


paulgibson
New Member
USA
7 Posts 

furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts 
Posted  08/19/2004 : 06:35:10 [Permalink]

It looks like the original formula for time dilation is wrong  which sort of invalidates the rest of the paper.
Time dilaltion formula in the paper: t = (1  v^2/c^2)^1/2
Einsteins Time Dilation: (delta)t = (delta)t'/ (1  v^2/c^2)^1/2
In other words the term is not raised to the 1/2 power it is raised to the negative 1/2 power.
The formula is wrong you lose 50 points.

If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. 


Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts 
Posted  08/19/2004 : 09:35:58 [Permalink]

From the linked paper:First is the measure of the speed of light. It would be worthwhile to measure the speed of light in bands outside the visible portion of the spectrum. Perhaps starting with the gamma and microwave extremes. Obviously if the results of such measurements come back uniformly regardless of the measured bands then pretty much this entire paper is a waste of paper. It is my hope that such measurements will nail down the formula for the function of the relationship between light speed and color. A serious inquirer into these questions would have already looked up references on light speed (in a vacuum) for frequencies outside the visible. That the speeds are different in various media (leading to a prisms' "breaking apart" of white light or to chromatic abberation in telescope lenses) is wellknown already. Surely there are mounds and mounds of textbooks which already address the question as written above. Your statement, "To my knowledge these measurements were of the speed of visible light only," is simply a sign that you haven't done your homework.
Secondly, academic papers tend to begin with a statement of what the author intends to do in the paper. You failed to do so. Academic papers conclude with a summation of the intentions and their fulfillment. You failed to do so. Academic papers reference other works if discussing them. You failed to do so. Academic papers define terms if they might be unfamiliar to the audience  and since you posted a link to your paper here, your audience is us  and you failed to do so.
What you appear to have published is a lot of pseudoacademic verbiage, based in ignorance of work which has been done beforehand, attempting  and failing miserably  to achieve the level of brilliance of Einstein.
Oh, and if you think that microwave radiation is an "extreme" of the light spectrum, you're quite mistaken and need to read up on ELF and ULF in use today. Hell, microwave frequencies are quite a bit higher than, say, much more common AM radio.
Thousands of points off, by my count furshur. 
 Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. 


paulgibson
New Member
USA
7 Posts 
Posted  08/19/2004 : 10:58:53 [Permalink]

Actually, I've seen the time dilation formula done both ways. "t" in the first formula is merely a ratio describing the transformative relationship between the passage of time in the two frames of reference. That is,
t=(delta)t'/(delta)t
That said the two formulas are essentially the same. What we get is still a pythagorean triangle.
((c(delta)t')^2+(v(delta)t)^2=(c(delta)t)^2)
You lose 50 points.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html
At the bottom of the page you'll note it mentions speed of invisible light experiments by Heinrich Hertz. This is compelling, but I would say does not immediately invalidate what I've written. The speed of invisible light as measured by Hertz was 300,000 km/s you know give or take a couple tens of thousands km/s! You may be rolling your eyes and thinking, typical crank. He's not satisfied with anything. Yet as any physicist can tell you this is no minor complaint.
http://www.whatisthespeedoflight.com/foucaultspeedoflight.html
Here's the real deal. Modern speed of light measurments are variants on this experiment.
http://www.whatisthespeedoflight.com/speedoflightdefined.html
And, here's where we are now. Like I wrote, modern measurements are using lasers, and are measuring visible light only.
This is really nothing more than semantics, but "microwave" is a term that can be used broadly to encompass AM radio and even ULF and ELF. Although yes, most radio scientists avoid such a generalization in favor of saying exactly what they mean. 


furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts 
Posted  08/19/2004 : 13:15:29 [Permalink]

quote: Paul wrote: At the bottom of the page you'll note it mentions speed of invisible light experiments by Heinrich Hertz. This is compelling, but I would say does not immediately invalidate what I've written. The speed of invisible light as measured by Hertz was 300,000 km/s you know give or take a couple tens of thousands km/s! You may be rolling your eyes and thinking, typical crank. He's not satisfied with anything. Yet as any physicist can tell you this is no minor complaint.
This only proves that in 1888, the measurement techniques were not that good.
Here is something a little more recent: quote: Many other methods were employed to improve accuracy further. It soon became necessary to correct for the refractive index of air. In 1958 Froome had the value of 299,792.5 km/s using a microwave interferometer and a Kerr cell shutter. After 1970 the development of lasers with very high spectral stability and accurate caesium clocks made even better measurements possible.
I think that 299,792.5 km/sec is pretty close to the accepted speed of 299,792.45 km/sec.
Check this out!: Measuring the speed of light with chocolate and a microwave, http://physics.about.com/cs/opticsexperiments/a/290903.htm

If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. 


Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts 
Posted  08/19/2004 : 19:25:48 [Permalink]

From the paper:The reverse calculation of Einstein's time dilation formula is as follows: Actually, you're just messing with the division factor for time, not the full time dilation equation. You've got the equation for the inverse of a factor known to physicists as gamma. You multiply time by gamma to get the relativistic time, multiply rest mass by gamma to get relativistic mass, and divide length (in the direction of motion) by gamma to get relativistic length.
But, back to your "reverse" calculation. The "reverse" of the calculation would be to solve for velocity, and not the speed of light, since that is assumed to be constant. Solving for velocity would get one what?Inverse Gamma (Gi) = (1v^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2} Gi^{2} = 1  v^{2}/c^{2} cGi^{2} = c^{2}  v^{2} v^{2} = c^{2}  cGi^{2} v^{2} = c^{2}(1Gi^{2}) v = (c^{2}(1Gi^{2}))^{1/2} And that gives you a perfectly useful formula for taking the time between two events as you measure it, divide that into the same time period as measured by an observer at rest, and you can find out how fast you're going. Cool stuff.
The fact that you concluded that you'd created "complete nonsense" when trying to create equations for motions other than "vertical" should have clued you in to the whole problem. But no. You just kept on trucking. Somehow, you've assumed this:Yet, Einstein's formula modifies time; while Lorentz's formula modifies length When in reality, the equation you've been dealing with is part of what's known as the Lorentz Transformations, and they apply to time, length, and mass (using the gamma factor, described above). And the length factor only applies in the direction one is moving. And perhaps that's part of the problem, as well. So what if Einstein's thought experiment dealth "with the vertical?" It's a thought experiment, not a physical law. The real equations (not your circumsized version of one of them) deal with any movement, and your fixation upon "Pythagorean" triangles (known to the rest of the world as right triangles) is probably just a red herring.
Above, you wrote:quote: This is compelling, but I would say does not immediately invalidate what I've written. The speed of invisible light as measured by Hertz was 300,000 km/s you know give or take a couple tens of thousands km/s! You may be rolling your eyes and thinking, typical crank. He's not satisfied with anything.
No, I was thinking "typical crank, he's arguing based upon ignorance of modern physics."
You appear to be ignorant of: what Einstein's theories say,
 what the Lorentz Transformation mean,
 the capabilities of "lasers" (hint: they're not restricted to visible light),
 the state of the art of physics (we're close to celebrating Special Relativity's centennial),
 proper articlewriting techniques, and
 the fact that if you're going to talk as if you know physics, you should use the correct terminology.
To that last point, the "microwave" spectrum is  and has been for quite some time  a specific range of frequencies, above radio and below visible light.
In general, I'd say you're still in the red by thousands of points. 
 Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. 


BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts 
Posted  08/20/2004 : 08:24:06 [Permalink]

Its true, you DO rock! Excellent thread work. 
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini 


Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts 

SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts 
Posted  08/20/2004 : 10:48:06 [Permalink]

quote: Originally posted by Ricky
Damn, I hope none of my teachers are skeptics, you guys are really hard graders, and if anything is wrong, you'll find it.
You're a comuter science major. If you want to avoid skeptics... Virginia Tech is not the place to do it. 
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud." Sophocles 


Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts 
Posted  08/20/2004 : 11:08:44 [Permalink]

I only break out the big red felttip when people start talking authoritatively about subjects which they appear to know little. Were I teaching a student, and then grading them, things would be much different. I wouldn't expect "expert" knowledge, unless I were looking at a Master's thesis, at the very least.
Mr. Gibson appears to have pretensions towards that high a level of academics. I graded appropriately. 
 Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. 


SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts 
Posted  08/20/2004 : 11:26:04 [Permalink]

Not only that, Ricky presumably won't go into his Physics classes insisting that Einstein didn't know what he was talking about. If he does, well... 
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud." Sophocles 


paulgibson
New Member
USA
7 Posts 
Posted  08/20/2004 : 13:47:08 [Permalink]

just checking something 


paulgibson
New Member
USA
7 Posts 
Posted  08/20/2004 : 16:30:39 [Permalink]

Do I ever have alot on my plate.
First Furshur:
Actually since you mention it I don't know Hertz's margin for error. I thought to myself, with that many zeroes it would have to be like another order of magnitude down. This was actually a pretty stupid thing for me to think, especially with how close the accepted speed of light is to 300,000 km/s one could easily have a very small margin of error (something like +or 250 km/s) and still come up with 300,000 km/s. Of course that's probably not the case, but still a margin of error of +or 20,000 km/s, although possible, is just not any more likely at all. I did notice that no website (that I could find) got into the Hertz margin for error. I kind of wonder if that's because Hertz's measurement is largely considered to be not accurate enough to be worth mentioning. Of course, considering that we're talking about a standard of at least +or 50 km/s at the time that would be understandable.
Still, the Hertz experiment in 1888 is not irrelevant as this is what Albert Einstein based his Theory of Relativity on in 1905. You have to understand that when I wrote this paper the research I did was largely on the things that made Einstein think the speed of light is constant, not why I should or should not think otherwise. I see now that was a great mistake on my part and am kicking myself over that now, and I'm afraid you've caught me very much underprepared.
Here are some links:
http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Juniorlab/C_Speed/Historyof_c_F2002.PDF
This link describes the experiments conducted to measure the speed of light. Besides giving a rough idea of how the measurements were performed, it also gives the frequencies that they were performed at. (One might wonder if I were right wouldn't the frequency numbers be off, as frequency is determined indirectly by multiplying the wavelength by the speed of light? This actually is a nonissue since, as the rest of you would be quick to point out, the speeds of light as measured in the experiments by Froome and Essen agree closely enough with the accepted speed of light as to make the point entirely moot.) However, the numbers on the speeds of light measured in those experiments as shown on that website are incorrect, as revealed by the site you quoted but did not link to here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
And, here's another link that goes over wavelengths and frequencies throughout the spectrum:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/spectrum.html
Now you've really put me in between a rock and a hard place with the Froome and Essen measurements. It's remarkable that the range of measurements from 6 to 72 GHz is in the lower Infrared portion of the spectrum. The speed of infrared light as measured in the experiments though the margin for error contains the accepted speed of light is faster than the accepted speed of light. Since, if I were right, I would expect Infrared to be slower not faster than the accepted speed of light, it would seem my idea isn't passing the smell test. The margin of error could allow for Infrared being slower, but since that would be a lead of at the most 3.4 km/s for Essen (6 to 9.5 GHz) and 58 m/s for Froome (72 GHz) that doesn't seem like much consolation.
I suppose I could fall back on that old whiny crank last resort that just because the speed of light is constant for one frame of reference doesn't mean it's constant for all other frames of reference. If I were going to do that I should've done that in my paper. I was and still am unwilling to do that because I don't feel that it vibes with Maxwell's electrodynamic model of light.
I suppose it might be possible that the speed of light as observed (leaving alone whether or not the observer is a part of that frame of reference) could collapse along with the rest of the quantum wave form onto the constant. This would allow the speed of light to be constant and would confine that constancy to one frame of reference. This doesn't sound so much like a crank idea. Actually it sounds like an idea that Schrodinger would jump right on board for.
Still, let's see if we can't run this horse into the ground first. Let's suppose the speed of light at 0 Hz is 0 m/s, the speed of visible light has been pretty accurately and effectively measured (I think we all know it has), and there is a linear relationship between light's frequency and speed. (I don't actually think there would be a linear relationship and not merely because as you'll see it would be convenient to me. Those of you who have studied physics will I'm sure agree that linear relationships are not something you can just count on. On the other hand, it would seem pretty intuitive that that's what it would be. Wouldn't it?) This would mean the speed of light predicted at 6 GHz would be at the most 4200 km/s, and at 72 GHz it would at the most be 50,000 km/s. That's a pretty far cry from the 299,789 km/s and the 299,792.4 km/s that I'm looking for.
I suppose if the relationship between light frequency and speed described a curve things would be different. If the frequency increased exponentially as the speed increased (I actually have no reason to suppose that the other way around light speed increasing exponentially as the frequency increased wouldn't be any less likely) the speed of Infrared light could be close to that of visible light, especially if 300,000 km/s is already pretty fast for light.
Second Dave W:
Check the bottom of the page on this link:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
These are Einstein's own words. You may have angry red lights going off in your head as you're thinking, that's with one over the expression! That's right. As you and I both have pointed out that's a ratio used to multiply to get relativistic relationships of things. In other words depending upon how one intends to use it you may see it either as is, or as it's reciprocal.
The thing you should be asking is, why is this formula resolved from a pythagorean triangle? You see, that's rather arbitrary. Why would we concern ourselves just with the light emitted sideways from a moving object? This is exactly what the first seven paragraphs of my paper is about. To elaborate that thought from there I moved on to the circle expression. The reason why I felt obliged to use a circle is because a vector has two values it's orientation and it's magnitude. The principle of the speed of light concerns itself only with the speed of light, the magnitudes of the vector of the constant. I'm wondering, how good are you at vector mechanics?
"The real equations (not your circumsized version of one of them) deal with any movement"
First off, the Lorentzian contraction as integrated into the Special Theory of Relativity was done after the fact by Einstein. I don't believe Lorentz even had anything to do with it. Second, the reason I'm so fixated on this one single expression is, because that's it. That's the Theory right there. All the other expressions are mere modifications enhancements and elaborations on that. So, if you're going to disagree with the Special Theory of Relativity you've got to get to the heart of the matter, and that's it. 


Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts 
Posted  08/20/2004 : 20:12:35 [Permalink]

Paul Gibson wrote:quote: The thing you should be asking is, why is this formula resolved from a pythagorean triangle? You see, that's rather arbitrary. Why would we concern ourselves just with the light emitted sideways from a moving object?
No, the question I am asking is "why is Paul Gibson insisting that Einstein's equations have anything to do with 'light emitted sideways from a moving object?'"quote: So, if you're going to disagree with the Special Theory of Relativity you've got to get to the heart of the matter, and that's it.
Yeah, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what the General Theory of Relativity was for. Einstein himself knew that the Special theory was specific. He generalized it many years ago. Why are you trying to do so again? 
 Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. 


paulgibson
New Member
USA
7 Posts 
Posted  08/23/2004 : 20:52:13 [Permalink]

You'll need to read this link on vectors:
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jenolive/vect2.html
As the site suggested with the boat in the water analogy, an object or particle moving through something that has its own velocity will appear to a stationary outside observer to have a velocity that is the vector sum of the object's velocity and the velocity of the something that it is moving through.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/relativity/U7l2a.html
Yet another variation of the time dilation formula. (And, a good one too.)
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/relativity/U7l2b.html
So, you may ask what is that sesame street animation in aid of? Einstein's principle of the constancy of the speed of light required that a stationary observer, observing a rocket ship say, would see the vector sum of the velocity of the rocket ship plus the velocity of light being transmitted through the rocket ship as being exactly equal to the speed of light.
(A common crank complaint is that one can not see light being transmitted through a frame of reference either as an outside observer or as an inside observer. One can only perceive the effects of light, like it stimulating one's retinas for example. I honestly couldn't care less about that.)
As such the velocity of any moving object plus the velocity of light (that's vector sum addition as described in the first link, which is distinct from simple value sums) must equal the velocity of light. This seems totally nonsensical. Yet, I have really no problem with that idea, by itself. Einstein's solution to this strange idea was to say that time and space are warped in such a way that the apparent speed of light for any observer observing any other frame of reference moving in any way relative to them would always be the same. That's the principle of the constancy of the speed of light.
Einstein had two vectors which he wanted to add together, the velocity vector of a frame of reference, really any frame of reference, and a velocity of light vector, which he modified with a modifier. What was this modifier? That's what he was trying to find out.
Remember the triangle law of addition? Einstein knew that the vector sum of the velocity vector and modified velocity of light vector should equal the vector c. That is, that by putting the two vectors together nose to tail the distance (distance of course not being the strictly correct word for it) between the end tail and the end nose should be the vector c.
Einstein could have used really any triangle for this, but he chose a right angled triangle. Why a right angled triangle? In a right angled triangle the sum of the squares of the two lesser sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. That's the pythagorean theorem. And, it gave Einstein a real relationship between the vectors that could allow him to solve for the modifier of the velocity of light vector.
Moreover, this was a relationship between the lengths, or the magnitudes, of the vectors. Einstein only concerned himself with the magnitudes of the vectors. This was not a failure on his part to include all the relevant data. Einstein only concerned himself with the magnitudes of the vectors because the magnitude of a velocity vector is speed, and it's the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, not the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. (That may not look like much of a difference. But, believe you me, it's nothing to sneeze at.)
Now before I move on, I'd like to go over two of your previous posts which I failed to go over in detail for one reason or the other.
"The 'reverse' of the calculation would be to solve for velocity, and not the speed of light,"
Actually you mean, and not the square of the speed of light. And, that would be true if one wanted to isolate a variable for solution through reverse calculation. But, when one does a reverse calculation they do the exact opposite. They take a variable that has already been isolated and solved for, in this case "Gi", and one asks oneself, what did the original author of this equation do to isolate this variable? What did he start with? In that, you have failed miserably.
You did exactly as you should have up to your third step leading to your fourth equation. You took "cGi2 = c2  v2" and added v^2. That was right. But then when you were essentially finished with the equation cGi^2+v^2=c^2, you subtracted cGi^2, to achieve the remainnder equation "v2 = c2  cGi2". This was not mathematically required and was arbitrary in the extreme. (And, you accuse me of red herring?)
As I wrote you were essentially finished with cGi^2+v^2=c^2. I also wrote that your task was to ask What did he start with? Does "v = (c2(1Gi2))1/2" look like any equation that Albert Einstein would have had as a starting equation. Do you suppose he just pulled that out of his ass?
"The fact that you concluded that you'd created 'complete nonsense' when trying to create equations for motions other than 'vertical' should have clued you in to the whole problem."
The equations were nonsense, yes but, the line of thinking wasn't. Using expressions that end in nonsensical results was my way of saying, there's something fishy here.
"Why is Paul Gibson insisting that Einstein's equations have anything to do with 'light emitted sideways from a moving object?" (There was no need for quotes when you wrote this as you were the one who was asking it.)
See above.
"Yeah, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what the General Theory of Relativity was for. Einstein himself knew that the Special theory was specific. He generalized it many years ago. Why are you trying to do so again?"
You are mistaken. That's not what the General Theory was for. When I wrote "you've got get to the heart of the matter" I think that it should have been very clear that I meant the single expression that the entire rest of the Special Theory of Relativity is based on deserves special attention. And, I am not trying to generalize the Special Theory of Relativity I am trying to invalidate it entirely.
So, do I believe then that Einstein was wrong? Not exactly. He had every reason to believe the principle of the constancy of the speed of light was true. (And, apparently there is today even more reason to believe so.) Moreover, his thinking on the vector sum of the velocity of a frame of reference and the modified velocity of light vector equalling the vector c was not wrong. If the speed of light was constant for all frames of reference the square of the modified velocity of light plus the square of velocity would equal the square of the constant.
Allow me to show you. Let's take the formula from Einstein's own book:
t=1/(1v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
This formula was originally solved from:
(c/t)^2+v^2=c^2
You'll notice that the modifier "t" is dividing "c". It is actually considered more fitting that a modifier of time divide a velocity, though as I've continued to insist this is not absolutely required just so long as one keeps things sorted out exactly what "t" represents. The original equation was most probably solved for "t" in the following manner:
first subtract v^2
(c/t)^2=c^2v^2
second divide by c^2
1/t^2=1(v/c)^2
third invert, or reciprocate
t^2=1/(1(v/c)^2)
fourth square root
t=1/(1v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
And, that is how Einstein found his formula. If you take (c/t)^2+v^2=c^2 and substitute 1/(1v^2/c^2)^(1/2) (the right side of the end formula) for "t" you get (c(1v^2/c^2)^(1/2))^+v^2=c^2. If you substitute the speed of light for "c" and put in any speed for "v" and simplify you get th 


Skyhawk
New Member
33 Posts 
Posted  08/23/2004 : 23:28:04 [Permalink]

Sorry if I go a little off topic, I've seen some of the stuff on wbabin.net and there is some papers there that are pretty sad. Gibson's is one of them. I read the first part and I knew it was bad. It intrigues me that with high school mathematics that they are coming up with 'revolutionary' ideas. I mean you'd think that people with PhD's and that know Einstein's papers off by heart would be able to catch a mistake that can be solved with high school math. Also, Einstein's theories have VERY strong experimental evidence and proof.
Though I'm sure the math you posted have some logistical errors and missing some fundemental ideas (I've read some of your post and I forgot which parts :P. Sorry, I'm on summer break and resting my mind and my memory though I know someone in a SHORT while will disprove you). Your post keeps switching between velocity and speed without failing to recognize which one to use at certain points. Another thing, how does a 'c' velocity exist? One of your links led to the good ol' light clock experiment. Could you please clarify your velocity vector concepts applied there. That entire experiement deals with light being constant, and using triangles that involve distances (eg. ct) to prove the concept of time differences between 2 observers. From your earlier posts it seems that you can get all your answers from any high school textbook.
I read another proof that tries similarly getting at what your getting at. And they start involving angle between the moving observer and the stationary. After I read it's first few lines I found a fatal flaw in the person's assumption. It would help if you can elaborate more. I'm sorry about that :P. Anyways, can you please verify this equation?: t=1/(1v^2/c^2)^(1/2) .....so are you saying that time = gamma?
O btw, your idea of adding velocity of the light and the moving object is also false. That doesn't happen. All frames of reference measures the same speed of light. This can be proven by astronomers observering double star systems. 
Edited by  Skyhawk on 08/23/2004 23:32:14 






