Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: G. L. Bradford on 2 Sep 2007 07:01 With regard to entire Universe at large, all events will occur in zero (0) time. All that means to us is good luck trying to pin it down in time absolutely rather than relatively. Light is event specific because specific events propagate it. And every [most specific] event will actually be history (-) in time before even the most sensitive of instruments extant in the universe can begin to sense that specific event OCCURRED! The objective source has already moved on (+) beyond the event to whatever the next event that is to occur (out of sight, out of mind, as yet). It's somewhat like a jet aircraft building up for a sonic boom, then not being there for it. The source builds up for the propagating event in time, then isn't in that location and state, or just that state, any longer when the specific event of propagation finishes occuring. The objective source is gone, even if only changed in time, before the finish -- the propagation that is the record of a specific [historical] event. Light may progress forward in space-TIME expansion, but that light-TIME event record [that it actually is] won't progress one bit. So you have differentiation in time building upon original differentiation, ever continuing in time to differentiate time. Speed (conversion measure) of differentiation ((-) (0)), 'c'. GLB
From: Androcles on 2 Sep 2007 07:20 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1188709063.590002.80200(a)57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... : On 2 Sept, 03:14, "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote: : > > This must be some very nice relativity of motion produced by the even : > > nicer school of thought of yours. Has your school of thought ever thought : > > on the truth/falsehood of Einstein's light postulate: ... "...light is : > > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is : > > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." What does your : > > school of thought think? Einstein's light postulate is true? False? : > > Partially false? Just a little false? Who cares? : > : > The independence of the speed of light on the speed of the source was : > proved by deSitter in 1913. He pointed out that light from both components : > of a double star, where each component has a unique velocity, nonetheless : > travels to the observer at the same speed. Otherwise, we would see one : > component out-of-phase in its orbit. So all viable relativity-of-motion : > theories have the speed of light independent of the speed of the source. : > : > But that is generally true in wave theory, so it comes as no : > surprise. -|Tom|- : > : > Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy : > research athttp://metaresearch.org : : So you rely on deSitter but do not rely on, say, Sagnac or Michelson- : Morley? And you also believe that a speed of light independent of the : speed of the source is consistent with what you said earlier in this : thread: : : Tom Van Flandern: "Lorentzian relativity (LR) is the modern updating : of the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) to which you refer. There can be no : speed limit because in LR, nothing happens to time. The changes happen : only to clocks, much the way a pendulum clock changes rate when : temperature changes." : : I must admit once more that Einsteinians are geniuses compared to you : and your brothers aetherists. By the way, deSitter is discussed here: : : http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binaries.htm : : Pentcho Valev Nick Van Flandern, Homer Nimpnon'n seighbour, thinks Cassini is uploaded with the time like a GPS satellite.
From: Tom Van Flandern on 3 Sep 2007 15:58 Tom Roberts writes: >> [tvf]: I did not invent that terminology ["field interpretation"; >> "geometric interpretation"], much less the physical concepts behind them. >> You seem to have been taught only the geometric interpretation; and to >> you, THAT is GR. > [Roberts]: Not true. To me the EQUATIONS OF GR are the theory known as GR. > This is what we mean by "theory" in physics today. But equations are math, not physics, and the symbols in equations often have more than one possible physical meaning. That is why we often have different physical interpretations of the same equations, as in the case we are discussing. Another related example is SR versus LR. In SR, the Lorentz transformations govern time itself. In LR, they govern the behavior of atomic clocks, but do not affect time. Same equations, two strikingly different meanings. GR has had two different physical interpretations since its inception, but you have been taught only one of them and wish to insist that one is the only one entitled to be called "GR". So is it your education or Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman's that shows a deficiency when Feynman said in "Feynman Lectures on Gravitation", Addison-Wesley, New York, Section 8.4, p. 113 (1995): ["It is one of the peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable -- it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not really necessary or essential to physics."]? > [Roberts]: The theory consisting of fields ON A FLAT EUCLIDEAN 3-SPACE is > not GR. That is, it cannot possibly include all the solutions of the > actual equations of GR. It is, as I said, merely an APPROXIMATION to GR. What you call "GR" and what Feynman and I call the geometrical interpretation of GR cannot test its four basic predictions (light-bending, redshift, radar delay, perihelion advance) because testing it requires converting your perfect theory with exact equations into approximate equations of motion in the flat Euclidean space where all astronomical observations are made. Moreover, the interpretation you call "GR" was experimentally falsified by the laser interferometer experiments, as explained in my last message and which you chose to ignore. That experiment explicitly showed that the weak equivalence principle ("gravity is just geometry") is false. And lastly, the geometric interpretation's perfect math requires effects without causes and the creation of new 3-space momentum from nothing, both of which are miracles. Such magic is allowed in math but is forbidden in deep reality physics, whose single postulate is "no miracles allowed". Your only way out of this dilemma in physics is to postulate some kind of tangible, material entity in the vacuum or in fields to act as a cause and carry momentum. But in math, such issues of physics need never arise because math is not physics and cannot substitute for physics. >> [tvf]: Vigier and I argued in "Foundations of Physics" that the geometric >> interpretation is falsified by ... (3) its failure to pass any >> observational tests except those done to test the field interpretation >> using astronomical data collected in Euclidean space. > [Roberts]: you lie in (3) -- GR passes all experimental tests within its > domain ... one tests THEORIES, not interpretations. It is a disgrace for one scientist to call another a liar in an intellectual discussion on the merits of ideas. Your frustration in being unable to defend your position is producing an emotional outburst, seen also in your frequent use of capitalization. And your attempt to change the subject from the merit of your ideas to insults will not succeed. I recommend you take a step back and reconsider your words and your position. Back to the subject: Defend your claim by pointing to a reference or making an argument showing how the geometric interpretation (your "GR") has been tested against observations without going through what you call "an approximation" that involves flat Euclidean space. If you can do neither, intellectual honesty requires that you concede the point that your "GR" has never passed an observational test of its own. My guess is that you don't even know how to get from your equations to something that can be compared with observations because, if you did know, you would not be making arguments you cannot defend. >> [tvf]: This "failure" involves the 6 experiments you mention showing that >> the speed of gravity is strongly FTL. > [Roberts]: Not true. Those experiments show that the "gravitational force" > "propagates" strongly FTL ("gravity" is too wishy-washy for good use). GR > predicts the same, and IS NOT FALSIFIED. I repeat: one tests theories, not > interpretations; that is, the EQUATIONS OF GR are not falsified here. As I read this, you appear to reduce the points I've made to matters of terminology rather than physical concepts. If I had said "the speed of gravitational force propagation is strongly FTL", as I read what you just said, you now agree with that statement. True? And your point that "the equations of GR are not falsified here" is one we have both explicitly agreed with from the outset, so beating that straw man yet again is not fooling anyone. > [Roberts]: the EQUATIONS make aberration "disappear". True. But that is because they contain no propagation delay for propagating gravitational forces, and the absence of propagation delay is the equivalent of setting propagation speed to infinity and aberration to zero. Carlip's argument is that propagation delay wasn't omitted, but was cancelled by a "velocity-dependent force". He takes the instantaneous force vector in the equations and resolves it into a retarded force vector plus a cancellation vector that depends on velocity, thereby nullifying aberration. Vigier and I showed that the Moon could not tell a tidal force from a propagation delay force because both look like a displacement of Earth's center of mass to the Moon. The Moon therefore has no way to respond to one force and ignore the other. But then, that argument requires knowing some physics and celestial mechanics, and not just some math. > [Roberts]: THE EQUATIONS OF GR can encompass manifolds with topologies and > curvatures completely incompatible with a flat 3-space. And where is any kind of test of those differences to show that your "GR" is correct or better than the flat 3-space theory that everyone but you calls "the field interpretation of GR"? I claim there is no such test. For example, even Eddington in "Space, Time & Gravitation" (1920; p. 109) made a point of the equivalence of the two interpretations with these words: "Light moves more slowly in a material medium than in vacuum, the velocity being inversely proportional to the refractive index of the medium. The phenomenon of refraction is in fact caused by a slowing of the wave-front in passing into a region of smaller velocity. We can thus imitate the gravitational effect on light precisely, if we imagine the space round the Sun filled with a refracting medium which gives the appropriate velocity of light. ... Any problem on the paths of rays near the Sun can now be solved by the methods of geometrical optics applied to the equivalent refracting medium." Many, many authors since then have made the same basic point: The equations of GR, when converted to equations of motion for 3-space acceleration for the purpose of testing against observations made in a Euclidean space, can be interpreted as geometry or as classical forces with refraction in an optical medium. The latter imitates the former "precisely", in Eddington's words. Do you reject all this physics, or choose to ignore it? > [Roberts]: the words and interpretations you discuss simply cannot be > tested; only the EQUATIONS OF THE THEORY can be tested experimentally). > That is not at all what you are doing. The irony of what you say is that mathematics is a language itself, and describing physics with math is philosophically on a par with describing it with words. But the relevant point is this. I claim your "GR" has no equations that can be tested experimentally without going through the field interpretation, "approximations", and Euclidean space. To make such tests, you must convert your equations to what celestial mechanicians and most physicists outside relativity call "GR", namely, the equations that describe 3-space accelerations in the astronomer's flat Euclidean 3-space. It does not matter if this process is done explicitly, as in most textbooks (e.g., MTW p. 1095); or implicitly by numerical iterations. Either way, you have left your world of equations behind and entered my world of forces and astronomical observations made in Euclidean space. >> [tvf]: Then you won't mind calling gravity a classical force ("the time >> rate of change of 3-space momentum") and discussing the propagation speed >> of that force, will you? > [Roberts]: One can do that, in the theory you have apparently cobbled > together out of Lorentz's writings and a bunch of other stuff. And one can > do that in an APPROXIMATION to GR. Great. We have settled a point. And while I appreciate your giving me all the credit, I prefer to credit those who first proposed the ideas. But thanks anyway. I think we really have made some progress here because you now seem willing to speak of gravitational forces and their propagation speed with such speeds being infinite in GR, as one possible way to describe the physics of the real world. However, I remain disappointed that you still have not specified what it would take for you to agree (if it is true) that interpreting solutions to the GR field equations in terms of classical forces and Euclidean space might a better description of reality than your geometric way of interpreting those same equations. You seem determined to take your present knowledge, unimproved upon, to your grave. To me, that seems a terrible waste of a good mind. Why not be a leader among your colleagues instead of a follower? -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
From: Art Deco on 3 Sep 2007 17:07 Tom Van Flandern <tomvf(a)metaresearch.org> wrote: >Tom Roberts writes: > >>> [tvf]: Lorentzian relativity (LR) is the modern updating of the Lorentz >>> Ether Theory (LET) [...] Specifically, with "elysium" defined as [...] > >> This quite clearly is completely unrelated to anything Lorentz wrote. You >> should not associate his name with it. > > Lorentz's theory (LET) was relativity for a single preferred frame then >called "the aether". LR, by contrast, specifies that the preferred frame is >specifically the local gravitational potential field, which represents >entrained aether. To stress this difference and jettison the baggage >associated with the universal aether concept (which does not apply to a type >of aether that can be entrained by masses everywhere), we have renamed this >medium "elysium", which represents both the locally entrained aether and its >equivalence to the local gravitational potential field. > > True, this is the result of a slow evolution of Lorentz's original >paper, which is why the name was changed from LET to LR. This parallels the >slow evolution of SR. DeSitter showed that aberration was independent of the >relative speed between source and observer, showing that the speed of light >had to be independent of the speed of the source (something Einstein's 1905 >paper did not anticipate). Sagnac showed that fringe shifts did show up on a >rotating platform, showing that rotational motion was different from >translational motion - also not contemplated by Einstein in 1905. Other >changes occurred along the way. Most recently, in the 1980s, the previous >notion that speed increased mass was "reinterpreted" to mean that speed >increased momentum, but something called "rest mass" was unchanged. Etc. > > So by your reasoning, SR today is "completely unrelated to anything >Einstein wrote, and you should not associate his name with it". Personally, >I think that would be borrowing ideas without crediting their source >whenever the idea is improved upon. But when I decline to do that in the >case of Lorentz, you see it as an appeal to the source's "authority" for >something he might never have accepted. For my part, it appears your >inconsistent stance simply reflects you disdain for certain schools of >modern thinking, and that you would quickly change your mind about where the >proper credit was due if LR displaced SR in the relativity community >tomorrow. Besides, the logical extension of your complaint would be to name >the latest variant >"Lorentz-Einstein-Tangherlini-Beckmann-Hatch-Selleri-Phipps-Van Flandern >relativity of motion", which credits everyone along the way who contributed >to the evolution of our present-day school of thought about this. I guess >that's what we can expect to happen someday if science ever merges with the >legal profession. :-) > >>> [tvf]: [... lots of stuff omitted] > >> [Roberts]: In short, you claim that the "geometric interpretation" of GR >> is "refuted" by 6 experiments, in favor of a "field interpretation" in >> which gravitational force propagates much faster than c in a Euclidean >> space. > > First, I did not invent that terminology, much less the physical >concepts behind them. You seem to have been taught only the geometric >interpretation; and to you, THAT is GR. However, the field interpretation >came first, and both interpretations use the same math and make the same >classical predictions. They differ mainly over the way the speed-of-gravity >issue id dealt with. > > Vigier and I argued in "Foundations of Physics" that the geometric >interpretation is falsified by: >** (1) the absence of a cause to initiate 3-space motion for a body at rest >in a gravitational potential field; >** (2) the absence of a physical source for the new 3-space momentum >continually acquired by an orbiting body; and >** (3) its failure to pass any observational tests except those done to test >the field interpretation using astronomical data collected in Euclidean >space. >This "failure" involves the 6 experiments you mention showing that the speed >of gravity is strongly FTL. The geometric interpretation cannot explain them >except by inventing a "deus ex machine" such as Carlip's "velocity-dependent >cancelling force" to make aberration magically disappear; or by ignoring the >logically essential connection between the source mass and the target body, >especially in cases (such as binary pulsars) where both have appreciable >acceleration during the light-time between them. > > One of those experiments is specific to falsifying the geometric >interpretation per se: the neutron interferometer experiments cited by D. M. >Greenberger and A. W. Overhauser, Rev.Mod.Phys. 51:43 (1979). Here is one >relevant paragraph from that work: > >"[The experiment] demonstrated convincingly that the Schr�dinger equation >works in the presence of gravitational fields. Since the phase shift depends >on mass even in the case of a gravitational field, it seems in retrospect >almost accidental that the mass drops out of the classical gravitational >equations. Weinberg has emphasized that most of the features of the >gravitational field can be derived from its mathematical symmetry >properties, as is true for any other field in quantum theory. This >interpretation tends to bother theorists who prefer to think of gravity as >being intrinsically related to geometry. Nevertheless, since the >Colella-Overhauser-Werner (1975) experiment confirms the applicability of >quantum mechanics even in the presence of gravity, including the >non-geometrical mass dependence, the experiment seems to be a step in the >undermining of the purely geometrical point of view." > > In a meaningful sense, the geometric interpretation is closely allied >with SR, and its reason-to-exist disappears if SR is replaced by LR. Feynman >already told us that geometric GR was not necessary or essential to physics. >The field interpretation is already based on LR because it uses a >center-of-mass-anchored frame as a preferred frame and a Lorentz-type >universal time called "coordinate time". > > So that is what I showed by reasoning, experiment, and/or unrefuted >citation. I did not "claim" anything I have not adequately justified. > >> [Roberts]: What you describe IS NOT GR. It is merely an APPROXIMATION TO >> GR. A Euclidean manifold cannot possibly model all of the manifolds of GR, >> it can only model a SUBSET of them (a rather small subset, for they must >> be topologically consistent with a flat 3-metric). Locally, of course, >> that approximation is exceedingly good (which explains why you can think >> this); it is still unknown whether or not it applies to the universe as a >> whole. > > Am I to understand that your position is that I should not have called >LR by Lorentz's name, and should not have called the field interpretation of >GR as "GR", simply because you never learned the field interpretation? Is >your entire argument simply one of nomenclature? > >> [Roberts]: What you claim is also not what science is -- one tests >> THEORIES, not interpretations. Interpretations of a theory are merely >> words describing what the quantities in the equations "mean"; they cannot >> possibly be tested by any experiment. GR is a theory, and it agrees with >> those experiments -- that is ALL one can say in this regard. > > So the claim that GR has no forces, to take one of many examples, is >"merely words ... that cannot be tested"? Then you won't mind calling >gravity a classical force ("the time rate of change of 3-space momentum") >and discussing the propagation speed of that force, will you? There's no >need to use anything but classical physics to describe gravity if it's all >"just words". > >> [Roberts]: It seems to me that you are trying to claim the mantle of GR, >> and use it to deflect criticism, while simultaneously claiming phenomena >> that are in direct conflict with GR. If "gravitational force" does indeed >> "propagate much faster than c", it must do so without transferring any >> energy, momentum, or information [#], and that simply does not make sense. > > The experiments I cited demonstrate that gravitational force propagates >strongly FTL *in forward time*, which means that it transfers energy (in the >form of heat), momentum (which is what produces orbital motion), and >information (can be used for sending FTL messages and for travel at "warp >speed"). > > But your point here again is just a nomenclature one. You don't like the >original GR (field interpretation, and the one used in modern celestial >mechanics) to be called "GR" because you were taught (incorrectly) only a >geometric interpretation of GR. But the interpretation you were taught has >been elaborated far beyond anything Einstein could accept or even recognize, >by latter-day relativists cloaking themselves in Einstein's mantle. An >excellent example is "black holes", introduced by Wheeler in the 1950s. >Einstein specifically addressed that issue in his 1939 paper and stated >flatly that no singularities exist in nature. [A. Einstein, "Annals of >Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936] Here are his exact words: > >"This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] >on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild >singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by >this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of >exhibiting such a singularity." > > So objectively, am I the one assuming Einstein's mantle, or am I >defending his reputation against being associated with physical nonsense by >physicists who have found it easier to get funding and get published by >claiming to "prove (or elucidate) Einstein's theory" when they are doing no >such thing?! > > I end again with my ignored conclusion from my previous message: > >>> [tvf]: For these new ideas to be acceptable, what more would you like to >>> see happen that has not already happened? Is the relativity community so >>> fossilized that it is incapable of considering new ways of interpreting >>> experiments that leave the familiar math intact but open new doors in >>> physics and advance our understanding of nature? Must it be ever true, as >>> Max Planck opined, that science progresses one funeral at a time? > > We now have good cause to conclude that the geometric interpretation is >wrong. But the field interpretation is in good shape. GR and its math and >predictions, as practiced historically everywhere and used currently in >celestial mechanics, remain intact, and we have resolved the conflict >between gravitation and QM - which certainly had to be resolved by something >giving ground. > > Is there not one relativist left in the world able to ponder the >concepts, experiments, and history of the field, then willing (if the >conclusion is justified by the facts) to come out and say "the emperor has >no clothes"? He'll still be the emperor. He just needs a new outfit. >:-) -|Tom|- You should be posting this stuff in alt.astronomy, you have lots of fans there. -- Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy Wee Davie Tholen is a grade-school lamer Trainer and leash holder of: Honest "Clockbrain" John nightbat "fro0tbat" of alt.astronomy Tom "TommY Crackpotter" Potter <http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=deco> "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" "Why are you now discussing Art Deco, rec.music.classical, the coward using a fake name who avoids answering questions and doesn't try to discuss music with anyone?" --David Tholen "Quite a kook-out, Deco. You've been frothing even more ever since I demonstrated how you believe that ah's family name is "ah"." --David Tholen
From: Tom Roberts on 3 Sep 2007 23:22
Juan R. wrote: > On Aug 29, 9:38 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> In short, you claim that the "geometric interpretation" of GR is >> "refuted" by 6 experiments, in favor of a "field interpretation" in >> which gravitational force propagates much faster than c in a Euclidean >> space. > > Carlip overcited paper about aberration and gravity (discussed above) > did not prove that gravity is delayed by c No, of course not. It showed how the computation in GR, in which all interactions are delayed by c, obtains the Newtonian result given the conditions that make his approximations valid. That is, in such situations the delayed interactions of GR can behave AS IF there was no delay. It is Low's paper that shows that in GR no energy, momentum, or information can be transferred faster than c. So if one thinks that gravity can transfer energy, momentum, or information, then in GR it is limited to speed <= c. But that's OK, and the experiments TVF cites do not refute GR, because the actual computations of GR for those experiments agree with their results. TVF's claim of "propagation much faster than c" is THEORY DEPENDENT, and it does not apply to GR; it does apply to the specific APPROXIMATION to GR that he uses. > (in fact, his paper is > technically incorrect already in the electromagnetic section). How so? > And Will just avoid to cite any experimental or observational > phenomena not in agreement with GR: Newtonian limits, cosmology, > boundaries, rotation curves, TFL, eclipse anomalies, and others. > Resutls in agreement with alternative theories based in forces over a > flat background. Hmmm. While I agree that reviews of experimental tests of a theory should include experiments not in agreement with it (and I follow this advice in my FAQ entry on the experimental tests of SR), I think you GREATLY overstate the case here. > What experimental test differentiates this model > http://bp3.blogger.com/_I-n4UWp0ZqM/RsmMD0c5CkI/AAAAAAAAAEc/joqIPrW5O-k/s400/flatspacetime.gif > from the geometric model? > http://bp2.blogger.com/_I-n4UWp0ZqM/RsmMDkc5CjI/AAAAAAAAAEU/EdXg-C5_-Fo/s400/curvedspacetime.gif In small fields, there can be none. In large fields perhaps, but there aren't many tests with large fields. I do not know if any "forces on flat manifold" theories have been applied to them. > At the best of my current knowledge none test verifies the curved > spacetime view promoted by relativists. Which contrast with the unfair > covering in mass media and popular treatises. The geometric approach of GR is its radical break with previous theories. The notion that geometry is dynamic was new and rather radical in 1915. > My theoretical points are clearly different from those of tvf but I > agree with him and others (e.g. Eugene) that gravity is *neither* > delayed by c *not* spacetime curvature. What God whispered in your ear and told you this? At present all we know is that both GR and some other models reproduce the data equally well. AFAIK the "forces on a flat background" has not been codified into a theory. Yes, TVF thinks he is discussing GR, as do others; that is not GR, it is at best an approximation to it, or a subset of it. > It is still unknown whether or not GR applies to the universe as a > whole. Yes. > The difference between a geometric formulation of GR and a force like > formulation over a flat background is more than just interpretation of > words. Yes. It is not GR. > They can be differentiated in experiment. Perhaps. But no such experiment has been performed so far, AFAIK. it will be quite difficult.... >> If "gravitational force" does indeed >> "propagate much faster than c", it must do so without transferring any >> energy, momentum, or information [#], and that simply does not make sense. > > Nature does not worry if "make sense" or not for you. Remember Tom, > this is SCIENCE. Sure. But I was taking issue with TVF's claim that he is using GR. He isn't. Tom Roberts |