Relativity - can I really be older than my twin?

[The Grave]

I recently read an article written by Steve Bryant "relativity challenge" and wondered what others thought of it...I noticed a lot of hostility towards it...even though, to me it made a lot of sense, by disproving a lot of the trash that SR and GR predicts.

I have not included a link as:-

1. I don't know how to!
2. I want to get views on this important topic and not get it banned or something because that's (apparently) what happened on another site.

Just Google on Steve Bryant and see what you think...it's not that hard...give it a try!

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish. And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!

Bryant puts a nail convincingly in that coffin and a stake through the
heart of that blood sucker!

Griff...Answers on the back of a cigarette packet, please...

[Taffer]

I think I'd trust all the physicists over Steve Bryant.

[Yllanes]

Here's the link (I think). I don't have time for this nonsense now, but maybe someone wishes to have a go at it.

I'll limit myself to saying that if there is a mathematical error in SR, then almost all of mathematics comes down with it, because SR is isomorphic to hyperbolic geometry. In short, unless we want to abandon all of mathematics, then there is no way you can find mathematical errors in SR. The only way to attack this theory is to attack its postulates and the only way to do this is through experiment. Sadly for the crackpots, in the past 100 years SR has been verified to a much greater extent than any other theory in science. SR is more established now than newtonian physics 100 years ago.

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by Taffer

I think I'd trust all the physicists over Steve Bryant.

What I said I wanted was views on the article not opinions .... and treasured beliefs.

From what I gathered the maths is not 'generalized' and A.E. picked and chose what he wanted...that makes SR fallible.

Griff...please take time to read stuff before giving opinion.

[Schneibster]

The author of that site is comparing apples with oranges. He claims that Einstein made a mathematical error based on comparing an equation that is a hypothetical that is rejected with the final equation. This lacks rigor. To be less polite, this individual is a crackpot and has manufactured evidence by deliberately misrepresenting Einstein's work; he uses the original German, untranslated, to obfuscate this and delude the unwary. The text of Einstein's paper, translated into English and that translation reviewed and approved by Einstein himself, appears here.

Relativity cannot be understood from an explanation that can fit on a cigarette pack. If you want an explanation that fits on a cigarette pack, you're not going to understand any more than you do now.

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the FAQ:

Quote:

2. Why haven't these math errors been found before?

The main reasons the error in his 1905 paper has not been found before are that 1) many scientists accept Einstein's equations as correct, and 2) the problem is hard to detect.

I think that part of the reason that the 1905 mistake hasn't been previously discussed is because finding an objective way of detecting the problem has been elusive. In addition, even if one believes that an error exists; identifying the root cause requires one to review the time "function" as a function rather than an equation. Even after discovering Einstein's 1905 mathematical error and knowing "where" it occurred, it still took me another year to understand "why" it occurred.

In his 1912 paper and Relativity book, the errors are again hard to find. Understanding why it occurs requires one to understand the mathematical definitions surrounding implication and equivalence. In this case, Einstein uses an implication association, but treats the equations as if they have been shown as equivalent. This is extremely subtle, but mathematically verifiable.

Fortunately, we can rely on objective mathematics rules to confirm Einstein's mistakes, identify "where" they occur, and understand "why" they have occurred.

"We can rely on objective mathematics" yet "finding an objective way of detecting the problem has been elusive"?

"The main reasons the error in his 1905 paper has not been found before are that 1) many scientists accept Einstein's equations as correct"? Right, no other physicists looked at Einstein's work, the fact the theory makes accurate predictions doesn't matter?

This isn't even a real challenge, it's more like someone with a fantasy that they have found something no one else has. Ideas of Grandeur is more likely than any substantive physics here.

[Schneibster]

If you're interested in "more than will fit on the back of a pack of cigarettes," try this. I'd suggest following the thread for a bit, because Yllanes posts some excellent criticism of my initial idea.

Here is a description that may help you imagine what it means to say that "time is a fourth dimension."

And here is some more, and a couple posts down I combine these concepts into a single entity. We see from this that what we perceive as velocity is actually a rotation in spacetime, and what we perceive as acceleration is actually a revolution (IOW a constantly changing rotation). Wrap your head around that and you should have a pretty good idea how relativity works.

[The Grave]

The packet of cigs idea came from a quote by E's wife/cousin/concubine?

When told about some telescope unravelling the Universe she remarked:"My husband does that on the back of a packet of cigarettes"

Griff...Thanks all.

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

I recently read an article written by Steve Bryant "relativity challenge" and wondered what others thought of it...I noticed a lot of hostility towards it...even though, to me it made a lot of sense, by disproving a lot of the trash that SR and GR predicts.

I have not included a link as:-

1. I don't know how to!
2. I want to get views on this important topic and not get it banned or something because that's (apparently) what happened on another site.

Just Google on Steve Bryant and see what you think...it's not that hard...give it a try!

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish. And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!

Bryant puts a nail convincingly in that coffin and a stake through the
heart of that blood sucker!

Griff...Answers on the back of a cigarette packet, please...

Then your GPS receiver doesn't work, or else is magic.

Relativity is more relevant than most people realize. Relativity explains magnetic effect, the guys who design modern CPU and graphics processors have to deal with quantum effects in making the chips.

This isn't stuff from the ivory tower that someone pulled out of his back side. Relativistic effects are real, and have been measured (and in the case of GPS) are measured everyday.

If you have a problem with relativity, then you are going to have to find something that explains all of the things relativity does. Pitching it out the window because it is wrong won't work - it is demonstrably NOT wrong.

[Soapy Sam]

Simplest way to enter a link;
1.At the page of interest, select and Copy the URL from the browser address box.
2.Open your post at JREF and Paste the URL.
This is easiest if both sites are opened simultaneously using tabs.

There is a "Help" item in the menu bar at the top of every page.

I share your gut feeling that many predictions of relativity theory are deeply counterintuitive. So does practically every human. This is most probably because human intuition evolved in a world where such effects are not sensible in either sense of that word.

It turns out that thinking with your gut is not always the best way to get at the facts.
The fact that these apparently improbable predictions are borne out daily makes relativity more impressive, not less.

Relativity contradicts our evolved expectations of reality. It comes as an affront to our understanding of reality that such things really happen: The conclusion to be drawn is that our understanding of reality is wrong.

Mathematics can be similarly counterintuitive to some people, of whom I am one. Square roots of negative numbers , for example, strike me as the merest word play; a ludicrous concept. Yet electronic engineers use them daily to get real answers.
Either I, in my ignorance, am wrong; or they, in their extensive experience, are wrong. I'm mathematician enough to grasp what the numbers are telling me in this case. Unpalatable, but there it is.
(I continue to badger people here on this in hopes of finding an explanation that resonates with the goo between my ears and the view thereof).
Being wrong is annoying, particularly when all our experience is saying we are right.
Sometimes the ugly facts just have to be faced.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

What I said I wanted was views on the article not opinions .... and treasured beliefs.

From what I gathered the maths is not 'generalized' and A.E. picked and chose what he wanted...that makes SR fallible.

Griff...please take time to read stuff before giving opinion.

What gave you the impression I hadn't read it?

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish.

I am not equipped to discuss the mathematics of SR and GR but I think the quote above is important.

Why should the universe conform to your preconceived notions? QM is weird, a round Earth seems to contradict common sense, and there is strong evidence for dark matter.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't scientists tested time travel? I believe that they took two syncronized atomic clocks put one on a space shuttle/station and left the other on Earth. The one in orbit feel behind the one on Earth because of SR.

Quote:

And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!

Why shouldn't there be?

[Cuddles]

To answer the original question, yes, you can be older than your twin. In fact, every single twin that has ever been born is either slightly older or slightly younger than their twin.

Now, what exactly does this have to do with relativity?

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Mathematics can be similarly counterintuitive to some people, of whom I am one. Square roots of negative numbers , for example, strike me as the merest word play; a ludicrous concept. Yet electronic engineers use them daily to get real answers.
Either I, in my ignorance, am wrong; or they, in their extensive experience, are wrong. I'm mathematician enough to grasp what the numbers are telling me in this case. Unpalatable, but there it is.
(I continue to badger people here on this in hopes of finding an explanation that resonates with the goo between my ears and the view thereof).

Well, it's really simple: one times one is one, and minus one times minus one is one. So what times what is minus one? It can't be positive- the product of two positives is a positive. It can't be negative- the product of two negatives is a positive. So what is it? Well, we call the numbers, positive and negative, rational and irrational, the "real" numbers, so obviously the square root of minus one has to be an "imaginary" number. And for it to multiply up to a unit, the negative unit, it has to be a unit itself- it must be imaginary one!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

I recently read an article written by Steve Bryant "relativity challenge" and wondered what others thought of it...I noticed a lot of hostility towards it...even though, to me it made a lot of sense, by disproving a lot of the trash that SR and GR predicts.

I have not included a link as:-

1. I don't know how to!
2. I want to get views on this important topic and not get it banned or something because that's (apparently) what happened on another site.

Just Google on Steve Bryant and see what you think...it's not that hard...give it a try!

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish. And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!

Bryant puts a nail convincingly in that coffin and a stake through the
heart of that blood sucker!

Griff...Answers on the back of a cigarette packet, please...

Perhaps some history would help.

At the time, actualy a little later, Einstiens theory was not well recieved. So the characterization that scientists just accepted it is rubbish!

Many scientists were very upset with the theory in fact and later under the Third Reich a whole culture of bashing Einstein developed. So you have a lot of the big brains at the time trying to disprove Einstiens theory and later you have a mountain of alternative theories.

So what happened, during an eclipse(1917?) Einstien's theory was shown to match the observable data, as it has been in many further trails and experiments. Particles aquire mass as they approach the speed of light, time relatively slows or speed in a given frame of reference and a while back they created Bose_Eistien Condensate.

So you have a bunch of really bright people who doubt it and play with it early on, they are slowly won over, they do not convert over night, despite what Bryant says, you have experimental verification, and lots and lots of people who try to disprove it but haven't.

Read some history of physics, it is rather interesting.

It's easy, you can do it!

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Since I study physics I should be able to explain why I think SR is correct. (I didn't get GR in detail yet, sorry about that). If I can't do that I should be ashamed of myself.

The reason I believe Special Relativity (SR) is the fact that not only were its specific predictions verified, it also makes sense in combination with other verified theories in physics.

For instance, take Maxwell's laws

Maxwell's laws describe the exact relation between static/moving electrical charge, time dependant electric fields and time dependant magnetic fields in the macroscopic world (where quantum mechanical effects are negligible). Their predictions are implicitly being verified all the time. The workings of power generators supplying electrical power to your city *right now* can be fully understood using only Maxwell's laws.

Using Maxwell's laws you can calculate the speed at which an EM-wave (such as visible light) will propagate. This speed is 299,792,458 meters per second. The remarkable thing is that this speed does not depend on the velocity of the observer relative to the source of the EM-wave, for example a vibrating electrical charge. The wavelength does depend on observer velocity though.

It is this very result that SR is built on. Einstein managed to reconcile the observer independant lightspeed with classical mechanics by postulating that the time interval between 2 events is observer dependant. This dependancy is negligible at low velocity differences between observers, explaning why SR isn't noticable in every day life.

Experimental verifications of SR are abundant as well. An illustrative experiment is the rate of Muon decay. This rate is completely constant for Muons at rest relative to an observer and therefore a very good clock. Decaying events are events like any other, so SR predicts that if a group of Muons has a high velocity relative to an observer a greater time seperation will be found between decaying events, decreasing the decay rate. This is what has been found in actual experiments. (For instance: 'Various measurements of the lifetimes of muons' Redei, Phys. Rev. 162 no. 5 (1967), p1299.)



To refute SR you need to find a new way to explain the constant speed of light since this is not postulated by SR but used as a foundation for it. After that you will need to explain observer dependant particle decay rates and a list of other verified predictions of SR, which nobody has done so far.

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

To answer the original question, yes, you can be older than your twin. In fact, every single twin that has ever been born is either slightly older or slightly younger than their twin.

Now, what exactly does this have to do with relativity?

It has this to do with it: The twin paradox.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Well, it's really simple: one times one is one, and minus one times minus one is one. So what times what is minus one? It can't be positive- the product of two positives is a positive. It can't be negative- the product of two negatives is a positive. So what is it? Well, we call the numbers, positive and negative, rational and irrational, the "real" numbers, so obviously the square root of minus one has to be an "imaginary" number. And for it to multiply up to a unit, the negative unit, it has to be a unit itself- it must be imaginary one!

Trouble is, mathematicians say things like this with a straight face, so I never know if they are serious, joking, or completely crazy. My answer would be that if it can't be +ve or -ve, it can't be anything (unless we are prepared to unnecessarily expand the range of available entities. It could be"pink and invisible", which is, similarly imaginary).
Sam's Perversity Principle says that just because reality may be stranger than I can understand doesn't mean I have to like it!

What do you make of Bryant's reanalysis of Michelson, Morley and Miller's data? Does the recalculated result of ~ 30km/s orbital velocity imply his analysis is correct? If not, then why? I find it improbable that the people who designed the interferometry test gear did not know how to use it correctly.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Delusions_O_Grandeur

Their predictions are implicitly being verified all the time. The workings of power generators supplying electrical power to your city *right now* can be fully understood using only Maxwell's laws.

Surely. But is that equivalent to "can be understood only using Maxwell's Laws"?
Incomplete, or even wildly wrong models can give correct results. Navigation by celestial sphere works just fine , despite being total hooey.

Or Newton's laws work fine until we start looking at the detail. Could there be even finer detail we have not found yet? If so, the difference in prediction might be undetectable by existing methods. I think folk with even less grip on mathematical physics than I expect a new model to somehow change the curvature of bananas. In fact, any refinement of / replacement for relativity will have to explain the curvature of bananas exactly as we see them, but infinitesimally more precisely.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

I forgot to try answering the questions.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish.

Question 1) Actually, objects don't really shrink. What happens is that the time seperation between the events of an object's front and back end passing by some measuring point changes. Object length can be defined as the distance between 2 simultaneous events at the ends of the object. These two events are measured by a certain observer. Any other observer will not measure these 2 events to be simutaneous, he will measure 2 other events to be simultaneous which have a nonzero time seperation in the first observer's frame and because of that a space separation different from the object's length. Since these events are used by the second observer to measure the object's length that length will be different.
Question 2) A human being can be seen as a biological clock, with each chemical reaction as a tick. Just like Muons taking a detour decay slower than Muons sitting still, so will the traveling twin age slower.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Surely. But is that equivalent to "can be understood only using Maxwell's Laws"?
Incomplete, or even wildly wrong models can give correct results. Navigation by celestial sphere works just fine , despite being total hooey.

I should have pointed out that it is just one of a lot of different processes that implicitly verify it. A weak theory can only explain a very specific process, or cannot be falsified. Maxwell's laws explain loads of processes and its quantitative predictions just require one wrong number to falsify the whole shabang, and EM fields are so widely used a wrong number will be found easilly if it occurs.

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Trouble is, mathematicians say things like this with a straight face, so I never know if they are serious, joking, or completely crazy. My answer would be that if it can't be +ve or -ve, it can't be anything (unless we are prepared to unnecessarily expand the range of available entities. It could be"pink and invisible", which is, similarly imaginary).
Sam's Perversity Principle says that just because reality may be stranger than I can understand doesn't mean I have to like it!

What do you make of Bryant's reanalysis of Michelson, Morley and Miller's data? Does the recalculated result of ~ 30km/s orbital velocity imply his analysis is correct? If not, then why? I find it improbable that the people who designed the interferometry test gear did not know how to use it correctly.

On imaginary numbers:
The short answer is to just ignore what i stands for. Treat it like any other variable, and obey all the rules of algebra or calculus when you work with it. When you finish your calculations, your everyday, working answer usually has all of the i factors canceled out.

Take Fourier transformations as an example. When you calculate the transformation, you end up with a real and an imaginary part. Alone, there's not much you can do with either part. Taken together, you can find the amplitude of the signal (sqrt(r^2+i^2)) or the phase of the signal (I'm not going to tryr to represent that here.) Both of those tell you something useful in an everyday sense, despite having been calculated using imaginary numbers.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Delusions_O_Grandeur

Question 1) Actually, objects don't really shrink. What happens is that the time seperation between the events of an object's front and back end passing by some measuring point changes. Object length can be defined as the distance between 2 simultaneous events at the ends of the object. These two events are measured by a certain observer. Any other observer will not measure these 2 events to be simutaneous, he will measure 2 other events to be simultaneous which have a nonzero time seperation in the first observer's frame and because of that a space separation different from the object's length. Since these events are used by the second observer to measure the object's length that length will be different.

I shall shamelessly steal that.

Originally Posted by Delusions_O_Grandeur

Question 2) A human being can be seen as a biological clock, with each chemical reaction as a tick.

Reductionist running dog! Back to your lab bench!


Mortfurd- I have been told many , many times that ignoring what i stands for is the way to go.

I just can't do that. I want to know what it is and there is a level of abstraction required for mathematical thinking that I lack.
It's like being tone deaf and really wanting to appreciate music- very frustrating. The universe annoys me intensely . Don't let me start on strong anthropocentric principles...

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Soapy Sam:

Don't worry. Each year of studying physics adds to my burning fire of annoyance with the universe. After a while you really see where you stand. On a ball of rock, in a huge mostly empty space sparsely populated by balls of hot gas undergoing nuclear fusion. Oh, and that space was once neatly folded up in something the size of a pea, and that something is something we don't quite understand yet, but we can rest assured that lots of people will tell us what it is and also not understand it. To top it off that 'something' probably is not a cruel,mean,vicious entity who created us for sport. If it had a sense of humor it could at least laugh at the pointlessness of human existence. But sadly, mankind is the joke nothing made and nothing is laughing about it. Guess there is only one thing left to do: entertain ourselves with ourselves.

Crap. I want real aliens, real mediums, a god who zaps bad people with lightning, haunted houses, real-deal uri gellers bending real spoons, mad scientists who are right, cars on water, infinite energy, my own pegasus and real elves. Oh, and a soul while we're at it.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by MortFurd

It has this to do with it: The twin paradox.

That's what you assume. What polaristutoring actually said was "twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish". Which, as my post pointed out, is just plain wrong even without bringing relativity into it. Yes, I could have explained how the twins paradox isn't actually a paradox, but since we seem to be dealing with someone who denies a century of mathematics, let alone physical evidence, based on the one article by a crackpot, I felt a sarcastic reply was more appropriate.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Mortfurd- I have been told many , many times that ignoring what i stands for is the way to go.

I just can't do that. I want to know what it is and there is a level of abstraction required for mathematical thinking that I lack.

There is no need to ignore what i stands for. It is no less real than any other number. You could make a case that rational numbers can represent the amount of a real thing, but such a case cannot be made for irrational numbers. pi does not exist. It is simply not possible for anything to ever be pi, because it would involve an infinite amount of prescision. The logic behind imaginary numbers is no different from that behind irrational numbers, if you can accept one then you have no reason to reject the other.

Quote:

Don't let me start on strong anthropocentric principles...

It's not worth getting started on them. They don't exist. The anthropic principles are no different from saying that things are as they because that's how they are and refusing to look into it any further. No real Scotsman scientist can ever use them as a reason for anything, they are just a rather poor excuse not to look for a reason.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

What I said I wanted was views on the article not opinions .... and treasured beliefs.

From what I gathered the maths is not 'generalized' and A.E. picked and chose what he wanted...that makes SR fallible.

Griff...please take time to read stuff before giving opinion.

One thing you fail to understand is that it is not that Einstein thought up SR and everyone is using his equations. From his postulates you can derive the equations yourself(well I have I am not sure about your geometry skills). If there was a math error in there, it would have been caught by the hundreds of thousands of people who have derived the same equations from the postulates of SR.

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Snip...
What do you make of Bryant's reanalysis of Michelson, Morley and Miller's data? Does the recalculated result of ~ 30km/s orbital velocity imply his analysis is correct? If not, then why? I find it improbable that the people who designed the interferometry test gear did not know how to use it correctly.

Could somebody check me here?

I've gone through this thing as well as I can, and I come up with this:
Bryant find three errors: EE1, EE2, and EE3. EE1 and EE2 each amount to a factor of 2 in the final calculation of the earth's orbital velocity, and EE3 represnts a factor of 4. EE1 and EE2 have to do with measuring frequencies, and EE3 is claimed to be because Michelson intended to rotate the interferometer 90 degree, but did so in steps of 22.5 and forgot to sum the four together to total the 90 degree rotation.

For me that means 2*2*4=factor of 16 to be applied to the final velocity value. That would be 7.5KM/S*16=120KM/S

Bryant gives us Table I, which claims to show uncorrected Michelson and Morley measurements. This shows the measurements made for 22.5 degree rotations.

Table II shows the same info, but claims to be corrected for EE1, EE2, and EE3. The only difference is that the rotation has been multiplied by 4 to get the 90 degree rotation sum, and this gives Bryant the desired 32KM/S that he wanted.

As far as I can see, he only "corrected" EE3 to get Table II from Table I. EE1 and EE2 got dropped under the table so that EE3 could save the day.

So, where did I miss the obvious?

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

One thing you fail to understand is that it is not that Einstein thought up SR and everyone is using his equations. From his postulates you can derive the equations yourself(well I have I am not sure about your geometry skills). If there was a math error in there, it would have been caught by the hundreds of thousands of people who have derived the same equations from the postulates of SR.

That's where Bryant starts. He claims that claims that there's a an error in the very lay out of the equations used to derive SR. The results are mathematically consistent, and so check out and can be duplicated by anyone who starts from the same point - but that you really need to go back and look at the things postulated to find the error. Somewhere there is where Bryant claims that Einstein made a mistake and set two things equivalent that aren't.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Trouble is, mathematicians say things like this with a straight face, so I never know if they are serious, joking, or completely crazy. My answer would be that if it can't be +ve or -ve, it can't be anything (unless we are prepared to unnecessarily expand the range of available entities. It could be"pink and invisible", which is, similarly imaginary).
Sam's Perversity Principle says that just because reality may be stranger than I can understand doesn't mean I have to like it!

+ve or -ve implies a number on a line/axis (let's say 'x'). When I use imaginary numbers, it helps me to think of them as the orthogonal axis ('y'). I think of i as lying on the y-axis instead of the real numbers on the x-axis. Square root of -1 doesn't help, but I can still USE complex numbers every day. Don't know if that will help, but it seems to work for what I need.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by MortFurd

Could somebody check me here?

I've gone through this thing as well as I can, and I come up with this:
Bryant find three errors: EE1, EE2, and EE3. EE1 and EE2 each amount to a factor of 2 in the final calculation of the earth's orbital velocity, and EE3 represnts a factor of 4. EE1 and EE2 have to do with measuring frequencies, and EE3 is claimed to be because Michelson intended to rotate the interferometer 90 degree, but did so in steps of 22.5 and forgot to sum the four together to total the 90 degree rotation.

For me that means 2*2*4=factor of 16 to be applied to the final velocity value. That would be 7.5KM/S*16=120KM/S

Bryant gives us Table I, which claims to show uncorrected Michelson and Morley measurements. This shows the measurements made for 22.5 degree rotations.

Table II shows the same info, but claims to be corrected for EE1, EE2, and EE3. The only difference is that the rotation has been multiplied by 4 to get the 90 degree rotation sum, and this gives Bryant the desired 32KM/S that he wanted.

As far as I can see, he only "corrected" EE3 to get Table II from Table I. EE1 and EE2 got dropped under the table so that EE3 could save the day.

So, where did I miss the obvious?

Very probably nowhere. I thought he was saying that EE1 and EE2 cancelled. I might as well be judging a fish bicycle design contest though.

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Very probably nowhere. I thought he was saying that EE1 and EE2 cancelled. I might as well be judging a fish bicycle design contest though.

Nope.

Originally Posted by Bryant page 11

This leads to Michelson and Morley’s second Experimental Error (EE2), which is that the Interferometer presents an optical representation of the shift in the center of the fringe, not an optical representation of the total expected displacement between the waves. The net result of the first two experimental errors is that the Michelson and Morley expected result equation produces values that are four times as large as can be detected by the Interferometer.

ETA:
You made me go back and check. 4*4=16. Bryant dropped a factor of 4 to get his desired result.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Mathematics can be similarly counterintuitive to some people, of whom I am one. Square roots of negative numbers , for example, strike me as the merest word play; a ludicrous concept. Yet electronic engineers use them daily to get real answers.

Best equation ever

-1=e^i(Pi)

Damn I am not sure how to write in greek here.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by MortFurd

That's where Bryant starts. He claims that claims that there's a an error in the very lay out of the equations used to derive SR. The results are mathematically consistent, and so check out and can be duplicated by anyone who starts from the same point - but that you really need to go back and look at the things postulated to find the error. Somewhere there is where Bryant claims that Einstein made a mistake and set two things equivalent that aren't.

Then why isn't he stating what the errors in postulation are? It seems to be he dislikes a constant speed of light for all observers. But that is well tested and a stupid argument.

He is just a crank.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Best equation ever

-1=e^i(Pi)

Damn I am not sure how to write in greek here.

I once met someone who used that as his TM "Mantra". Whether because he thought it profound and meaningful or because he found it unintelligible, I was never sure.

My own favourite is " e equals mc squared" , but that's mainly because I can spell it.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I once met someone who used that as his TM "Mantra". Whether because he thought it profound and meaningful or because he found it unintelligible, I was never sure.

My own favourite is " e equals mc squared" , but that's mainly because I can spell it.

It is cool becuase it ties together many of the fundamental concepts and numbers in math together.

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Trouble is, mathematicians say things like this with a straight face, so I never know if they are serious, joking, or completely crazy. My answer would be that if it can't be +ve or -ve, it can't be anything (unless we are prepared to unnecessarily expand the range of available entities. It could be"pink and invisible", which is, similarly imaginary).

This reminds me irresistibly of George Carlin quipping, "And now for tomorrow's weather; tomorrow there will be no weather."

It has to be something. You can call it an "imaginary number," you can call it "i," you can call it a "blue number," but it's simply ridiculous to assert that a simple operation like a square root just doesn't work on any negative number. It's actually worse to a mathematician's way of thinking that there should be an entire class of numbers for which a simple operation like a square root should be undefined than that there should be a whole new class of numbers to account for it. The general idea here is one of closure: numbers should be a closed set for common arithmetic operations, that is, those operations should yield some definite answer when applied to any number. Zero under division is an exception; but it's the only one. Having all negative numbers just not work when the operation denoted by the radical is applied to them is, how shall I put this, abhorrent.

Not only that, but imaginary numbers actually work in the real world. They account for the behavior of alternating current, for example.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

What do you make of Bryant's reanalysis of Michelson, Morley and Miller's data? Does the recalculated result of ~ 30km/s orbital velocity imply his analysis is correct? If not, then why? I find it improbable that the people who designed the interferometry test gear did not know how to use it correctly.

I find it improbable that anyone who knows any math north of fractions wouldn't spot in a moment that his argument is based on a fallacy, not to mention that he obviously doesn't understand what Michelson and Morley showed. C'mon, they made an error of a factor of two and nobody spotted it for over a century? And the Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't depend on how many waves there are between here and there; it depends on how many waves there are between here and there when we look this way, as opposed to how many when we look that way. Completely ignorant.

[Soapy Sam]

Schneibster- Sorry to be abhorrent. Do bear in mind the context of the thread . (See post 10). I was pointing out to the thread starter that his argument from incredulity re relativity is no more valid than mine re mathematics. I know imaginaries are really used and even said so myself.
My point is that not all heads do grok maths or physics. That seems to be as incredible to those that do as to those that do not.

Thanks for your (and Mort's) comments on the MM (M) item. Like many people faced with a load of equations, I tend to suppose the writer knows what he's on about, because I can't check. Sometimes mathematicians are idiots or con men too. Very hard for non mathematicians to tell which, if either.

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Schneibster- Sorry to be abhorrent.

LOL, no fear, Sam, I would never call you abhorrent.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Do bear in mind the context of the thread . (See post 10). I was pointing out to the thread starter that his argument from incredulity re relativity is no more valid than mine re mathematics. I know imaginaries are really used and even said so myself.

Sorry, passed right over my overly-serious head.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

My point is that not all heads do grok maths or physics. That seems to be as incredible to those that do as to those that do not.

I have a great deal of trouble imagining it. The complicated fake structures of knowledge that one has to come up with to explain how all this stuff works actually seems to me more cumbersome than the real knowledge of how it works; alternatively, without knowing how things work, to learn to do anything with a complicated piece of technology, one winds up having to learn it all by rote. Me, I figure out how it works, and remember that; any time I need to use it, I just recall how it works, and do the appropriate thing to make it do what I want. I can't imagine trying to remember what this or that button on a remote control does; that's what labels are for. I only bother to learn things by rote that I have to be able to do without thinking, like driving, or things that I do all the time, which are no effort.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Thanks for your (and Mort's) comments on the MM (M) item. Like many people faced with a load of equations, I tend to suppose the writer knows what he's on about, because I can't check. Sometimes mathematicians are idiots or con men too. Very hard for non mathematicians to tell which, if either.

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure." I won't criticize anyone for not knowing math, but it's difficult for me to imagine, I certainly have to admit that.

[MortFurd]

A last comment:
Any who doubt the Michaelson/Morley experiment are invited to consider the implications for radar speed guns.

If MM is wrong, then you would have to correct your speed readings depending on which way you were facing when to took the reading. "Looking" in the direction of the orbital motion would give you a different result than when turned 90 degrees to that direction.

Doesn't happen. Radar guns know zip about direction.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure." I won't criticize anyone for not knowing math, but it's difficult for me to imagine, I certainly have to admit that.

I don't envy people success or riches, but gods, I wish I was smarter.

Originally Posted by MortFurd

Radar guns know zip about direction.

Good point. It would play heck with air traffic control, too.

It might be worth trying in court though. " I was NOT speeding! You forgot to correct for Fitzgerald contraction!"

[Yllanes]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

It might be worth trying in court though. " I was NOT speeding! You forgot to correct for Fitzgerald contraction!"

Interesting excercise:

Suppose a man is fined for going through a red light. He pleads that, because of his speed, the light was blue shifted and looked green to him. The judge then decides to charge him 1 dollar for every 50 km/h over the limit. How much is the fine going to be?