On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in this mailing list after this message.
John Berry wrote: ... Hi All, Stephen and John posted an interesting discussion on this subject in 2007, which I can post if anyone is interested. Below are some interesting excerpts from a article by Thomas Phipps. Jack Smith ------------------------ GPS Evidence Against the Relativity Principle, by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.; Infinite Energy, Issue 67; May 2006; p. 22 and following. ``The Global Positioning System (GPS) compensates the running rates of its atomic clocks for their orbital motion by speeding them up so as to cancel the relativistic time dilatation. Such compensated clocks, when in orbit, run in step with each other and with an earth-surface Master Clock ... The realativity principle ... demands ... the clocks of two ... observers [to be] each running slower than the other. To avoid an inifinite logical regression to nonsense, SRT [Special Relativity] therefore needs clock rates to be appearances. Whereas to earn extra credit for predicting the observed asymetrical aging of muons (circling and stationary in the laboratory) SRT needs clock rates to be real ... SRT's event calculus [is used] to show that clock phase jumps properly account for the asymetry ... Neither actual clocks ... nor biological processes behave discontinuously in nature. The stay-at-home twin cannot reset his biological clock to accommodate the phase jumps ... A clock of the GPS when in orbit is in free fall ... Two independent relativistic effects on such clocks are recognized and compensated for by the GPS. There is an effect of location in the gravity field and a separate motional effect of "time dilatation" by a factor gamma = 1/(1-V^2/c^2)^0.5 ... This means that, when a GPS clock is moved from the earth's surface into orbit, it runs slower due to time dilatation but faster due to location change (being less deep in the earth's gravity field) ... Attention will be confined here exclusively to the phenomenon of time dilatation produced by clock motion ... Confining attention to the GPS atomic clocks, we note that in such clocks a cloud of cesium atoms is irradiated so as to stimulate in some of the atoms a ... transition at frequency No cycles per second ... The GPS engineers reasoned that if this same cloud of atoms were placed in orbit at speed V relative to ... the mass center of the earth ... then those atomic oscillations would be slowed by the time dilatation factor gamma = 1/(1-V^2/c^2)^0.5 due to the relative motion. To correct for this anticipated slowing, they pre-compensated this motional effect by speeding up the clock to be orbited. That is, they set it to run at a rate increased by the factor gamma. This was done in the simplest way by redefining the "second" to be a reduced number No' = No/gamma of oscillations of the cesium resonance. For purposes of discussion, we could picture the "clock" as serving a dual purpose -- containing two counters of the basic oscillations, one set to register a "natural" ... second ... and the other set to register a "compensated second" ... Each clock "sees" all the others as running in step with itself ... the GPS is telling us that the slow-running of orbiting clocks is not an "appearance" nor a "perception" of the earth-surface observer, but a fact verifiable by any observer ... By means of its event calculus, introducing clock phases and the Lorentz contraction of lengths, SRT correctly predicts elapsed times but leaves aside rates. If rates are considered unobservable, the relativity principle [RP] is obeyed. My claim of RP violation is based on the counter proposition, that clock rates are in fact physical observables in their own right ... SRT says explicitly that the clocks of two relatively-moving inertial observers run slower than each other. It mitigates this logical contradiction not a bit to say that reversing the motion of one of the observers and applying the event calculus resolves the "twin" problem. This does not resolve, it evades. If no turn-around event occurs, the contradiction persists indefinitely ... SRT ... as an event calculus, will give a coherent ... accounting of the GPS situation ... not only by fiddling phases but by contorting space (Lorentz contraction of the orbiting light-speed measuring apparatus) ... No experimental measurement of the Lorentz contraction has ever succeeded ... The objective reality of time dilatation [Jack writes: There are alternative explanations], indicated by the GPS evidence demands a matching objective reality of the Lorentz contraction ... To test the issue in a simple manner, it would be desirable to construct a dual-purpose clock, as defined above, put it into orbit, and use it in a suitable apparatus to measure light speed with each of the two clocks ... If the orbiting uncompensated [clock] measured c, this would be seen as confirming the objective physical Lorentz contraction of the measuring apparatus in orbit ... If the compensated [clock] measured c, this would indicate invariance of length and invalidity of the metric statements of SRT ...'' Neil Hambleton ([email protected]) on 5-26-06 wrote: In reply to Michael Flora (11,413), Mark Underwood (11,414) and Doug Buck (11,417), you are all neglecting to distinguish between actuality and appearance. Yesterday I wrote in message 11,411: "Length contraction is neither real, nor apparent". On reflection, since the Terrell-Penrose 'null result' for apparent change in length of objects in relative motion is predicated on supposed (and very large, e.g. 97.5% shrinkage in the example I used) real change in length, with real change out of the way apparent change reappears (due to the delay between origination and reception of light signals). My position now is that for two observers pointing rulers, poles, ladders or whatever at each other: 1. When they are moving closer together, for each observer the other's ruler will appear squashed compared to his own; 2. When they meet, both rulers will appear to be the same length; 3. When they are moving apart, for each observer the other's ruler will appear stretched compared to his own; 4. There is never any actual change in length of either of the rulers. The above applies even at terrestrial speeds but the apparent differences, although they can be calculated, are far too small to observe. Neil Hambleton http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO1PDF/V05N1MUN.pdf http://pesn.com/2006/04/07/9600258_Holy_Relativity_1/#1.%20Throwing%20Down%20the%20Gauntlet http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html ------------------ Michael Flora ([email protected]) wrote on 5-27-06: Length contraction is clearly apparent. Whether it is "real" may be a matter of semantics only. Your original example of the spherical warhead was intended to refute SRT. It is true that length contraction is not a "permanent" effect. If both you and I have rulers of the same length, and if you travel at 99%c relative to me, and if at some time in the future we meet again (at zero relative speed) we will find that our rulers are still the same length. However, I will have aged much more than you. Time dilation is a proved consequence of SRT. It goes hand in hand with length contraction. You seem to be hung up on length contraction and have not even considered time dilation. Regards, M.R.F. >From POPmail Mon Sep 25 11:59:44 2006 Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from mx5.centurytel.net (mx5.centurytel.net [209.142.136.104]) by mta5.centurytel.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8P77Gww026020 for <[email protected]>; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:07:16 -0500 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (ultra5.eskimo.com [204.122.16.68]) by mx5.centurytel.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8P77ElV083127; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:07:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8P704xs008796; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:06:57 -0700 Received: (from smart...@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.13.6/8.12.10/Submit) id k8P6rg7a002786; Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:53:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:53:41 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to [email protected] using -f Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:52:58 -0500 From: thomas malloy <[email protected]> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <[email protected]> Resent-From: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/latest/70804 X-Loop: [email protected] List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]"subject=help> List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]"subject=subscribe> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]"subject=unsubscribe> Precedence: list Source: thomas malloy <[email protected]> Resent-Sender: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]: faster than light speeds I've heard Tom Van Flandern discuss his exploding planet theory several times. I came across his article about Lorenzian relativity which allows for FTL speeds. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics" (a primer on Lorentzian relativity) Tom Van Flandern Meta Research / [email protected] Abstract. As the relativity of motion is taught today, Einstein"s special relativity has been observationally confirmed so often that there is no longer reason to doubt it. However, the chief competitor theory known as Lorentzian relativity has passed those same observational tests. Whether surpassing the speed of light in classical physics will be routinely possible or not depends critically on which of these models is correct. Recent experimental evidence for faster-than-light force propagation is fully consistent with Lorentzian relativity, but is a test that special relativity cannot pass. The proof that faster-than-light (FTL) propagation is not allowed by nature is simple. Special relativity (SR) forbids it because, in that theory, time slows and approaches a cessation of flow for any material entity approaching the speed of light. So no matter how much energy is brought to bear, the entity cannot be propelled all the way to, much less beyond, the point where time ceases. The entity"s inertia simply increases towards infinity as the speed barrier is approached.[*] But most importantly, relativists are confident that SR is a valid theory because it has passed eleven independent experiments confirming most of its features and predictions. Moreover, the very successful theory of general relativity (GR) is based on SR, and has likewise passed several major experimental tests. So SR is confirmed by observations and forbids FTL propagation and travel. As solid as this reasoning appears to be, it has a logical flaw because another theory exists about which the same supporting claims can be made, but which has no universal speed limit. This replacement theory is the so-called "Lorentzian relativity" (LR). Let"s briefly review the origin of this theory, what it says, how it differs from SR, and what the experiments have to say about it. Lorentzian relativity is a modern updating of the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET), first published in 1904 a year before Einstein published SR. [[i]] It is based on the relativity principle, first formulated at least a generation earlier; and on the famous transformations named after Lorentz, thereby having the same mathematical form as SR. In essence, LR is relativity for the aether. Einstein"s innovation in SR was to abolish the need for aether, or more specifically, the need for a preferred frame, by making all inertial frames equivalent, with each having the same speed of light. LR went in the opposite direction, specifying that the generalized, amorphous, universal aether of LET should in fact be identified with the local gravitational potential field, which is of course a different frame from place to place. Consider two inertial frames. One has space coordinates (X,Y,Z) and time T; and the other has a relative speed v directed along the positive X-axis, space coordinates (x,y,z), and time t. Then if c is the speed of light in a vacuum, the relationship between all four coordinates in the two frames, according to Einstein"s SR, is given by the Lorentz transformations: Because the relationships are reciprocal in SR (all inertial frames are equivalent in SR), the inverse relations must also hold, where v is now the speed of the first frame relative to the second, directed along the positive x-axis: In SR, the Lorentz transformations apply to time, space, and mass. By contrast, in LR, they apply only to clocks, meter sticks, and momentum. This is a subtle but important distinction. For example, increasing the temperature slows a pendulum clock and increases its length, yet this does not mean that something happens to time or space. Only the attempted measures of time and space using the pendulum clock, but not time and space themselves, are affected by temperature. In a similar way, in Lorentzian relativity, only the attempted measures of the dimensions time, space, and mass are affected by speed, but not the dimensions themselves. (In general relativity we find that measures of time by clocks are also affected by gravitational potential.) So in LR, equation set relates clocks and meter sticks in the preferred frame (X,Y,Z;T) to those in any relatively moving inertial frame (x,y,z;t). Time and space themselves are simply dimensions (concepts), and cannot be changed by motion, by potential, or by any material entity. And that, in brief, is why there is no universal speed limit in LR " nothing ever happens to time itself, just to certain types of clocks attempting to keep time. Such clocks might malfunction or stop operating altogether at speeds at or above the speed of light. But there is no slowing of time to prevent reaching such speeds. And other types of clocks exist for measuring time unaffected by speed or potential, just as many types of clocks are unaffected by temperature. One might immediately object that, in particle accelerators, the behavior predicted by SR is observed to happen as speeds approach c. No matter how much energy is added, the particles cannot be made to reach or exceed speed c. However, the same is true for a propeller-driven aircraft in level flight trying to exceed the speed of sound. The air molecules cannot be driven faster than the speed of sound; so no matter how fast the propellers are made to spin, the speed of sound can never be reached or exceeded. However, a force propagating faster than the speed of sound, or a continuous acceleration such as jet propulsion, could succeed where the propellers failed. In an analogous way, a force propagating faster than the speed of light, such as gravity [[ii]], should be able to drive a body to and past the light-speed "barrier", even though forces such as those in particle accelerators are limited to propagating and pushing at light speed. SR differs from LR by having two very general postulates. This first postulate of SR makes the Lorentz transformations reciprocal in that theory; i.e., they work equally well from any inertial frame to any other, and back again. So it has no meaning to ask which of two identical clocks in different frames is ticking slower in any absolute sense. The speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, as is generally true for waves in any medium. But the second postulate of SR makes the speed of light also independent of the speed of the observer, a feature unique to SR. In LR, neither inertial frame reciprocity nor the speed of light postulate holds. Today, many physicists and students of physics have acquired the impression that these two SR postulates have been confirmed by observations. However, that is not the case. In fact, none of the eleven independent experiments verifying some aspect of SR [[iii]] is able to verify either postulate. Indeed, no experiment is capable of verifying these postulates even in principle [[iv]] because they become automatically true by convention if one adopts the Einstein clock-synchronization method, and they become just as automatically false if one adopts a different synchronization convention such as the "universal time" postulate of Lorentz. Of interest here is the point that the Global Positioning System (GPS) uses the latter synchronization convention for pragmatic reasons. Because time is never affected, LR recognizes a "universal time" applicable to all frames, and a universal instant of "now". In SR, all inertial frames are equivalent, so the Lorentz transformations apply reciprocally (both ways between two frames); whereas in LR, the local gravitational potential field constitutes a preferred frame, and the Lorentz transformations work just one way from the preferred frame to any inertial frame with a relative motion, but not reciprocally. GR also has two physical interpretations: field GR and geometric GR. [vii] So it should not be surprising that the relativity of motion does also. The mathematical form and the observable phenomena are consistent with both in most instances. Although claims have been made over the years that various experiments falsified either SR or LR, subsequent discussion indicated that was not the case. It is now widely believed that no experiment dealing with lightspeed or slower phenomena can distinguish the two theories. [iv] For example in GPS, all atomic clocks aboard satellites with a variety of orbital planes, and all atomic clocks all over the rotating Earth, are all synchronized with one another, and remain synchronized, despite being in many different inertial frames. This appears to be a practical realization of Lorentz"s universal time. But SR points out that the clocks had to be adjusted in rate to achieve this synchronization, and that the measured speed of light is then not constant in frames other than the local gravitational potential field. If the two postulates of SR are adhered to, the clocks must be reset in rate and adjusted in their initial time setting so that the speed of light is measured to be the same in all frames. Then the clocks in all frames would behave just as predicted by SR, albeit at the cost of adding considerable complexity to the system. Every satellite-receiver pair would have unique and time-variable clock corrections. That is avoided in GPS by synchronizing each clock (in epoch and rate) to an imaginary, moment-by-moment co-located clock always at rest in the local gravitational potential field, the Earth-centered inertial frame. But that is precisely what LR specifies as the method of synchronizing to Lorentzian universal time. This GPS procedure is all very nice, but hardly what Einstein envisioned when speaking of two clocks in relative motion, one at a station and one on a passing train. How simple special relativity would have become all these years if physicists had realized that all they had to do was reset the clock rates so they all ticked at the same rate as the reference clock in the local gravity field! The converse situation is also revealing. Suppose we did not change the GPS satellite clock rates before launch, but instead let them tick at their design rates in accord with whatever speed and potential they experienced in orbit. Now, suppose we tried to Einstein-synchronize the system of clocks. Satellite and ground clocks would tick at different rates. And if we tried to work in any local, instantaneously co-moving inertial frame, the corrections needed to synchronize with each orbiting clock would be unique to that observer"s frame and different from moment to moment because both clocks are accelerating. The practical difficulties of operating the system would be virtually insurmountable. What we would gain by doing that is constancy of the measured speed of light in all inertial frames. But because all clocks are now re-synchronized to just the ECI frame in the GPS, the speed of light is constant in that one frame used by GPS, and the invariance of the speed of light in other inertial frames is of no practical value. Conspicuously missing from the list of experimental results is any experiment testing reciprocity of the Lorentz transformations. Specifically, GR is built on SR using only one-way Lorentz transformations relative to the local gravitational potential field (center-of-mass reference frame), which can be identified physically with "elysium" (the light-carrying medium). [[v]] GR is therefore just as consistent with LR as is SR. The famous Twins Paradox, an attempt to show an apparent inconsistency in SR, has no counterpart in LR because LR"s transformations work only one way. [[vi]] However, only an experiment demonstrating a real phenomenon propagating faster than light in forward time could decide between SR and LR. That matter has recently been resolved in favor of LR. It has long been known that the propagation speed of gravitational (and also electrodynamic) forces is faster than light in forward time. [[vii]] So to keep SR viable, GR has often been interpreted geometrically, in which case gravitation is not a force at all and has no propagation speed. But that interpretation has now been shown to be non-viable because it violates the causality principle (by requiring magic) and requires creation ex nihilo of new momentum for target bodies. [vii] Therefore, only the traditional field interpretation of GR remains viable, requiring that LR be used in place of SR. Historically, de Sitter, Sagnac, Michelson, and Ives concluded from their respective experiments that they had falsified SR in favor of the Lorentz theory. [[?]] In each case, subsequent re-interpretation of SR allowed that theory to survive these objections. Only the Michelson-Morley experiment was ever thought to falsify LR. But entrainment of elysium by the local gravity field means that no fringe displacement is expected by LR in that experiment, just as was observed. This author showed that Lorentz contraction is not operating in LR, and there is no contraction of physical length or length standards. Measured lengths might change in an illusory way if length is defined in terms of the speed of light and that speed is affected by motion or gravitational potential. In SR, Lorentz contraction is an appearance created by the lack of remote simultaneity in that theory. [[viii]] The modern development of LR from the original LET theory published by Lorentz, specifically the identification of the preferred frame with the local gravity field, can be attributed to Tangherlini [[ix]], Mansouri & Sexl [[x]], Beckmann [[xi]], Hayden [[xii]], Hatch [[xiii]], and Selleri [[xiv]]. Finally, in a recent article, Ashby [[xv]] claimed that the clock-epoch correction term (also called the "time slippage" term) in the Lorentz transformations, (see Eq. ), can be dropped in SR even when its value is large, but he is very vague about why. In LR, this term can be dropped because initial clock synchronization is arbitrary. However, this particular term is the only difference of consequence between Einstein synchronization of clocks in different inertial frames and Lorentz synchronization of clocks to an underlying "universal time". And the GPS system has been designed to use Lorentz synchronization, for which one frame, the local gravity field or ECI, is special; not Einstein synchronization, wherein clocks tick at their natural rates and all inertial frames are equivalent. By itself, this does not prove LR "right" or SR "wrong". But the practical difficulties for GPS of not changing the natural rates of clocks pre-launch, or with the use of SR for any frame other than the Lorentzian preferred frame, are very great. If a ring of satellites (A, B, C, ", Y, Z) circled the Earth in a common orbit, and each satellite tried to Einstein synchronize with the next in sequence, then when Z tried to complete the circuit by Einstein-synchronizing with A, the corrections required would lead to time readings for A different from the starting readings, making closure impossible. In fact a single satellite clock could not Einstein-synchronize with itself because the time for a light beam to travel forward around the orbit differs from the time for the same signal to travel backwards around the orbit. In summary, Table 1 shows the major features of and differences between the two competing theories for the relativity of motion, Einstein special relativity and Lorentzian relativity. Experiments have now decided in favor of the interpretations in the last column. Table 1. Overview and comparison of SR and LR. Attribute SR LR postulates 1) all inertial frames equivalent 2) speed of light unchanged classical physics applies equations physical effects time dilates, space contracts, momentum amplified by motion relative to observer clocks slowed by motion relative to local gravitational potential field special feature space and time are physical entities that can be altered by motion space, time are dimensions/concepts, not material, tangible entities light speed constant by postulate varies with observer motion distant time no remote simultaneity between frames universal instant of "now" motion all motion is relative motion relative to local gravity field posted 2006/05/01 [*] Hypothetical entities with mathematically imaginary masses might exist, according to the equations of SR. These "tachyons" would always travel faster than light, but must always propagate backwards in time and cannot be slowed to sub-light speeds. [?] De Sitter argued that the forward displacement of starlight (aberration) depended on absolute, not relative, speeds because both components of a double star, each with some unique velocity, had the same aberration. Sagnac argued that the fringe shifts expected but not seen in the Michelson-Morley experiment are seen if the experiment is done on a rotating platform. Michelson argued in the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment that the Earth was just such a rotating platform. Ives argued that ions radiated at frequencies determined by absolute, not relative, motion because they had to pick a specific frequency to radiate at. In each case, a complex-but-now-familiar SR explanation could account for the same observed results. [i] H.A. Lorentz (1931), Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. III, "The principle of relativity for uniform translations", Macmillan & Co., London, 208-211. Contains summary of and citation to original 1904 paper. [ii] T. Van Flandern (1998), "The speed of gravity " What the experiments say", Phys.Lett.A 250:1-11; also http://metaresearch.org, "cosmology" tab, "gravity" sub-tab.. [iii] T. Van Flandern (1998), "What the Global Positioning System tells us about relativity", in Open Questions in Relativistic Physics, F. Selleri, ed., Apeiron Press, Montreal, 81-90; also http://metaresearch.org, "cosmology" tab, "gravity" sub-tab. [iv] H. Erlichson, "The rod contraction-clock retardation ether theory and the special theory of relativity", Amer.J.Phys. 41:1068-1077 (1973). [v] T. Van Flandern (2002), "Gravity", in Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, M. Edwards, ed., Apeiron Press, Montreal, 93-122. [vi] T. Van Flandern (2002), "What the Global Positioning System tells us about the Twin"s Paradox", MetaRes.Bull. 11:39-46. [vii] T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier (2002), "Experimental repeal of the speed limit for gravitational, electrodynamic, and quantum field interactions", Found.Phys. 32(#7):1031-1068. [viii] T. Van Flandern (2003), "Lorentz contraction", MetaRes.Bull. 12:33-36. [ix] F.R. Tangherlini (1961), Suppl.NuovoCimento 20:1. [x] R. Mansouri & R.U. Sexl (1977), "A Test Theory of Special Relativity: I. Simultaneity and Clock Synchronization", Gen.Rel.&Grav. 8:497-513. See reference 28 crediting Tangherlini. [xi] P. Beckmann (1987), Einstein Plus Two, Golem Press, Boulder, CO. [xii] H. Hayden (1993-1996), editor, Galilean Electrodynamics. [xiii] R.R. Hatch (1992), Escape from Einstein, Kneat Kompany, Wilmington, CA. [xiv] F. Selleri (2001), "Space and Time should be preferred to Spacetime"1", in Redshift and Gravitation in a Relativistic Universe, ed. K. Rudnicki, Apeiron Press, Montreal, 63-71. [xv] N. Ashby, "Relativity and the Global Positioning System", Phys.Today May:41-47 (2002).
