DOUBLETHINK AND RELATIVISM IN EINSTEINIANA
in [Logic]
|
Prev: TODAY ONLY! ORIFICES STITCHED AT ORIFICE EMPORIUM - HALF-PRICE!
Next: really predicting the masses of elementary particles #568 Correcting Math
From: Pentcho Valev on 5 Apr 2010 03:52 Relativism in Einsteiniana: According to Einsteiniana's teachers, there is a lot of truth in Einstein's special relativity but there is a lot of truth in Newton's emission theory of light as well. The two theories are COMPATIBLE: http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang': How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel, Einstein from "B" to "Z". "This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was applying them to the apparently quite different field of electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem; nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the two." http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain circumstances." http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light -- which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." More relativism in Einsteiniana: John Stachel and John Norton are friends. They write books together, sell them successfully and share the money. Yet John Stachel teaches that Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's special relativity are COMPATIBLE while John Norton teaches that they are INCOMPATIBLE (believers all over the world invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"): http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter." http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! He explained the photo-electric effect, And launched quantum physics with his intellect! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel -- He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein -- Egad, could that guy derive! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! Brownian motion, my true devotion, He mastered back in aught-five! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Einstein's postulates imply That planes are shorter when they fly. Their clocks are slowed by time dilation And look warped from aberration. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Peter Webb on 5 Apr 2010 11:50 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3d0f7c5e-95c1-448f-a8d3-a446302b9201(a)i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... Relativism in Einsteiniana: According to Einsteiniana's teachers, there is a lot of truth in Einstein's special relativity but there is a lot of truth in Newton's emission theory of light as well. The two theories are COMPATIBLE: ____________________________ Actually that is true. SR in of itself says nothing about the nature of light beyond its two postulates. What emission theory is incompatible with is Maxwell (and many other things).
From: Pentcho Valev on 13 Apr 2010 08:04 http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane." Painful doublethink in Einsteiniana (space and time are NOT a malleable fabric and the passage of time is NOT an illusion but space and time SHOULD BE a malleable fabric and the passage of time SHOULD BE an illusion because Divine Albert said so): http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141509987 Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity, and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million times a day from ordinary comings and goings." http://www.evene.fr/celebre/actualite/2005-annee-einstein-114.php "Les articles parus en 1905 dans la revue 'Annalen der Physik' révolutionnent non seulement le petit monde de la physique, mais aussi la perception commune de grands concepts tels que le temps, l'espace ou la matière. Enfin...ils auraient dû... car si les théories einsteiniennes sont aujourd'hui admises et célébrées partout dans le monde scientifique, si une grande partie de la recherche fondamentale a pour objectif de les développer, le commun des mortels continue cependant à parler du temps, de l'espace, et de la matière comme il le faisait au XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour, physicien et auteur d'un ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein m'était conté', dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix Nobel. "Loin d'avoir été assimilées par tout un chacun", écrit-il, "les révolutions einsteiniennes sont simplement ignorées." Car les découvertes dont on parle dépassent de très loin - comme souvent - les préoccupations purement scentifiques. Il est, de fait, encore extrêmement complexe et ardu de comprendre la notion de temps non pas comme un flux, un absolu, mais comme un relatif, pouvant ralentir selon la vitesse de l'observateur." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 14 Apr 2010 10:25 http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics Stephan J.G. Gift "[TRUTH] For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/ Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years. It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance principle long pointed out by Ives, and [LIE] return to the Lorentz- Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson." Pentcho Valev wrote: Pernicious relativism in Einsteiniana: As you start moving against waves, wavecrests start hitting you more frequently, that is, their speed relative to you increases. In Einsteiniana this trivial (but very dangerous) truth is replaced by a new truth: wavecrests start hitting you more frequently because the wavelength somehow depends on your speed and decreases as soon as you start moving against the waves (accordingly, the wavecrests continue hitting you with CONSTANT SPEED, that is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions): http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again, this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." Now the top of a tower sends light towards the ground and the frequency increases again: F'=F(1+V/c^2), where F is the frequency measured at the top, F' is the frequency measured at the ground and V is the gravitational potential difference between the top and the ground. The old Newtonian truth is: wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because their speed has increased between the top and the ground: c'=c(1+V/c^2). Einsteinians hate the old Newtonian truth because it implies that wavecrests hit an accelerated observer with speed c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the observer. Accordingly, two additional truths have replaced the old Newtonian truth in Einsteiniana: (1) Wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because clocks at the top of the tower somehow run faster than clocks at the ground. Accordingly, wavecrests hit the ground with UNCHANGED SPEED c'=c, that is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. (2) Wavecrests hit the ground with frequency F'=F(1+V/c^2) but their speed relative to the ground is greater than in the old Newtonian truth: the new speed is c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Believers accept this new truth as well but sing "Divine Einstein" without enthusiasm and do not go into convulsions. http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Zinnic on 14 Apr 2010 14:00
On Apr 14, 9:25 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf > The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics > Stephan J.G. Gift > "[TRUTH] For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S > emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/ > Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on > classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer > is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light > propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a > frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by > fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result > invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid > theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years. > It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance > principle long pointed out by Ives, and [LIE] return to the Lorentz- > Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by > Erlichson." > > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Pernicious relativism in Einsteiniana: > > As you start moving against waves, wavecrests start hitting you more > frequently, that is, their speed relative to you increases. In > Einsteiniana this trivial (but very dangerous) truth is replaced by a > new truth: wavecrests start hitting you more frequently because the > wavelength somehow depends on your speed and decreases as soon as you > start moving against the waves (accordingly, the wavecrests continue > hitting you with CONSTANT SPEED, that is, believers sing "Divine > Einstein" and go into convulsions): > > http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html > "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. > The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant > frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the > ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him > to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again, > this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer > are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength > appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear > constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide." > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind... > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to > have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE > BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." > > Now the top of a tower sends light towards the ground and the > frequency increases again: F'=F(1+V/c^2), where F is the frequency > measured at the top, F' is the frequency measured at the ground and V > is the gravitational potential difference between the top and the > ground. The old Newtonian truth is: wavecrests hit the ground more > frequently because their speed has increased between the top and the > ground: c'=c(1+V/c^2). Einsteinians hate the old Newtonian truth > because it implies that wavecrests hit an accelerated observer with > speed c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the > observer. Accordingly, two additional truths have replaced the old > Newtonian truth in Einsteiniana: > > (1) Wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because clocks at the > top of the tower somehow run faster than clocks at the ground. > Accordingly, wavecrests hit the ground with UNCHANGED SPEED c'=c, that > is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. > > (2) Wavecrests hit the ground with frequency F'=F(1+V/c^2) but their > speed relative to the ground is greater than in the old Newtonian > truth: the new speed is c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Believers accept this new > truth as well but sing "Divine Einstein" without enthusiasm and do not > go into convulsions. > > http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen > George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two > contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both > of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories > must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with > reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself > that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it > would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to > be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and > hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since > the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while > retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To > tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any > fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary > again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, > to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take > account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably > necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to > exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is > tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this > knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead > of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest > practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and > know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, > those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those > who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the > greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more > intelligent, the less sane." > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com Pencho, you seem to be an expert in this area so I would appreciate some clarification of speeds relative to that of light (photons). Different observers moving at different speeds are in different inertial frames of reference from each other and from light (photons). If an observer moves at V towards a stationary light source so that the speed of approach of the light wavefront and the observer is C+V, which is travelling faster than the speed of light (C), the observer or the light wave front? It cannot be both because their intrinsic speeds of approach would be less than C. That is, (C+V)/2. |