it.

5. Since the Michelson and Morley experiment produced a null result it provided strong evidence against the concept of a medium required for light propagation. Thus, with regard to that experiment no other explanation is need and in fact would be superfluous.

6. Why then is any discussion at all needed involving distance contraction with regard to the principles of relativity? The reason is simple. There is, in fact, constant physical interaction between bodies in uniform motion relative to each other throughout the entire universe in the form of electromagnetic energy including the more obvious form involving the visible light spectrum. To claim that this light has the same speed c relative to the receiving body that it has relative to the emitting body that is in motion relative to the receiving body requires a very convincing explanation. The explanation comes in the form of time dilation that can be indirectly viewed as distance contraction. I.e., if time is running slower in the frame of the opposite body, then light will travel shorter distances relative to that body as compared to the distance it travels in the other body during that same time interval.

7. As can be seen then, the Lorentz transformation is not required to explain away the null result of the Michelson and Morley experiment. The only explanation needed is that involving the rejection of the ether light medium. But that doesn’t explain how light received from a moving star can have the same speed upon its reception on Earth that it had when emitted on the star. For that we do need the Lorentz transformation.

cinci: You're OK up through point (5) Joseph. Time dilation cannot be the issue as you suggest in (6) because both arms are in the same frame of reference so both are subject to the same clock rates no matter what frame they are observed from.

The time difference that was supposed to occur that can be deduced by simple geometry. I can and I believe have done these calcualtions on this forum but if I haven't, here they are now:

Tp = 2(Lp)/c/(1 – (v/c)^2)

Tn = 2(Ln)/c/sqr[1 – (v/c)^2)^.5

where

Tp = round trip time for light along the arm parallel to the direction of motion

Lp = length of the arm in the direction parallel to the direction of motion

Tn = round trip time for the light along the arm normal to the direction of motion

Ln = length of the arm along the arm normal to the direction of motion

If you don't understand where these equations come from then refer to Michelson's paper at http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/refs/mm.html.

Lp and Ln were designed to be of equal length. Lorentz and Fitzgerald looked at these two equations and realized that multiplying Lp by (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 would make the two times identical. It's that simple. And it's too obvious to argue about.

I don't understand your comment in (7) at all. Nothing you said here obviates the need to explain this simple geometric issue. Length contraction and time dilation are both derivable from the Lorentz transformations so they are needed if you think either phenomenon is required to explain the experiment. And you need both time dilation and length contraction to explain why all measurements of the speed of light from a star or from any source are identical.

Once again you have discussed this problem without any kind of analysis to support what you conclude. You state above that this experiment supports the postulate of relativity and your are correct, it does; but, that doesn't mean you don't have to explain it. The equations I wrote above are not dependent on aether so concluding that there is no aether doesn't solve the problem. Length contraction does.

*****************************

rfreeland

10-02-2009, 12:35 AM

Cinci,

You very definitely do NOT understand the significance of Michelson-Morley. The entire PURPOSE of the test was to detect the supposed aether. The experiment is a famous turning point precisely because it did NOT detect the aether.

You said, "Michelson predicted an effect would be observable if the Earth were moving at only 22 km/sec. If you read his paper, you will find that his calculations don't include any effect of ether. He had no idea what the velocity of the ether would be relative to the Earth. The effect he calculated is based only on the velocity of the Earth and whether the arms were oriented along that direction of perpendicular to it."

As you note, Michelson expected that he might detect the aether at a relative speed of as little as 22 km/sec, and he had no idea how fast the Earth might be moving through the supposed aether. Read his paper, though. All of his calculations (which you cite) are based on the expectation that the aether would impede the progress of the beam in one direction or the other. No aether = null result. Desperate to hold onto the aether concept, some physicists at the time even proposed that the supposed aether was somehow being "dragged along" by the Earth. Pretty crazy.

- Robert

rfreeland

10-02-2009, 12:40 AM

While I'm at it...

Cinci says, "It is beyond comprehension to think there is some glaring flaw in the theory (of Relativity) when it is used to develop the GPS system which works exactly as the theory predicts."

I'll reiterate that Einstein and Rybczyk both agree on time dilation. That's what drives GPS. Let's try to keep track of all the balls, shall we?

cincirob

10-02-2009, 12:06 PM

RF: You very definitely do NOT understand the significance of Michelson-Morley. The entire PURPOSE of the test was to detect the supposed aether. The experiment is a famous turning point precisely because it did NOT detect the aether.

cinci: No matter what its original purpose was, as a physicist, you would need to explain the outcome. And you can't do that without relativity and length contraction. If you think you can explain it some other way then I'm all ears.

************************

RF: You said, "Michelson predicted an effect would be observable if the Earth were moving at only 22 km/sec. If you read his paper, you will find that his calculations don't include any effect of ether. He had no idea what the velocity of the ether would be relative to the Earth. The effect he calculated is based only on the velocity of the Earth and whether the arms were oriented along that direction of perpendicular to it."

As you note, Michelson expected that he might detect the aether at a relative speed of as little as 22 km/sec, and he had no idea how fast the Earth might be moving through the supposed aether. Read his paper, though. All of his calculations (which you cite) are based on the expectation that the aether would impede the progress of the beam in one direction or the other. No aether = null result. Desperate to hold onto the aether concept, some physicists at the time even proposed that the supposed aether was somehow being "dragged along" by the Earth. Pretty crazy.

cinci: No, his calculations do not include and ether drag. Ether is supposed to be the medium for light, a wave phenomenon as shown by Maxwell. Ether is supposed to be what is "waving". As with all vibratory phenomena, the veolcity of the wave is always constant relative to its medium; for instance, the speed of lsound is always 1100 ft/sec relative to standard temperature and pressure air.

The way he did the calculations is identical with assuming that c has the same velocity relative to empty space, the same as Einstein's postulate.

*********************

Cinci says, "It is beyond comprehension to think there is some glaring flaw in the theory (of Relativity) when it is used to develop the GPS system which works exactly as the theory predicts."

RF: I'll reiterate that Einstein and Rybczyk both agree on time dilation. That's what drives GPS. Let's try to keep track of all the balls, shall we?

cinci: Time dilation, as predicted by both special and general relativity tell us how to run the clocks on the satellites. But the signals from the satellites travel a minimum 14,000 kilometers through space and the Earth is moving just as it does for the Michelson experiment. The same phenomenon that produces the null result in the MMX means that the direction to the satellites and the velocity of the Earth need not be included in the calculations.

You cannot derive time dilation factor from the MMX. You can derive it from the Lorentz transformations. But you can also derive the length contraction formula from the Lorentz transformations. On what basis would you believe one outcome derived from the transformations but choose to disbelieve another?

I will show you these derivations if you ask but I didn't volunteer them because you have picked up one of Joseph's bad habits. I showed you exactly why the physics community believes in length contraction and how the factor (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 is deduced. Your response doesn't even mention that. Instead, you just launch off in some other direction. Next I expect will come the ad hominum attacks. It's not a good path to follow.

****************

rfreeland

10-02-2009, 05:34 PM

Cinci,

For the record, you reposted Rybczyk's post, then edited it sometime later, so when I last looked, your formulae weren't there. That's why I didn't respond to them.

With that said, your initial Tp and Tn formulae are wrong. As Rybczyk explained in his post (and you have confirmed), both arms are of equal length and lie in the same inertial reference frame. Thus, Tp = Lp/c and Tn = Ln/c. The complex formulae that you give were reverse-engineered by Lorentz to explain a null result in the presence of a supposed aether drag that (for the fourth time) DOESN'T EXIST. No aether, no need for all this gibberish.

Tp = Lp/c

Tn = Ln/c

null result

no aether

no length contraction indicated or observed

FWIW, this doesn't prove that length contraction doesn't exist either. As I've been saying for nearly a week in close to a dozen posts, Michelson-Morley has squat to do with Relativity.

---------------------------------------

With regard to the topic of GPS (which, BTW, is "another direction" that you launched, not I), you say, "But the signals from the satellites travel a minimum 14,000 kilometers through space and the Earth is moving just as it does for the Michelson experiment. The same phenomenon that produces the null result in the MMX means that the direction to the satellites and the velocity of the Earth need not be included in the calculations."

I couldn't agree more. That "phenomenon" is called an "inertial reference frame" centered on the Earth. Length contraction has nothing at all to do with the functioning of GPS; rather, we must correct for time dilation due to the GRAVITATIONAL field of the Earth, since the satellites are farther away from it than we are.

- Robert

cincirob

10-03-2009, 01:12 AM

RF: For the record, you reposted Rybczyk's post, then edited it sometime later, so when I last looked, your formulae weren't there. That's why I didn't respond to them.

cinci: OK

*************

RF: With that said, your initial Tp and Tn formulae are wrong. As Rybczyk explained in his post (and you have confirmed), both arms are of equal length and lie in the same inertial reference frame. Thus, Tp = Lp/c and Tn = Ln/c. The complex formulae that you give were reverse-engineered by Lorentz to explain a null result in the presence of a supposed aether drag that (for the fourth time) DOESN'T EXIST. No aether, no need for all this gibberish.

Tp = Lp/c

Tn = Ln/c

null result

no aether

no length contraction indicated or observed

FWIW, this doesn't prove that length contraction doesn't exist either. As I've been saying for nearly a week in close to a dozen posts, Michelson-Morley has squat to do with Relativity.

cinci: If you are an observer moving with the device, and Michelson and all of us are, you are correct that one would expect Tp = Lp/c and Tn = Ln/c. But it was Einstein who told us to expect this result when he postulated that light was subject to the principle of relativity. In 1904 nobody knew or believed that you couldn't measure the speed of the frame you were in. You are invoking something Einstein postulated to tell me Einstein is wrong.

If you believe there is an ether as everyone did in 1904, this result would not be expected. Michelson (and you) know there is some v, be it the orbital speed of the Earth or the the speed of the Sun around the galaxy. So Michelson writes his equations from the point of view of an observer who is watching the device pass by at that velocity.

For the ray along the arm, the outbound trip takes To = Lp/(c-v) and or the return (after reflection) the trip takes Ti = Lp/(c+v). The round trip, Tp, is tht total of these two and since the light rays are recombined at the splitter, the round trip is what you want; therefore,

Tp = Lp/(c-v) + Lp/(c+v).

Tp = Lp[(c+v+c-v)/(c^2-v^2)] = Lp[(2c)/(c^2-v^2)]

Tp = (2Lp/c)/(1 - (v/c)^2)

The path along the normal arm can be derived also and is

Tn = (2Lp/c)/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

as I said before.

Michelson expected to see this resultant difference with some modification by ether wind. He rotated his device on a pool of mercury because he didn't know which direction would be affected. When he got the null result no matter which way he pointed the arms, he had no answer for it. Neither did anybody in the physics community until Lorentz and Fitzgerald guessed length contraction as I showed previously. The whole physics world believed in ether and the most sophisticated experiment ever run to detect it failed.

These equations are not mine, they are Michelson's and he got the Nobel prize for inventing the device. Versions of it are still used today to measure light wavelength.

************************

RF: With regard to the topic of GPS (which, BTW, is "another direction" that you launched, not I), you say, "But the signals from the satellites travel a minimum 14,000 kilometers through space and the Earth is moving just as it does for the Michelson experiment. The same phenomenon that produces the null result in the MMX means that the direction to the satellites and the velocity of the Earth need not be included in the calculations."

I couldn't agree more. That "phenomenon" is called an "inertial reference frame" centered on the Earth. Length contraction has nothing at all to do with the functioning of GPS; rather, we must correct for time dilation due to the GRAVITATIONAL field of the Earth, since the satellites are farther away from it than we are.

cinci: Again, you are invoking the principle of relativity to tell me relativity is wrong. If you looked at the system from a point in space that was stationary relative to the motion of the earth, you would see it exactly as Michelson's equations predict and length contraction would "correct" the distances so that the velocity would have no effect.

Actually the clocks run faster by about 45 nsec/day because they are in a reduced gravitational field and slower by about 8 nsec/day because of their relative velocity for a total of 37 nsec/day. As I said earlier, "Time dilation, as predicted by both special and general relativity tell us how to run the clocks on the satellites."

*************************

Rybczyk

10-03-2009, 01:56 AM

cinci,

In regard to your comments in message #24:

First you state:cinci: You're OK up through point (5) Joseph. Time dilation cannot be the issue as you suggest in (6) because both arms are in the same frame of reference so both are subject to the same clock rates no matter what frame they are observed from.

My response: My comments in (6) have nothing to do with the Michelson and Morley experiment. They involve electromagnetic waves/frequencies that traverse between two different gravitational/inertial frames and therefore do involve gravitational/inertial time dilation. I have repeated this to you endlessly on this forum but it seems to be beyond your ability to understand. In points (1) through (5) I am referring to the single gravitational/inertial frame that the Michelson and Morley experiment was confined to, in which case time dilation is not a factor.

Next you go on to give the mathematical explanation for the Michelson and Morley experiment right after acknowledging that I am correct up to point (5) in which I stated that no explanation other than rejection of the either medium is required.

You don’t seem to actually understand the principle of relativity and continually mix single frame phenomena with dual frame phenomena. In support of this contention, you go on to state that you really don’t understand my comment in (7) at all. You’re right; you don’t seem to understand it at all.

And finally, you go on to comment that I have not discussed this problem with any kind of analysis when in fact I have written paper after paper showing in explicit detail everything I have argued on this forum. You refuse to read those papers because they appear to be beyond your very limited abilities to understand. Sorry, I can’t help you there.

In regard to your comments in message #27:

After basically reiterating your complete lack of understanding of the difference between single gravitational/inertial frame phenomena and dual gravitational/inertial frame phenomena, you go on to complicate matters even more by the inclusion of a discussion of GPS. As a matter of fact GPS involves signal transmission between dual gravitational/inertial frames and subsequently involves gravitational time dilation, inertial time dilation and the Sagnac effect, and none of this has anything to do with the Michelson and Morley experiment.

You have no idea of how difficult it is for me to convince myself that anything worthwhile will ever result from these kinds of mindless discussions with you.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

rfreeland

10-03-2009, 04:00 AM

For my part, I'm done repeating ad nauseum that length contraction was only proposed in conjunction with Michelson-Morley to allow for the existence of the aether in the absence of all experimental evidence. I don't seem to be getting through either. Believe what you want to believe on that, Cinci -- you don't understand the experiment at all.

Null result = no aether = no length contraction. OR

Null result = aether + length contraction.

On the GPS question, yes, there is a small correction to the clocks due to the velocity of the satellite. There is no correction for length contraction. I'll have to look up the Sagnac effect that Joe mentions, because I've never heard of it.

- Robert

cincirob

10-03-2009, 05:59 AM

Joseph: In regard to your comments in message #24:

First you state:cinci: You're OK up through point (5) Joseph. Time dilation cannot be the issue as you suggest in (6) because both arms are in the same frame of reference so both are subject to the same clock rates no matter what frame they are observed from.

My response: My comments in (6) have nothing to do with the Michelson and Morley experiment. They involve electromagnetic waves/frequencies that traverse between two different gravitational/inertial frames and therefore do involve gravitational/inertial time dilation. I have repeated this to you endlessly on this forum but it seems to be beyond your ability to understand. In points (1) through (5) I am referring to the single gravitational/inertial frame that the Michelson and Morley experiment was confined to, in which case time dilation is not a factor.

cinci: So the first line in the message is: "As regards the Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment the following is about as simple an explanation as I can give:" and points 1-5 and 7 are about Michelson-Morley but 6 is not. Maybe you shouldn't have put a non-sequitor in the middle of the explanation. In any case, time dilation is not a factor in Michelson-Morley for the reason I stated.

*********************

Joseph: Next you go on to give the mathematical explanation for the Michelson and Morley experiment right after acknowledging that I am correct up to point (5) in which I stated that no explanation other than rejection of the either medium is required.

cinci: The analysis I showed is consistent with there being no ether. There is nothing in the analysis realted to ether.

************************

Joseph: You don’t seem to actually understand the principle of relativity and continually mix single frame phenomena with dual frame phenomena. In support of this contention, you go on to state that you really don’t understand my comment in (7) at all. You’re right; you don’t seem to understand it at all.

cinci: What I meant was I don't understand why you would make such a comment. You continue to view the problem only from the frame of the device by invoking the principle of relativity. Here is what Eisntein says about that principle: ".....the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

It is the "apparently irrconcilable" part of the problem that you don't recognize. Micheslon assumed the constancy of the speed of light in his analysis and assumes a stationary observer with the interferometer moving past him with the orbital speed of the Earth. It is that analysis that tells him the time in the two arms should be different. That result is "apparently irrconcilable" with the principle of relativity which says the motion of the observer won't affect the travel of light along each arm.

When the problem is viewed from the stationary system, then it is necessary to invoke the Lorentz trnasformations from which one can deduce length contraction.

*************************

Jospeh: And finally, you go on to comment that I have not discussed this problem with any kind of analysis when in fact I have written paper after paper showing in explicit detail everything I have argued on this forum. You refuse to read those papers because they appear to be beyond your very limited abilities to understand. Sorry, I can’t help you there.

cinci: There is no "explicit detail" here or in your paper. You simply invoke the principle of relativity in the moving frame and ignore the problem of what the situaion looks like from the stationary perspective. It's perfectly clear that you don't understand that this is the issue and it is only soluble with length contraction. Lorentz and Fitzgerald deduced this onve 100 years ago. How can you tacitly assume then were wrong?

*********************

Joseph: In regard to your comments in message #27:

After basically reiterating your complete lack of understanding of the difference between single gravitational/inertial frame phenomena and dual gravitational/inertial frame phenomena, ..............

cinci: No Joseph, that is exactly what I do understand and explain and that you avoid thinking about.

***************

Joseph.......you go on to complicate matters even more by the inclusion of a discussion of GPS. As a matter of fact GPS involves signal transmission between dual gravitational/inertial frames and subsequently involves gravitational time dilation, inertial time dilation and the Sagnac effect, and none of this has anything to do with the Michelson and Morley experiment.

cinci: Gravitational time dilation and inertial time dilation are necessary to select the rate at which to run the satellite clocks and I stated this very clearly. Please don't pretend anything else. The Sagnac effect is corrected for but has nothing to do with this issue. In the Michelson-Morley experiment the issue is the time of flight of electromagnetic radiation in a moving system. The GPS depends on the time of flight of electromagnetic radiation in a moving system. The problem is identical and the reason it works in the GPS is the same reason the MMX yields a null result.

******************************

Joseph: You have no idea of how difficult it is for me to convince myself that anything worthwhile will ever result from these kinds of mindless discussions with you.

cinci: Nothing useful will come of these discussion until you think about what I have said instead of simply referring to what you have said in the past. You need to read Michelson's paper and understand why he did the analysis he did and learn to do it yourself. I didn't make up all this history and I didn't dream that one of the world's leading physicists, Dr. Lorentz, deduced that length contraction was necessary to understand the MMX. And I am not misinterpretting the fact that the Lorentz transformations developed by Einstein in 1905 lead with mathematical certainty to the same length contraction as surmized by Dr. Lorentz from the MMX. It's in almost every textbook on the subject ever written. The fact that you blithely ignore all the work that got us to our current understanding of light phenomena and treat all the physicists in the past 100 years as know-nothings is nothing short of astounding.

*************

rfreeland

10-03-2009, 12:14 PM

Cinci,

I'll leave most of this for Joe, because most of it appears to relate specifically to his post.

You say, "The analysis I showed is consistent with there being no ether. There is nothing in the analysis realted to ether."

Well, yes and no. That analysis uses a completely fixed reference frame through which the Earth, the Michelson-Morley test apparatus, and the associated light beams propagate. You have alluded to this point in one of your earlier posts. This is actually a later revision to Lorentz's original postulate, which was that this "fixed reference frame" must be "the aether". Following the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect this aether, Lorentz revised his conceptualization to discard the aether, largely arriving at Einstein's Relativity. Lorentz and Michelson both worked on these questions for over a decade, so I guess it's worthwhile to say specifically which experiment and which years we're talking about when citing what they each said, since their theories evolved quite a lot during this time.

Unfortunately, I think that Lorentz's post-Michelson, non-aether derivation suffers from the same problems that Einstein's does. Rybczyk explains this in his seminal paper on Millennium Relativity, though I'll readily admit that it could use further explanation from a conceptual, rather than mathematical perspective.

Here's what Rybczyk says in the middle of Section 8, "The Distance Transformation Formulas":

"Once again, anyone familiar with special relativity will immediately recognize this equation as that dealing with length contraction. But here we are in disagreement with special relativity in a manner that has far reaching consequences. In special relativity, length contraction applies only to horizontal distances in the direction of motion. In the presented theory, this transformation formula applies to all distances. Also, it will soon become apparent that it is the standard of measure that is affected and not actually the distances themselves These are profound distinctions."

Later in Section 9, "The Flaw in Special Relativity":

"Although the math in special relativity appears to be correct, the interpretation of the results is fundamentally incorrect and subsequently misleading. The underlying problem appears to have resulted from the manner in which the transformation equations were arrived at, specifically undue reliance upon rectangular coordinate systems. This reliance is apparent even in the well-known light clock example used to demonstrate special relativity in present day physics books. The example that uses a light source pulse traveling between two vertically displaced mirrors while all as a unit move in the horizontal direction. Although the results found using the example seem to agree with the transformation equations, closer inspection, in view of what has been shown here, reveals the example to be flawed. In fact, the example does not faithfully represent nature. The fault lies in the proposition that the distance between the mirrors is not affected in the same manner as horizontal distances in the direction of motion. According to special relativity the distance between the mirrors is unchanged whereas the horizontal distances in the direction of motion shrink in relation to the motion. In the presented theory it is agreed, and will be shown that the distance between the mirrors (in our case the distance between the light source and the mirror) is unchanged as a result of relative motion. However, it will also be shown that distances in the direction of motion, or any other direction for that matter, are also unchanged as a result of the motion. In other words, contrary to special relativity, it will be shown that distances do not actually change at all. What does change is the standard by which distances are measured. This in turn has the effect of causing the size of physical objects and distances in space to be experienced in the stationary frame as expanding rather than shrinking as a result of relative motion."

So my question is this: If I'm somehow measuring this experiment using a physical yard stick rather than light pulses, what do I see?

- Robert

cincirob

10-03-2009, 01:57 PM

RF: I'll leave most of this for Joe, because most of it appears to relate specifically to his post.

You say, "The analysis I showed is consistent with there being no ether. There is nothing in the analysis related to ether."

Well, yes and no.

cinci: It's clearly "no". The anlysis contains two velocities, c for light and v for the velocity of the earth around the Sun. There is no velocity for ether.

******************

RF: That analysis uses a completely fixed reference frame through which the Earth, the Michelson-Morley test apparatus, and the associated light beams propagate. You have alluded to this point in one of your earlier posts. This is actually a later revision to Lorentz's original postulate, which was that this "fixed reference frame" must be "the aether".

cinci: I have no idea what postulates Lorentz made and therefore have not alluded to them. The analysis assume that there is an observer to which the relative velocity of the device is v. That observer could be in any state of motion. Michelson had no way of knowing the state of the ether, primarily because there is no such thing. He built his device so that he could rotate it, expecting that the state of the ether would show him, by variations in the interference pattern, what the direction of motion the ether was relative to the Earth and perhaps he could deduce its velocity. As the title of the paper indicates, they were looking for motion of the Earth relative to the ether. They made the calculations as if there were no effect and expected the a variation from their predicted values as they varied the direction of the rays. But they could not predict a null result except for a static ether relative to the Earth. A static ether relative to the Earth is an unacceptable result based on other experiments.

Read what Michelson wrote on page 341 of his paper:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/refs/mm.html

It's the last paragraph before the Supplement and it reveals the state of confusion that the experiment created for physics at that time.

***********************

RF: Following the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect this aether, Lorentz revised his conceptualization to discard the aether, largely arriving at Einstein's Relativity. Lorentz and Michelson both worked on these questions for over a decade, so I guess it's worthwhile to say specifically which experiment and which years we're talking about when citing what they each said, since their theories evolved quite a lot during this time.

cinci: Where do you get these ideas? Lorentz took the contraction idea and assumed that "ether drag" cased the orbits of electrons to contract along the direction of motion. Here is a paper he delivered in 1928, http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1928ApJ....68..341M&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES, and he admits even then that he clings to the idea even though it had been abandoned.

Here is a paper by Lorentz written about 1904 where he explains how ethe ether causes the contraction:

http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=615&view=image&startrow=1

****************

RF: Unfortunately, I think that Lorentz's post-Michelson, non-aether derivation suffers from the same problems that Einstein's does. Rybczyk explains this in his seminal paper on Millennium Relativity, though I'll readily admit that it could use further explanation from a conceptual, rather than mathematical perspective.

Here's what Rybczyk says in the middle of Section 8, "The Distance Transformation Formulas":

"Once again, anyone familiar with special relativity will immediately recognize this equation as that dealing with length contraction. But here we are in disagreement with special relativity in a manner that has far reaching consequences. In special relativity, length contraction applies only to horizontal distances in the direction of motion. In the presented theory, this transformation formula applies to all distances. Also, it will soon become apparent that it is the standard of measure that is affected and not actually the distances themselves These are profound distinctions."

Later in Section 9, "The Flaw in Special Relativity":

"Although the math in special relativity appears to be correct, the interpretation of the results is fundamentally incorrect and subsequently misleading. The underlying problem appears to have resulted from the manner in which the transformation equations were arrived at, specifically undue reliance upon rectangular coordinate systems. This reliance is apparent even in the well-known light clock example used to demonstrate special relativity in present day physics books. The example that uses a light source pulse traveling between two vertically displaced mirrors while all as a unit move in the horizontal direction. Although the results found using the example seem to agree with the transformation equations, closer inspection, in view of what has been shown here, reveals the example to be flawed. In fact, the example does not faithfully represent nature. The fault lies in the proposition that the distance between the mirrors is not affected in the same manner as horizontal distances in the direction of motion. According to special relativity the distance between the mirrors is unchanged whereas the horizontal distances in the direction of motion shrink in relation to the motion. In the presented theory it is agreed, and will be shown that the distance between the mirrors (in our case the distance between the light source and the mirror) is unchanged as a result of relative motion. However, it will also be shown that distances in the direction of motion, or any other direction for that matter, are also unchanged as a result of the motion. In other words, contrary to special relativity, it will be shown that distances do not actually change at all. What does change is the standard by which distances are measured. This in turn has the effect of causing the size of physical objects and distances in space to be experienced in the stationary frame as expanding rather than shrinking as a result of relative motion."

So my question is this: If I'm somehow measuring this experiment using a physical yard stick rather than light pulses, what do I see?

cinci: I have commented on most of Joseph's comments that you copied here and have no desire to repeat that particular waste of time; however, I highlighted two passages and ask ony that you reread them for content.

As to your question, if you can deduce a rational way to measure a moving yard stick as it passes you are a high rate of speed, you will find that it is contracted along the direction of motion.

This weasel wording is necessary because you used the sord "see". Because these effects are only sizable at high speeds, it has been shown that there are visual effects in addition to the relativistic effects. These are cause by the fact tha tthe light from one ends of the yardstick may be different distances from you and those difference become important at high speed. These aberratins would occur even if there were no relativistic effects. This subject is pretty confusing but if you're interested google something like "Penrose and Terrell relativity visual" and you will find some information.

*******************

rfreeland

10-03-2009, 05:15 PM

Cinci,

As Joe pointed out earlier, you really do have a tendency to mingle reference frames. No more than two sentences apart, you say this:

"The anlysis contains two velocities, c for light and v for the velocity of the earth around the Sun."

"The analysis assume that there is an observer to which the relative velocity of the device is v. That observer could be in any state of motion."

OK... so is this "v" ANY velocity, or specifically the "velocity of the earth around the Sun"? Is the observer stationary relative to the experiment, but in motion relative to the aether, or is the observer stationary relative to the aether, and thus in motion relative to the experiment? The choice of reference frame means everything to this experiment, and you can't hop back and forth from one frame to the other.

As I explained before, in the "stationary" reference frame of the Earth and the apparatus, Tn=Ln/c and Tp=Lp/c, so NATURALLY there would be no difference in the time for the beams to traverse their paths if Ln=Lp. Unless, of course, you postulate aether drag. That's precisely what Michelson DID postulate, so he expected to find a difference, but he didn't. Thus, no aether.

Now, if you want to take a more complex reference frame outside of the Earth (perhaps affixed to the Sun, as you suggest), then there are relativistic effects to consider. AFTER the Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz and Einstein both argued that time was dilated in the direction of travel and lengths were contracted. These effects cancel out to yield a null result.

For some time, Lorentz asserted that the cause of these affects was the aether that justified the "stationary" reference frame, so the experiment could thus still be interpreted to justify the existence of an aether. But Einstein dispensed with the entire aether concept by asserting that any inertial reference frame was equally valid. Faced with overwhelming evidence, Lorentz later started to waffle on his dedication to the aether concept.

Regardless, the post-experimental reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley results using Relativity IN NO WAY "prove" length contraction as a physical phenomenon vs. Rybczyk's assertion that it's just an illusion created by time dilation and an erroneous assumption of the simultaneity of observation.

- Robert

cincirob

10-03-2009, 07:32 PM

RF: As Joe pointed out earlier, you really do have a tendency to mingle reference frames.

cinci: The theory of special relativity defines to the relationship between relatively moving frames. If you aren't discussing relatively moving frames then you aren't discussing special relativity. That being the case, this "mingle" comment makes absolutely no sense.

**************************

RF: No more than two sentences apart, you say this:

"The analysis contains two velocities, c for light and v for the velocity of the earth around the Sun."

"The analysis assumes that there is an observer to which the relative velocity of the device is v. That observer could be in any state of motion."

OK... so is this "v" ANY velocity, or specifically the "velocity of the earth around the Sun"?

cinci: The first comment refers to what Michelson did. Have you read the paper?

The answer to your question about v is in my statement: "The analysis assumes that there is an observer to which the relative velocity of the device is v." I don't know any way to make it more definitive.

The second comment you quoted says the the state of motion of the observer is irrelevant to the problem. And that is correct, only v, the velocity of the Earth (and therefore the interferometer) relative to the observer is involved in the analysis. In fact we know that the observer and the Earth are orbiting the galaxy at ~200 km/sec. That velocity has no bearing on the problem and that is what is meant by my statement. That's why the theory is called relativity. All you need to know about what is happening in a relatively moving frame is the relative velocity of that frame.

***********************

RF: Is the observer stationary relative to the experiment, but in motion relative to the aether, or is the observer stationary relative to the aether, and thus in motion relative to the experiment? The choice of reference frame means everything to this experiment, and you can't hop back and forth from one frame to the other.

cinci: Once again, you need only read exactly what I said: "[I]The analysis assumes that there is an observer to which the relative velocity of the device is v."

Neither Michelson nor I make any comment about the observer's motion relative to the ether so I don't understand why you brought it up.

And the choice of reference frame is immaterial as long as you don't choose the frame of the interferometer itself where v would be zero. Any frame to which the interferometer is moving relatively would produce the same equations. The only difference would be the value of v.

***************************

RF: As I explained before, in the "stationary" reference frame of the Earth and the apparatus, Tn=Ln/c and Tp=Lp/c, so NATURALLY there would be no difference in the time for the beams to traverse their paths if Ln=Lp. Unless, of course, you postulate aether drag. That's precisely what Michelson DID postulate, so he expected to find a difference, but he didn't. Thus, no aether.

cinci: I'm sorry, but you didn't explain that, you just said it. Einstein's principle of relativity explains it. Michelson was not looking for ether drag. The title of his paper is "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether." He was looking for the velocity of the Earth.

**********************

RF: Now, if you want to take a more complex reference frame outside of the Earth (perhaps affixed to the Sun, as you suggest), then there are relativistic effects to consider. AFTER the Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz and Einstein both argued that time was dilated in the direction of travel and lengths were contracted. These effects cancel out to yield a null result.

cinci: Yes, both Lorentz and Einstein found the length of moving objects to be contracted in the direciton of motion. Lorentz deduced it from the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein by postulating the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed ol light. Lorentz later attempted to explain the contractin as ether drag. Her was wrong. Einstein was right.

By the way, time is not dilated in the direction of travel; I'm not even sure what that means. Time is always passing more slowly in a relatively moving frame and that time is the same at any point in the frame.

************************

RF: For some time, Lorentz asserted that the cause of these affects was the aether that justified the "stationary" reference frame, so the experiment could thus still be interpreted to justify the existence of an aether. But Einstein dispensed with the entire aether concept by asserting that any inertial reference frame was equally valid. Faced with overwhelming evidence, Lorentz later started to waffle on his dedication to the aether concept.

cinci: Lorentz was still clinging to it in 1928 shortly before his death even though he recognized that experiment had confrimed Eisntein's approach. All this is history I'm familiar with. The question here is why you and Joseph still cling the notion that Einstein got it wrong.

****************************

RF: Regardless, the post-experimental reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley results using Relativity IN NO WAY "prove" length contraction as a physical phenomenon vs. Rybczyk's assertion that it's just an illusion created by time dilation and an erroneous assumption of the simultaneity of observation.

cinci: When Joseph offers a mathematical derivation showing this, let me know. So far it's all words. If you want me to show you the mathematical derivation of length contraction from relativity I'll post it for you. You and Joseph are long on words, but short on mathematical analysis. I can back up everything I've said here with solid mathematics.

If you want to amuse yourself and perhpas show me the error of my ways, I suggest you analyze how it is that when you measure v for the speed of a relatively moving frame, an observer in that frame will measure your relative speed as v also (the same value). Hint: I think you can only show this if you assume both time dilation and length contraction. If Joseph is right you ought to be able to prove me wrong.

*********************

Rybczyk

10-03-2009, 10:24 PM

cinci,

In message #22 in regard to Robert’s comment:

RF: I don't think you really understand the Michelson-Morley experiment at all. The light beam was split at right angles, and then each beam travelled a path of equal length. Michelson and Morley expected to find that the beam travelling against the supposed aether would be delayed vs. the beam travelling across the supposed aether. In practice, neither beam was delayed.

The first part of your response was:

cinci: Yes, and if the Earth were pefectly stationary that would be the expected result.

My questions are:

Joseph:

1. Could you please define what a perfectly stationary state is?

2. Could you please give me one example of an object in the universe that is in that state?

Joseph

Rybczyk

10-03-2009, 10:44 PM

Robert,

You’ve fallen into cinci’s trap. This is what he is good at. He will twist and turn and say one thing one minute and the exact opposite the next. By the time he is done, he will cloud the issue with so much peripheral rhetoric that nobody will even care to wade through it all to see who was right and who was wrong. He prides himself in his ability to swamp his opponent in so much garbage that they finally give up and go onto another subject. Then he just does it again.

Joseph

rfreeland

10-03-2009, 10:59 PM

Cinci,

I'm really done debating the Michelson-Morley interpretation. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is FAMOUS for being the first definitive test for the existence of the aether, didn't in fact have anything at all to do with the aether. Stunning, really.

You say,"Michelson was not looking for ether drag. The title of his paper is "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether." He was looking for the velocity of the Earth."

RELATIVE TO WHAT???

-------------------------------------------------------

All this is noise, though, since the main question regards the theoretical case against length contraction. I think you've cut to the heart of the question in your very last paragraph:

"If you want to amuse yourself and perhpas show me the error of my ways, I suggest you analyze how it is that when you measure v for the speed of a relatively moving frame, an observer in that frame will measure your relative speed as v also (the same value). Hint: I think you can only show this if you assume both time dilation and length contraction. If Joseph is right you ought to be able to prove me wrong."

I would really like to hear how Joseph answers that, because it also appears to me to be a major conundrum. UNLESS the two observers might not agree on their relative velocities at all. Frankly, I don't recall any stipulation of Relativity that requires the two observers to agree on their relative velocities... just on experimental outcomes. How would the observers measure their velocities anyway? It's not like you can just put a speedometer on the dashboard to read "0.8c". They'd have to time their passing by fixed landmarks (like stars), and that raises questions about the geometry and simultaneity of those observations.

- Robert

Rybczyk

10-04-2009, 12:09 AM

Robert,

In response to cinci’s comments:

"If you want to amuse yourself and perhpas show me the error of my ways, I suggest you analyze how it is that when you measure v for the speed of a relatively moving frame, an observer in that frame will measure your relative speed as v also (the same value). Hint: I think you can only show this if you assume both time dilation and length contraction. If Joseph is right you ought to be able to prove me wrong."

You stated:

I would really like to hear how Joseph answers that, because it also appears to me to be a major conundrum. UNLESS the two observers might not agree on their relative velocities at all. Frankly, I don't recall any stipulation of Relativity that requires the two observers to agree on their relative velocities... just on experimental outcomes. How would the observers measure their velocities anyway? It's not like you can just put a speedometer on the dashboard to read "0.8c". They'd have to time their passing by fixed landmarks (like stars), and that raises questions about the geometry and simultaneity of those observations.

- Robert

Joseph’s response:

Robert,

Now you are starting to confuse me. This is all very fundamental relativistic theory. There is no preferred reference frame. If one object has a speed v relative to another object, then that other object has that same speed v relative to the first object. The laws of physics are reciprocal in nature. If you calculate that time in the other frame has slowed down by a certain amount, an observer in that frame will calculate that your time has slowed down by that exact same amount. This is what is meant by the postulate that the laws of physics have the same form in all inertial systems. Whatever is true in your frame, including how you view the other frame, will also be true in that other frame including how it views your frame. It is a perspective effect and is common to all laws of physics.

If you and your neighbor live down the street from each other in identical houses and you are on your front lawns looking in each other’s direction, he will see your house as appearing smaller in the distance by the same amount that you see his house appear smaller.

If both of you are hammering on your front porches, assuming no wind, you will see his hammer strike first and hear the sound of the strike second just as he will observe your hammering. This is because the same laws of physics involving the difference in the speed of light and the speed of sound are equally valid for him as they are for you.

When we include motion in the equation, nothing changes. The laws of physics continue to operate on the same premise that what you observe about a frame in motion relative to you will be observed, under the same conditions, in that other frame relative to your frame.

When the speed between the two frames increases toward the speed of light, the resulting relativistic effects that are observed in the one frame relative to the other will, under the same conditions, be observed in that other frame relative to the first. This is precisely what relativity is all about. It is not a change in the fundamental laws of physics; it is an addition to those laws.

Joseph

rfreeland

10-04-2009, 02:37 AM

Hi Joseph,

If the velocities must necessarily be reciprocal then, and if time dilation must occur, then it certainly does seem to imply that length contraction must also occur, since v=d/t. What am I missing?

- Robert

cincirob

10-04-2009, 03:29 AM

RF: I'm really done debating the Michelson-Morley interpretation. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is FAMOUS for being the first definitive test for the existence of the aether, didn't in fact have anything at all to do with the aether. Stunning, really.

You say,"Michelson was not looking for ether drag. The title of his paper is "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether." He was looking for the velocity of the Earth."

RELATIVE TO WHAT???

cinci: Relative to Luminiferous ether. He wasn't looking for drag. He believe that ether was light's medium and if the Earth were moving relative to that ether, then you could see a velocity relative to that ether. What I said was he wasn't looking for drag.

Read these. If you find anything here that is contrary to what I've said, let me know. The first is by Richard Feynman and it agrees with everything I've said. So if I'm wrong I'm in good company. You stick with Joseph; I'll stick with the Nobel laureates.

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/michelson.htm

http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath241/kmath241.htm

**********************

RF: All this is noise, though, since the main question regards the theoretical case against length contraction. I think you've cut to the heart of the question in your very last paragraph:

"If you want to amuse yourself and perhaps show me the error of my ways, I suggest you analyze how it is that when you measure v for the speed of a relatively moving frame, an observer in that frame will measure your relative speed as v also (the same value). Hint: I think you can only show this if you assume both time dilation and length contraction. If Joseph is right you ought to be able to prove me wrong."

I would really like to hear how Joseph answers that, because it also appears to me to be a major conundrum. UNLESS the two observers might not agree on their relative velocities at all. Frankly, I don't recall any stipulation of Relativity that requires the two observers to agree on their relative velocities... just on experimental outcomes How would the observers measure their velocities anyway? It's not like you can just put a speedometer on the dashboard to read "0.8c". They'd have to time their passing by fixed landmarks (like stars), and that raises questions about the geometry and simultaneity of those observations.

cinci: I find it amazing that you don't know this basic premise of relativity and yet are willing to draw such firm conclusions that I am wrong about all this. Even the most basic references on relativity will tell you that the Lorentz transformations are reciprocal for any pair of frames. It is the basis for the famous Twin "paradox".

***************************

cincirob

10-04-2009, 03:47 AM

RF: If the velocities must necessarily be reciprocal then, and if time dilation must occur, then it certainly does seem to imply that length contraction must also occur, since v=d/t. What am I missing?

cinci: You aren't missing anything. You have just been exposed to the genius of Joseph. Asked for a simple analysis on a very basic ideas and you get a lecture.

The analysis is stunningly simple. Imagine that you are watching someone ina relatively moving frame while he measures your velocity. Assume you and he arrange signal so that you and he measure each other's velocity. From your point of view that means you start D distance apart and measure the time T it takes for him to reach your posititon. You get

v(calculated by you) = D/T

for his velocity.

If you believe in time dilation, then while T passes in your frame,

T(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

passes in his frame.

So his calculation for velocity must be

v(calculated by him) = D(him)/T(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

If

v(calculated by you) = v(calculated by him),

Then D(him) = D(you)(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

I will now await Jospeh's tirade about my honesty and integrity.

********************

Rybczyk

10-04-2009, 08:49 AM

Robert,

I have no idea of what you mean. You will have to be more specific.

With that said, let me give you some guidance so you don’t make the same mistake cinci just made. In the context of our discussion, dilated time can only be determined mathematically. On this point I am in agreement with Einstein. He refers to proper time as the time actually measured in a reference frame. Proper time in any reference frame is the same as proper time in any other reference frame. It then follows that dilated time that is a function of proper time is also the same for two objects that are moving relative to each other. If T is proper time, and t is dilated time, then for the same distance traveled, the time measured in the frame of each object will be T, and the dilated time calculated in the frame of each object for the other object will be t. T = T and t = t, and not T = t as cinci just showed.

Now let me give you some insight involving what I mean by distance contraction not being real. If two objects pass each other in space at time T = 0, then at some future time T = x, the distance calculated using time T from the frame of both objects will be D = vT where v is also the same speed v relative to the frame of each object. So, nothing is different between any of the calculations. It is only when the time, distance and speed for the opposite object is calculated using its dilated time that there will be a difference. And again, these calculated differences will be the same for each object. Thus, if we insist that the actual speed between the two objects is the same based on the principle of relativity, then using the standard formula D = vT we will get the distance between the two objects as it appears in the frames of each of those objects. If, using the same formula we use time t where t = T/γ then we get d = vt where d must be a smaller distance than D if v has the same value in both formulas. (This is the distance contraction you are talking about. Like dilated time t, it can only be arrived at mathematically, and it is the same for both objects.) If you insist that the distance must be the same for both objects regardless of what time is used, then you get D = vT as before and D = Vt where since D = D and T is greater than t, then V must be greater than v to compensate. Again, all of these calculations are the same for each object. Either object is correct in claiming that the distortions are true for the frame of the other object only.

As can be seen from the above discussion, not only is there time dilation and distance contraction, but a change of speeds as well. (This is a discovery of the millennium theory that I have never taken the time to name.) The questions here are these:

Are, time dilation, distance contraction, and speed increase real? Or is it only time dilation that is real and the other two simply follow from it? Or, for that matter, is even time dilation real since it is only arrived at mathematically?

There is evidence of time dilation in the form of a change in the behavior of observed phenomena when it occurs at near light speed as opposed to being at rest relative to the frame of observation. Thus, time dilation appears to be real. And from it, we deduce distance contraction and speed increase which are true only if time dilation is true. In my theoretical approach I have found instance after instance of conflicts if we insist that anything but time dilation is real. This is too extensive of a discussion for a visitor’s forum and would necessitate me basically rewriting my entire theory on the form. I have said this on countless occasions; “You can’t conduct physics on a visitor’s forum.” I do not tell others what it is they should believe. I have given the basis for my own beliefs in the bodies of all of my works published on the web site. Others should use their own judgment as to what they believe might be true.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

10-04-2009, 09:40 AM

cinci’s back to doing his magic tricks. He just showed that dilated time equals proper time.

Joseph

cincirob

10-04-2009, 11:43 AM

Joseph: cinci’s back to doing his magic tricks.

cinci: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke

Joseph: He just showed that dilated time equals proper time.

cinci: There are 5 pretty simple equations in my post. If you really could point to anything wrong in the post you would have shown it here. Instead you favor us with more meaningless jargonese.

**********************

Out of all the melange of jargonese in his long message, Joseph manages to come down squarely on both sides of the issue with this gem:

"There is evidence of time dilation in the form of a change in the behavior of observed phenomena when it occurs at near light speed as opposed to being at rest relative to the frame of observation. Thus, time dilation appears to be real. And from it, we deduce distance contraction and speed increase which are true only if time dilation is true."

Joseph says believes time dilation is real and if it's real he believes length contraction is real. This whole argument has been that he doesn't believe length contraction is real. RF, if you are convinced by this I have a large bridge in New York for a very friendly price for you.

And there is no such thing as speed increase in relativity, whatever it is supposed to mean.

*************************

Rybczyk

10-04-2009, 12:24 PM

Here’s cinci’s new magic trick:

v = D/T

t = T(1 – (v/c)^2)^.5

v = D/t

If

v = v

Then

D/T = D/t

T/D = t/D

T = t

And not

D = D(1 – (v/c)^2)^.5

as given by cinci, which is wrong in its own right except for the case where

(1 – (v/c)^2)^.5 = 1

which means v = 0

So even here we are talking about two frames that are moving at speed 0 relative to each other.

As you can see, math is not cinci’s strong point.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

10-04-2009, 12:47 PM

Muons have been observed to have an increased life expectancy when traveling at speeds near the speed of light relative to the stationary frame of the Earth. This change of behavior allows them to travel far greater distances in the Earth’s atmosphere than their speed alone can account for. This observed behavior gives evidence of time dilation (time running slower) in the moving frame of the muons as discussed by me in this old forum message, Muons and Time Dilation (http://www.mrelativity.net/Visitor's%20Forum/VForum/000000eb.htm), some years back.

As you can see, English comprehension is another of cinci’s weak points.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

10-04-2009, 04:45 PM

Joseph: Here’s cinci’s new magic trick:

cinci: Up to your usual obfuscation, I see. Instead of repeating my analysis here and showing where it might be wrong you have couched the problem in different terminology and didn't bother telling us what the trasnaltion is. As usual you don't identify the frame from which observations are made so let's see if we can straighten it out. I'll assume that D, and T are values in the moving frame and d and t are values in the stationary frame as d and t would usually be statinary frame values in most sources. And if you meant it the other way, your equation (2) would be correct but the nature of your other errors makes this immaterial anyway.

******************

Joseph:

(1) v = D/T

(2) t = T(1 – (v/c)^2)^.5

(3) v = D/t

cinci: Your error here is that you assumed what I'm trying to determine by the analysis; that is, you have assumed D is the same in both frames. This is wrong. And, since I was looking at the problem from the stationary frame, you have written the wrong tiem dilation formula; it should be

(2') T = t(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

That is, less time passes in the relatively moving frame.

You should have identified the frame in which D was being measured in your equaitons (1) and (3) instead of assuming the problem away as follows:

(1') v = Dm/T

(3') v = Ds/t

**************

Jospeh:

If

(4) v = v

Then

(5) D/T = D/t

cinci: If you correct equation (5) accordint to the revised equations (1') and (3') above, you get

(5') Dm/T = Ds/t

The if you substitue your equaiton (2) here you get

(6) Dm/(t(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5) = Ds/t

or

(7) Dm = Ds(1 - (c/v)^2)^.5

whch is the result I produced and shows that length contractin must occur for v to be the same in both frames.

*************

Joseph: T/D = t/D

(7) T = t

cinci: Your error becomes circular here; your equation (7) is in conflict with your equation (2) in addition to the fact that your equation (2) is wrong. Apparently you just proved that time dilation doesn't occur either.

*********************

Jospeh: And not

(8) D = D(1 – (v/c)^2)^.5

as given by cinci, which is wrong in its own right except for the case where

(1 – (v/c)^2)^.5 = 1

which means v = 0

So even here we are talking about two frames that are moving at speed 0 relative to each other.

cinci: The rest of this is nonsense because it is based on your earlier errors.

**************************

Joseph: As you can see, math is not cinci’s strong point.

cinci: What can be seen is that you have trouble visualizing relatively moving frames and their relationships. My math is OK. Here it is again if you'd like to make another run at it:

The analysis is stunningly simple. Imagine that you are watching someone ina relatively moving frame while he measures your velocity. Assume you and he arrange signal so that you and he measure each other's velocity. From your point of view that means you start D distance apart and measure the time T it takes for him to reach your posititon. You get

v(calculated by you) = D/T

for his velocity.

If you believe in time dilation, then while T passes in your frame,

T(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

passes in his frame.

So his calculation for velocity must be

v(calculated by him) = D(him)/T(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

If

v(calculated by you) = v(calculated by him),

Then D(him) = D(you)(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

*******************

Rybczyk

10-04-2009, 05:02 PM

cinci,

Let’s keep things straight here. The analysis you give in message #49 is your analysis, not mine.

My analysis is given in message #47 and is correct as given.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

10-04-2009, 07:22 PM

Joseph: Muons have been observed to have an increased life expectancy when traveling at speeds near the speed of light relative to the stationary frame of the Earth. This change of behavior allows them to travel far greater distances in the Earth’s atmosphere than their speed alone can account for. This observed behavior gives evidence of time dilation (time running slower) in the moving frame of the muons as discussed by me in this old forum message, Muons and Time Dilation, some years back.

As you can see, English comprehension is another of cinci’s weak points.

cinci: Nothing I said is in conflict with this. In fact, the muon life can be explained using length contraction. The distance to the Earth as viewed by an observer moving with the muons would be contracted by the factor (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. Since the velocity is the same for both frames, more muons survive the trip becasue the distance they travel is contracted and it doesn't take as much time to traverse it.

This must be the case because the theory must give the same answer no matter which frame is used to analyze it. So this expereimnt also confirms length contraction.

********************

rfreeland

10-04-2009, 09:32 PM

Cinci, Joseph,

It's been a long, fun weekend, and I just now managed to catch up on these forums.

I have to say that I feel a little sheepish having read Joseph's explanation of the length contraction issue. It certainly sounds like he's saying, "Yes, length contraction occurs in the 'other' frame, but it's 'mathematical' and not 'real' because an observer IN that frame doesn't experience it directly." Isn't this the same thing that Einstein said?

I see Joseph's point that if this is a secondary outcome of the mathematics of time dilation, then assuming length contraction off the bat in complex situations might give rise to errors. (I think that he talks about this some in one of his papers.) But Rybczyk says this in his "Millennium Relativity" paper:

"In other words, contrary to special relativity, it will be shown that distances do not actually change at all. What does change is the standard by which distances are measured."

I took that statement to be a lot stronger. Now I have to wonder, is the situation the same with Rybcyk's conclusions on mass increase? After all of this, is Rybczyk actually in complete agreement with Einstein on SR??

- Robert

cincirob

10-05-2009, 03:01 AM

RF: It's been a long, fun weekend, and I just now managed to catch up on these forums.

I have to say that I feel a little sheepish having read Joseph's explanation of the length contraction issue. It certainly sounds like he's saying, "Yes, length contraction occurs in the 'other' frame, but it's 'mathematical' and not 'real' because an observer IN that frame doesn't experience it directly." Isn't this the same thing that Einstein said?

cinci: The principle of relativity says taht the laws of physics are tehsame in all inertial frames and so length contraction and time dilation are not sensed in the frame of the observer. These phenomina are observed in relatively moving frames. I don't know of quote by Einstein saying it isn't real.

********************

RF: I see Joseph's point that if this is a secondary outcome of the mathematics of time dilation, then assuming length contraction off the bat in complex situations might give rise to errors. (I think that he talks about this some in one of his papers.) But Rybczyk says this in his "Millennium Relativity" paper:

"In other words, contrary to special relativity, it will be shown that distances do not actually change at all. What does change is the standard by which distances are measured."

I took that statement to be a lot stronger. Now I have to wonder, is the situation the same with Rybcyk's conclusions on mass increase? After all of this, is Rybczyk actually in complete agreement with Einstein on SR??

cinci: I cannot speak for Joseph except to note that he is not in complete agreement with relativity.

********************

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.