There are a lot of ‘skeptics’ who claim ‘there is are internal contradictions in relativity’. In other words, they claim that the theory of relativity as presented by Einstein is ‘ollogical’. These fellows have developed a large following on the internet, though there criticism seldom make it in ‘mainstream’ scientific literature. Very few of their articles pass peer review by scientists. They explain this as discrimination due to a dogmatic following of ‘authorities’. They claim to be iconoclastics, busting the ‘idols’ of relativity. I am skeptical of these skeptics.
Chief among these skeptics is ‘Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.’. He is an extremely toxic scientist. He bad mouths traditional scientists every chance he gets. He claims that relativity is a con game. Physicists have been swindling the public and other scientists. He claims that there is no evidence for relativity. Further, there can be no way to validate relativity because it contains logical contradictions. He has ‘self published’ books where he ‘debunks’ practically all of modern physics. However, he fills it with some very personal attacks on Einstein and the present day physics community. Therefore, I would like to discuss some of these claims with other ‘skeptics’.
I would like to discuss one of his articles that have been posted free on the web. This way, anyone who hasn’t read any of his articles gets a chance to do so before discussing. Here is a link.
http://ift.tt/1vtFSqC
© 2013 C. Roy Keys Inc. — http://redshift.vif.com
Apeiron, Vol. 20, No. 1, April 2013 3
‘A different resolution of the twin paradox’
Let me point out that he presents a straw man version of relativity. He presents false assumptions which he attributes to scientists that use relativity. The scientists do not make these assumptions, but he states with great certainty that they do. He does not cite actual articles where these assumptions are stated. Then he finds a logical contradiction based on this false theory of relativity which is his own false assumptions. Here is an example:
‘But the latter naïveté is fostered by the Lorentz transformation (LT) and its inverse, which imply symmetry of aging rates (symmetrical slow- running of clocks), a phenomenon never observed, and apparently contrary to experiment[1]. A typical one of these supposed resolutions[2] identifies acceleration as the agency of asymmetry, although the hallmark of SRT is its distinctive dependence on the unqualified motional symmetry implied by the relativity of motion; therefore seemingly not restricted to relative velocity but applicable to
all forms of relative motion, including the higher time derivatives of separation distance. In that case acceleration per se does not spoil the motional symmetry of the twins, and the “paradox” (actually a disagreement with experimental fact) persists. Note that the mere existence of any physical symmetry-breaker implies the descriptive invalidity of the mathematically symmetrical LT. ‘
False statements and truth.
False: ’the Lorentz transform and its inverse imply symmetry of aging rates (symmetrical slow - running clocks’
Truth: The Lorentz transform can be used to coma per aging rates in different inertial frames, not in non inertial frames. The original 1905 article where Einstein introduces relativity specifies a very specific type of reference frame. The reference frames in this article is restricted to reference frames connected to a stationary frame by a Lorentz transform. The stationary frame was defined in dynamic terms. So the clocks do not have to symmetrical age in any frame that is not derived from the stationary frame.’
‘If the LT is invalid, then SRT is invalid, since it offers nothing better. The Wikipedia assertion about the twin paradox that “it can be resolved within the standard framework” is consequently, to put it bluntly, no more than a tactic designed to protect the sacrosanct LT by stigmatizing any challenging of it as “naïve.” ‘
Note that he makes a false generalization. The Lorentz transform (LT) is valid between some frames but not valid between others. The Lorentz transform is valid between frames where linear momentum is conserved, as implied from the third law Of Newton.
Phipps lies by omission by not mentioning the Galilean transformation at this point. In a Newtonian universe, Principia is only valid in Galilean frame. This means that they are only valid in a frame which is connected to an ‘absolute space’ by a Galilean transformation. Principia was assumed to be valid in the absolute space.
Classical scientists, including Newton, knew full well that Newton’s Laws were invalid in an accelerating frame. Newton bypassed this limitation by saying that the simplest laws of mechanics were valid in the absolute space. If in any frame there are forces that violate the third law of mechanics, then it is not an absolute space.
So look at people on a merry go round. Here is a frame which can not be derived from the ground frame by a Galilean transformation. The Galilean transformation is invalid for people and devices attached to the merry go round. Newtons third law is violated for these people and devices, since the centripetal force is not associated with any one body. However, Newton’s Laws were still considered valid until the early twentieth century. ‘Principia' has no logical contradiction because the absolute space was defined by the dynamics. Phipps conveniently ignores this feature of Newtonian mechanics discussed very often by the ‘authorities’ in physics.
Phipps is not just disagreeing on a technical point. He accuses ‘the authorities’ of malfeasance.
‘Do relativists acknowledge their toyings with factual experience to be “lies”? No, that would be poor public relations. They speak of what is “calculated,” as if a calculated lie were a mitigated lie. Says Wikipedia: “The traveling twin reckons that there has been a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin.” In any physical theory, what is calculated or reckoned is what is predicted.’
Note that he doesn’t merely claim scientists are making a mistake. He has made a proof made with false assumptions. Anyone who disagrees with these assumptions is a ‘liar’.
He also seems to twist words. Here is something he says.
‘It is important to note the exact wording of a valid relativity principle:
The form of the laws of nature is invariant under changes of inertial system.
This is an assertion of formal invariance, not of numerical invariance.’
…
The idea of a universal “time flow rate” that is preferred in nature is without logical support or physical substance. Hence the relativity principle in the above form is valid even if clock running rates vary with inertial system and with history of clock changes of action state, whether kinetic (motional) or potential (gravitational).’
Great. Here is is claiming that Eisntein is wrong because there is a ‘flow in time’. So where did Einstein, or anyone else, talk about a ‘flow of time’?
‘Age’ is a number, not a formal expression. This is why the muons can be different ‘ages’ in different inertial frames. Furthermore, the inertial frame is specified by the dynamics not the kinematics. The only physical way the instruments on the ground (ground frame) can be transformed into a frame where the muons are at rest (rest frame) is by applying a force. A Lorentz transform would not be enough.
Einstein never said that the Lorentz transform would always be enough. I challenge anyone to find any statement of his that the Lorentz transform is enough to determine the ‘age’ of anything at all. This is a fantasy restricted to Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
Anyone else care to comment. Are you afraid of being called a liar?-)
Chief among these skeptics is ‘Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.’. He is an extremely toxic scientist. He bad mouths traditional scientists every chance he gets. He claims that relativity is a con game. Physicists have been swindling the public and other scientists. He claims that there is no evidence for relativity. Further, there can be no way to validate relativity because it contains logical contradictions. He has ‘self published’ books where he ‘debunks’ practically all of modern physics. However, he fills it with some very personal attacks on Einstein and the present day physics community. Therefore, I would like to discuss some of these claims with other ‘skeptics’.
I would like to discuss one of his articles that have been posted free on the web. This way, anyone who hasn’t read any of his articles gets a chance to do so before discussing. Here is a link.
http://ift.tt/1vtFSqC
© 2013 C. Roy Keys Inc. — http://redshift.vif.com
Apeiron, Vol. 20, No. 1, April 2013 3
‘A different resolution of the twin paradox’
Let me point out that he presents a straw man version of relativity. He presents false assumptions which he attributes to scientists that use relativity. The scientists do not make these assumptions, but he states with great certainty that they do. He does not cite actual articles where these assumptions are stated. Then he finds a logical contradiction based on this false theory of relativity which is his own false assumptions. Here is an example:
‘But the latter naïveté is fostered by the Lorentz transformation (LT) and its inverse, which imply symmetry of aging rates (symmetrical slow- running of clocks), a phenomenon never observed, and apparently contrary to experiment[1]. A typical one of these supposed resolutions[2] identifies acceleration as the agency of asymmetry, although the hallmark of SRT is its distinctive dependence on the unqualified motional symmetry implied by the relativity of motion; therefore seemingly not restricted to relative velocity but applicable to
all forms of relative motion, including the higher time derivatives of separation distance. In that case acceleration per se does not spoil the motional symmetry of the twins, and the “paradox” (actually a disagreement with experimental fact) persists. Note that the mere existence of any physical symmetry-breaker implies the descriptive invalidity of the mathematically symmetrical LT. ‘
False statements and truth.
False: ’the Lorentz transform and its inverse imply symmetry of aging rates (symmetrical slow - running clocks’
Truth: The Lorentz transform can be used to coma per aging rates in different inertial frames, not in non inertial frames. The original 1905 article where Einstein introduces relativity specifies a very specific type of reference frame. The reference frames in this article is restricted to reference frames connected to a stationary frame by a Lorentz transform. The stationary frame was defined in dynamic terms. So the clocks do not have to symmetrical age in any frame that is not derived from the stationary frame.’
‘If the LT is invalid, then SRT is invalid, since it offers nothing better. The Wikipedia assertion about the twin paradox that “it can be resolved within the standard framework” is consequently, to put it bluntly, no more than a tactic designed to protect the sacrosanct LT by stigmatizing any challenging of it as “naïve.” ‘
Note that he makes a false generalization. The Lorentz transform (LT) is valid between some frames but not valid between others. The Lorentz transform is valid between frames where linear momentum is conserved, as implied from the third law Of Newton.
Phipps lies by omission by not mentioning the Galilean transformation at this point. In a Newtonian universe, Principia is only valid in Galilean frame. This means that they are only valid in a frame which is connected to an ‘absolute space’ by a Galilean transformation. Principia was assumed to be valid in the absolute space.
Classical scientists, including Newton, knew full well that Newton’s Laws were invalid in an accelerating frame. Newton bypassed this limitation by saying that the simplest laws of mechanics were valid in the absolute space. If in any frame there are forces that violate the third law of mechanics, then it is not an absolute space.
So look at people on a merry go round. Here is a frame which can not be derived from the ground frame by a Galilean transformation. The Galilean transformation is invalid for people and devices attached to the merry go round. Newtons third law is violated for these people and devices, since the centripetal force is not associated with any one body. However, Newton’s Laws were still considered valid until the early twentieth century. ‘Principia' has no logical contradiction because the absolute space was defined by the dynamics. Phipps conveniently ignores this feature of Newtonian mechanics discussed very often by the ‘authorities’ in physics.
Phipps is not just disagreeing on a technical point. He accuses ‘the authorities’ of malfeasance.
‘Do relativists acknowledge their toyings with factual experience to be “lies”? No, that would be poor public relations. They speak of what is “calculated,” as if a calculated lie were a mitigated lie. Says Wikipedia: “The traveling twin reckons that there has been a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin.” In any physical theory, what is calculated or reckoned is what is predicted.’
Note that he doesn’t merely claim scientists are making a mistake. He has made a proof made with false assumptions. Anyone who disagrees with these assumptions is a ‘liar’.
He also seems to twist words. Here is something he says.
‘It is important to note the exact wording of a valid relativity principle:
The form of the laws of nature is invariant under changes of inertial system.
This is an assertion of formal invariance, not of numerical invariance.’
…
The idea of a universal “time flow rate” that is preferred in nature is without logical support or physical substance. Hence the relativity principle in the above form is valid even if clock running rates vary with inertial system and with history of clock changes of action state, whether kinetic (motional) or potential (gravitational).’
Great. Here is is claiming that Eisntein is wrong because there is a ‘flow in time’. So where did Einstein, or anyone else, talk about a ‘flow of time’?
‘Age’ is a number, not a formal expression. This is why the muons can be different ‘ages’ in different inertial frames. Furthermore, the inertial frame is specified by the dynamics not the kinematics. The only physical way the instruments on the ground (ground frame) can be transformed into a frame where the muons are at rest (rest frame) is by applying a force. A Lorentz transform would not be enough.
Einstein never said that the Lorentz transform would always be enough. I challenge anyone to find any statement of his that the Lorentz transform is enough to determine the ‘age’ of anything at all. This is a fantasy restricted to Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
Anyone else care to comment. Are you afraid of being called a liar?-)
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1FCqFqn
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire