the final complete collection of ideas
- From: blochee@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 18 Mar 2007 12:04:34 -0700
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
| --------------| A COLLECTION OF IDEAS | by Raheman Velji |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* * * [must use a fixed-width font to view diagrams properly] * * *
CONTENTS:
---------------------------------------
(1) Inventions
A) The Seesaw Newton Motor
B) The Simple Newton Engine
Two inventions which will have a lasting effect on transportation,
especially in space exploration.
---------------------------------------
(2) Law of Conservation of Energy
A) Gravitational-density Dynamo
B) Potential Energy
C) Creating and Destroying Mechanical Energy
Ideas which clearly demonstrate that the Law of Conservation of Energy
is wrong.
---------------------------------------
(3) Work and Energy
A) Defining Force, Work and Mechanical Energy
B) Relative Views
Force, work and mechanical energy will be defined in different - more
intuitive - ways. Observations of force, work, change in mechanical
energy and mechanical energy are relative to the frame you claim is at
rest.
---------------------------------------
(4) Special Relativity
A) Preliminary
B) A Reality Check
C) Simultaneity
D) The Constancy of the Speed of Light
E) Outsider System vs. Insider System
F) Understanding the Michelson-Morley Experiment
G) The Finale
Simultaneity is absolute, not relative. The speed of light is not
constant. How does light propogate? Why we get a "null" result from
the Michelson-Morley experiment will be explained. Amongst other
things..
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (1) INVENTIONS -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Inventions:
A) The Seesaw Newton Motor
B) The Simple Newton Engine
Devices that use "self-sufficient propulsion" work on Newton's
law that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." The idea
is to harness the "action" and eliminate the "reaction", or convert
the "reaction" into useable energy. Thus, within the device, the
"reaction" is lost allowing the "action" to propel the device. All
devices that use "self-suffiecient propulsion" work without affecting
the environment. That is, they don't need a road to push off of like
cars, they don't have to push air like planes or spew out gases like
space shuttles. Thus, they get the name "self-sufficient propulsion"
because they are self-sufficient. In other words, you can put a box
around the entire device and the box would move, and nothing would
enter or exit the box, and the device itself wouldn't react with the
environment that comes inside the box. It only reacts to the
environment in the box, which it creates, which it uses to propel
itself. Devices that use "self-suffiicient propulsion" would look
like UFOs if they are strong enough. (I propose that any device that
uses "self-suffiecient propulsion" should have the name "Newton" added
to its full-name so that we remember how it relates to Newton's law.
I will use that convention here; whether this convention should be
adopted is debatable.) The idea of "self-suffiecient propulsion" will
have a lasting effect on transportation (especially in space
exploration).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-A) The Seesaw Newton Motor=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Top view:
___base
||
\/
_____________
| |
| M1a---M2a | <--front
| | electromagnets
| m1 |
| \ |
| \ | /\
| \ | ||
| o | <--seesaw ||
| \ | ("o" = pivot) forward
| \ |
| \ |
| m2 |
| |
| M1b---M2b | <--back
|_____________| electromagnets
Ideally, "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", "M2b", "m1", "m2" are all
electromagnets. (Some of the electromagnets can be changed into
permanent magnets where it is deemed fit.) "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", and
"M2b" are fastened to the base, while "m1" and "m2" are connected to a
"seesaw" whose "pivot" ("o") is connected to the "base". (It is
possible to construct this without the back electromagnets.)
The way this invention works is somewhat hard to explain. Here
is a simplified version:
When "M1a" and "m1" are nearly touching an electric current is
sent through "M1a", "M1b", and "m1". "M1a" should repel "m1" while
"M1b" should attract "m1". Thus, both "M1a" and "M1b" will experience
a force in the forward direction, while the seesaw swings around
bringing "m2" close to "M2a". As "M2a" and "m2" are close now, an
electric current will pass through "M2a", "M2b", and "m2". "M2a"
should repel "m2" while "M2b" should attract "m2". Again, the
electromagnets connected to the base, "M2a" and "M2b", will experience
a force in the forward direction while the seesaw swings back to its
starting position to repeat the cycle. Since all the electromagnets
that are connected to the base experience a force in the forward
direction, the entire device will be propelled forward as the seesaw
keeps swinging about. Notice that the seesaw does *not* rotate, it
simply moves back and forth, like a seesaw.
It should be noted that as the seesaw swings about a bit of the
"backward" energy of the electromagnets on the seesaw will be conveyed
to the base via the pivot, thus slowing down the entire device. That
loss of speed, though, is negligible.
The above explanation of the workings of the "Seesaw Newton
motor" is incomplete. One must understand the following:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The main idea
of the "Seesaw Newton motor" is to harness the "action". When the
front electromagnet, back electromagnet and the electromagnet on the
seesaw are activated, the front and back electromagnets experience a
"positive" force by being forced forward. The electromagnet on the
seesaw, however, experiences a "negative" force as it moves in the
backward direction. One must get rid of the "negative" energy of the
electromagnet on the seesaw. If the "negative" energy is not rid of,
then it will somehow be transferred to the entire device, thus not
allowing the device to gain velocity and move forward.
The "Seesaw Newton motor" does not only get rid of the "negative"
energy, it in fact uses it to propel the device further. Consider the
following scenario: a "Seesaw Newton motor" at rest, and set-up
similar to the diagram above. Now, let us initiate a current through
"M1a", "M1b", and "m1". The electromagnets on the base ("M1a" and
"M1b") will experience a "positive" force by being forced forward.
The electromagnet on the seesaw ("m1"), however, will experience a
"negative" force by being forced backward. However, at the other end
of the seesaw, the electromagnet ("m2") seems to be approaching the
front electromagnet ("M2a") and receding from the back electromagnet
("M2b"). Thus, at the other end of the seesaw, when those
electromagnets are activated, the repulsive force between the
electromagnet on the seesaw and the front electromagnet will be
greater, thus propelling the device further forward. Also, at the
other end of the seesaw, when those electromagnets are activated, the
attractive force between the electromagnet on the seesaw and the back
electromagnet will be greater, again propelling the device further
forward. The fact that both magnets ("M2a" and "M2b") experience a
greater forward force is due to the initial "negative" energy of the
electromagnet ("m1") on the seesaw. Thus, both the "action" and the
"reaction" are harnessed to propel the entire device forward. Thus,
in a sense this invention is more effective than a space shuttle
because it harnesses both the "action" and "reaction", unlike a
shuttle which only uses the "action".
If both "action" and "reaction" are to be harnessed, one must
ensure that the electromagnets on the seesaw should not hit either the
front electromagnets or the back electromagnets. That is because in a
collision the "backward" forces will be conveyed to the base via the
pivot. Thus, input sensors might be needed to calculate the speed of
the seesaw so that the electromagnets can be perfectly timed to avoid
collisions.
Notice that for this invention to actually move the
electromagnets must be very strong and the entire device must be
light. Otherwise, the device will stay in the same spot and just
"wiggle" about instead of moving. Even though when it is "wiggling"
about there still is a forward force; it's just that the forward force
isn't strong enough to overcome static friction. So, even if on Earth
it merely "wiggles" about instead of moving then it can still be
useful in space where there is no static friction. So, this invention
can definetely compete with other devices like ones that use ion
propulsion.
Also, the entire "Seesaw Newton motor" can (with a battery) be
put into a box and the box would move without interacting with the
environment outside the box. Thus, we say it moves using "self-
sufficient propulsion".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-B) The Simple Newton Engine-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
START:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
Side-view (cross-section): forward -->
| ___cylinder
| ||
| \/
|/-------------
|| #X| <--magnet ("X")
|\-------------
| /\
| ||__piston ("#")
|
|
|<--start line
The engine is a cylinder with a piston in it. The piston may
require wheels to move inside the cylinder.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." The main idea
of the "Simple Newton engine" is to harness the "action" by getting
rid of the "reaction". How do we get rid of the momentum of the
"reaction"? One way is by using friction, which is discussed in "Step
3".
The idea is to force the piston in the backward direction, down
the cylinder. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction,
the cylinder will then experience a force in the forward direction.
This force is ideally created by using electromagnets. Let us say
that there is an electromagnet on the piston ("#") which repels the
magnet ("X") that is connected to the front of the cylinder. (Also,
one could make this similar to a "Linear Induction motor", with the
piston as the projectile.)
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/
STEP 1:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
| forward -->
|
| ___ The magnet and the cylinder
| || move forward...
| \/ -->
| /-------------
| | # X|
| \-------------
| /\ <--
| ||__ ...as the piston moves backward
| through the cylinder
|
|
Now, activate the electromagnet on the piston. So the piston,
which is repelled by the magnet, moves down the cylinder as the magnet
and the cylinder accelerate forward.
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/
STEP 2:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
| forward -->
|
|
|
|
| /-------------
| | # X|
| \-------------
| /\
| ||__The piston must be stopped before
| it hits the back of the cylinder
|
|
In fractions of a second, the piston will have arrived at the
back of the cylinder. The piston must be stopped before it slams into
the back of the cylinder because if it does then the energy of the
piston will cancel out the forward velocity that the cylinder has
gained. So, the energy of the piston must be removed (by friction,
e.g. brakes on the wheels) or harnessed (a method which converts the
"negative" energy of the piston into something useable).
If friction is used to stop the piston, the friction must cause
the piston to lose velocity in decrements; should the brake make the
piston stop abruptly, then the "negative" momentum of the piston will
be transferred to the cylinder. Consider the following analogy: If
I'm on a bike and I stop abrubtly by pushing down hard on my brakes, I
(my body) will go hurtling forth until I hit a wall. In the presence
of gravity, I might hit the ground before I hit a wall, but the point
remains the same. However, if I push on my brakes and slowing come to
a stop, I can avoid being thrown forward. And moreover, by coming to
a stop slowing, the momentum of me and the bike is dissipated as heat,
and perhaps sound, by the brakes. Thus, in the "Simple Newton engine"
the "reaction" is lost due to friction (as heat and possibly sound)
while the "action" is harnessed to propel the cylinder forward.
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/
STEP 3:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
| forward -->
|
|
|
|
| /-------------
| |# X|
| \-------------
|
|
|
|
|
When the piston has reached the end, and has been brought to a
stop, it must then be moved to the front of the cylinder, perhaps by
hooking it to a chain which is being pulled by a motor. Or perhaps
the piston can slowly move back on its wheels towards the front of the
cylinder. Or perhaps the piston can be removed from the cylinder when
it is being transferred to the front, and thus leave the cylinder free
so that another piston can "shoot" through the cylinder.
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/
Return to STEP 1:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
| forward -->
|
|
|
|
| /-------------
| | #X|
| \-------------
|
|
|
|
|
The piston has been returned to the front. Overall, the engine
has moved and gained velocity. Now it is ready to restart at STEP 1.
It should be noted that the "Simple Newton engine" creates a
small amount of force for a relatively minute amount of time.
Nonetheless, I'm sure this invention can be useful in space
exploration.
Also, like the "Seesaw Newton motor", the entire "Simple Newton
engine" can (with a battery) be put into a box and the box would move
without interacting with the environment outside the box. Thus, we
say it uses "self-sufficient propulsion".
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (2) LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
The fact that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong is perhaps
nature's cruelest trick.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-A) Gravitational-Density Dynamo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The following is what I call a "Gravitational-density dynamo":
_____
| \_____
| _ \_____
| | \_____ \_______
| | \_____ |
| | \___ |
| | | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | ------*------ <--\
| | | |
| | | turbine
| | |
tube B --> | |
(contains | | | |
perfluoro- | | | |
octane) | | | |
| | | | <-- tube A
| | | | (contains
| |_________________| | water)
| | |
|____________|____________|
/|\
\_ semi-permeable
material
(dialysis
tubing)
Tube A contains 250ml of water. Tube B contains 750ml of
perfluorooctane. Tube A and tube B are connected to each other by
dialysis tubing, which is a semi-permeable material. Water can
permeate through the dialysis tubing but perfluorooctane can't. Due
to osmotic pressure, the water in tube A will pass through the
dialysis tubing entering tube B. Since water is insoluble in
perfluorooctane, and since water is less dense than perfluorooctane,
the water will rise to the top of tube B. Once enough water has
accumulated at the top of tube B, it will fall, turning the turbine,
and returning back into tube A.
Notice that this dynamo didn't require any input energy, and it
will continue to work, creating electricity by turning the turbine
(and generator, which is not shown), so long as the perfluorooctane
does not seep into tube A through the semi-permeable material.
Eventually, the perfluorooctane will seep through the dialysis tubing
(this is a slow process), and so this invention is not a perpetual
motion machine.
But how can this dynamo generate electricity without any input
energy? First, let's observe that the water at the top of tube B has
gravitational potential energy. When it falls, the gravitational
potential energy is realized and is converted into electricity by the
turbine (and generator, which is not shown). But how did the water
initially get its gravitational potential energy? It got its
gravitational potential energy by being displaced upward in a fluid
(perfluorooctane) that is more dense than it. Thus, we must conclude
that insoluble objects immersed in fluids that are more dense gain
gravitational potential energy by being displaced upwards. However,
where is that energy coming from? By the Law of Conservation of
Energy something must lose energy so that another can gain energy.
Since we cannot find anything losing energy, we must conclude that the
Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong, and that gravity creates
forces which then create/destroy energy; in this case it created
energy in the final form of electricity.
As mentioned before, enough perfluorooctane will eventually seep
through the dialysis tubing causing the level of the liquid in tube B
to lower such that the water cannot escape through the top of the
tube. And so, the turbine will stop spinning. At such a point we can
easily "unmix" both liquids by pouring all the liquid into a tall
cylinder. If we leave the two liquids in the tall cylinder for awhile
then the water will accumalate at the top and the perflourooctane will
gather at the bottom. We know that originally there was 250ml of
water. So, we need only take the top 250ml of liquid (water) from the
cylinder and put it into tube A; the rest of the 750ml of liquid
(perfluorooctane) can be dispensed back into tube B.
Thus, this dynamo can continually produce electricity; when the
turbine stops turning because the two liquids mix, then we need only
"unmix" the two liquids and restart the dynamo.
Notice again that this dynamo creates electricity without using
any input energy! Some may argue that we used energy to "unmix" the
two liquids. That is true *but* even though we used energy to "unmix"
the two liquids we did not *give* the two liquids energy. That is,
two liquids in separate beakers have the same amount of energy as the
same two liquids in the same beaker.
We can conclude by noting that energy is being created/destroyed
all around us. Gravity and magnetism are prime examples. Both create
forces. The immediate effect of the forces on the system is nothing
(the vectors of the forces cancel each other out). However, after the
immediate effect, and after a minute amount of real time, the forces
will do work on the system. If "positive work" is done, then the
system will gain energy. If "negative work" is done, then the system
will lose energy. Whether "positive work" or "negative work" is done
is relative to the frame of reference you are in.
In all likelihood, the "Gravitational-density dynamo" isn't
practical to create electricity. I am discussing it here simply to
demonstrate that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong and that
gravity and magnetism can be used to create energy.
(ASIDE: We have shown above that gravity can create energy. It
is always figured that the Universe should collapse due to gravity.
However, gravity doesn't always bring things together. For example,
it is possible to have two planets attract each other but not
collide. Instead of making a collision they can accelerate towards
each other and then exit with a greater speed then what they entered
with.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-B) Potential Energy-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
Suppose we have two magnets with like-charges.
As the two magnets are moved closer to each other, potential
energy will be gained and kinetic energy will be lost. As the two
magnets move away from each other, potential energy will be lost and
kinetic energy will be gained.
Say, initially, that both magnets are far apart. Now, let us do
work by moving the charges closer together. When we are done and the
magnets are close to each other, the potential energy will have
increased. The increase will be equivalent to the work we did pushing
them together.
Now, let's say that we took two hammers and pounded both magnets
until they lost their magnetism. Then, the potential energy between
the two magnets will dissappear. Thus, the system has lost energy
without any part of the system gaining energy. Thus, we have
demonstrated that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong.
Let me recap: First, we did work to move two repelling magnets
together. Thus, we lost kinetic energy while the magnets gained
potential energy. We then destroyed the magnetism of the magnets,
thus losing the potential energy. Thus, all-in-all, we lost energy.
This idea, which works on magnetism, can also be applied to
gravity, which follows.
---------------------------------------
Consider two stationary gaseous planets, both made entirely of
deutrium.
As the two planets are moved closer to each other, gravitational
potential energy will be gained and kinetic energy will be lost. As
the two planets move away from each other, gravitational potential
energy will be lost and kinetic energy will be gained.
Let's do work on the planets, increasing the gravitational
potential energy of the planets, by moving them apart. The increase
in gravitational potential energy will be equivalent to the amount
work we did separating the planets.
Now, let's say that the deutrium of both planets began to fuse by
the following equation:
deutrium atom + deutrium atom => helium atom + neutron + 3.27 MeV
(It is true that I didn't include the initial energy to start the
fusion. However, the above equation is properly balanced, so we do
not have to consider the initial energy required. That is, let us
assume the initial energy to start the fusion is supplied.)
Now, it is obvious that mass is being converted into energy.
Since the masses of both planets are decreasing, the gravitational
potential energy between both planets will also decrease. Thus, the
work we did moving the planets apart (which is now graviational
potential energy) will diminish. We have again demonstrated that the
Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong.
Let me recap: First, we did work by moving the two planets
apart. Thus, we lost kinetic energy while the planets gained
gravitational potential energy. We then converted some of the mass of
the planets into energy. Thus, we lost mass and in the process we
lost gravitational potential energy. So, all-in-all, we lost
energy.
---------------------------------------
Or, you can consider throwing a ball up. As the ball is heading
upward kinetic energy is being converted into gravitational potential
energy. The ball will reach a maximum height when it has a velocity
of zero and a maximum gravitational potential energy. When the ball
has reached its maximum height let us convert the mass of the ball
into energy. I don't know how to do this, but nonetheless, it is
within the realm of possibility. By doing that, the mass will
disappear and so the gravitational potential energy will disappear.
One might oversimplify the above to say: "What goes up does not
*necessarily* come down."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-C) Creating and Destroying Mechanical Energy=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
"Mechanical energy" is the energy which is possessed by an object
due to its motion and its stored energy of position. When I use the
term "mechanical energy" in this section I am referring solely to "the
energy which is possessed by an object due to its motion" *not* "its
stored energy of position". (I won't use the term "kinetic energy"
because that term is related to the equation "½mv²", and I do not want
to imply that I am using that equation.)
---------------------------------------
Let's say we have two electromagnets (coils of wire) with air
cores.
Now, let's set them next to each other. And then, let's send an
electrical current through them so that they repel each other.
Because they repel each other they will begin to move away from each
other. The two electromagnets were stationary and now they are moving
- now they have "mechanical energy". Thus we have created energy (at
least it seems that way since we observed the two electromagnets from
this particular frame of reference).
Now, let's have the two electromagnets move towards each other.
Again, let's send an electrical current through them so that they
repel each other. They will stop moving. The two electromagnets had
"mechanical energy" and then they stopped. Thus we have destroyed
energy (at least it seems that way since we observed the two
electromagnets from this particular frame of reference).
--> Some may argue that for both scenarios above the total energy of
the system is zero because the momentum of both electromagnets when
taken together is zero. However, the "mechanical energy" of both
electromagnets can be turned into another form of energy; for example,
we can let both electromagnets rub against a surface like ashphalt.
The heat and sound which is produced is due to friction and it is
energy. Thus, we must conclude that the electromagnets initially also
had energy. Thus, the total energy of the system is not zero! We
cannot simply add the momentum of the objects in the system and derive
a conclusion from that. The "mechanical energy" of a system depends
on the addition of the *individual* "mechanical energies" of the
objects in the system, not just the addition of the "mechanical
energies" of the objects in the system.
--> Some may argue that energy is not created or destroyed but simply
converted from one type of energy into another. For example, if we
were using a battery to power the elecromagnets then these people
would say that the chemical energy of the battery is being converted
into electrical energy which then causes a change in "mechanical
energy" of the electromagnets which we perceive. If we were plugging
the electromagnets into the outlet then these people would say that
"mechanical energy" at the site of the power plant is being converted
into electrical energy which then causes a change in "mechanical
energy" of the electromagnets which we perceive. Now, if energy is
not created or destroyed but simply converted from one type of energy
into another then the amount of electrical energy used by the
electromagnets should *equal* the change in "mechanical energy"
experienced by the electromagnets. Notice that electrical energy is
proportional to current. But what if we inserted iron into the cores
of the electromagnets? Then the repulsive force between the
electromagnets will be greater; thus, the change in "mechanical
energy" will be greater. But the current remains the same!; we used
the same amount of electric energy! Thus, we realize that the amount
of electrical energy used by the electromagnets does not *equal* the
change of "mechanical energy" experienced by the electromagnets
because iron cores "amplify" the magnetic field and cause the change
in "mechanical energy" to be greater than it would be if there were no
iron cores! So, we can conclude that energy is not transformed from
one type of energy into another, at least not in this case.
--> Some may argue that "mechanical energy" is being transformed into
potential energy and vice versa. But we know from the previous
section that potential energy can disappear without being realized.
So we can conclude that the Law of Conservation of Energy is
wrong.
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (3) WORK AND ENERGY-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
As said before: "Mechanical energy" is the energy which is
possessed by an object due to its motion and its stored energy of
position. When I use the term "mechanical energy" in this section I
am referring solely to "the energy which is possessed by an object due
to its motion" *not* "its stored energy of position". (I won't use
the term "kinetic energy" because that term is related to the equation
"½mv²", and I do not want to imply that I am using that equation.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-A) Defining Force, Work and Mechanical Energy-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
Before we go on further I need to invent a word. When I say that
A is "generally proportional" to B, I mean that as A increases so does
B.
---------------------------------------
It is worthwhile to define work in physics similar to how we
define work in an intuitive way.
So, how do we define work in an intuitive way?
Well, as a human, work obviously depends on the magnitude/
difficulty of the task and the duration of the task. So I propose
that in physics work should be generally proportional to a "magnitude"
and a "duration". (The "magnitude" and "duration" of work will be
defined later.)
Also, as a human we realize that by doing work we can accomplish
some task. Now, that can translate into physics to mean that work can
cause a change in energy of the system.
If all the work causes a change in "mechanical energy" we will
say that the work is "effective"; if it does not cause a change in
"mechanical energy" we will say that the work is "ineffective". If
the work causes a change in "mechanical energy" but is hampered, that
is, not all the work causes a change in "mechanical energy", then we
will say the work is "semi-effective".
Likewise, force and power can also be called "effective",
"ineffective" or "semi-effective".
"Effective force" is defined as:
f_e = ma
· where "f_e" is "effective force"
"m" is mass
"a" is acceleration
"Ineffective force" is defined as:
f_i = pA
· where "f_i" is "ineffective force"
"p" is pressure
"A" is area
We will define "total force" as the summation of all "effective
forces" and "ineffective forces".
"Total force" is defined as:
f_t = f_e + f_i
· where "f_t" is "total force"
When force is effective then "f_i = 0" and so
f_t = f_e
When force is ineffective then "f_e = 0" and so
f_t = f_i
---------------------------------------
Consider the following scenario: two classmates, Jack and Jill,
who are each going to hold a brick. The downward force of the brick
due to gravity is going to be the same for either participant. Now,
let's say that Jack held his brick for 20 seconds, and Jill held her
brick for 10 seconds. Now, without using any scientific jargon, who
did the most work? Jack obviously did more work than Jill. Thus,
*intuitively*, work should be generally proportional to force and
time. Now work is already defined. The definition of work as it
stands today is wrong intuitively but it is *very* useful in making
calculations. It calculates work where work is defined as causing an
object to be displaced in a certain direction. So it looks like we
have two different ways of defining work. Let us distinguish between
the two by giving them names. Let the traditional meaning for work -
which is generally proportional to displacement - be called
"productive work" whereas the "new" definition for work - which is
generally proportional to time - be called "general work".
As said above, "productive work" is generally proportional to
force and displacement. But physicists allow "productive work" to be
directly proportional to force and displacement for simplicity's
sake. Thus, we get the following equation for "productive work":
W_p = f_e*s
· where "W_p" is "productive work"
"s" is displacement
The force in "productive work" is, by definition, always
effective.
As said above, "general work" is generally proportional to force
and time. It is sensible to also allow "general work" to be directly
proportional to force and time, again for simplicity's sake. Thus, we
get the following equation for "general work":
W_g = f_t*t
· where "W_g" is "general work"
"t" is a period of time
I propose that the unit for "general work" should be "P", for
Prescott, Joule's middle name. Thus, "one prescott" equals "one
newton second".
(I realize that force multiplied by time is called an impulse.
However, the term "general work" is more fitting because it relates to
"productive work". Because in a sense, "productive work" and "general
work" are two sides of the same coin; hence the reason why both units
- joule and prescott - are two names of the same person.)
---------------------------------------
When force is effective, "productive work" can be written in
terms of "general work":
W_p = W_g²/(2m)
"effective general work" it becomes exponentially rewarding inFrom this we can interpret two things: (1) The longer you do
productiveness. (2) A given amount of "effective general work"
doesn't always give you the same change in "productive work".
When force is effective then "f_t = f_e" and so:
W_p/W_g = (f_e*s)/(f_t*t) = s/t = v_a
· where "v_a" is the average change in velocity
This means that the rate at which "general work" becomes "productive
work" - when the force is effective - is the average change in
velocity of the object. Since average velocity (the rate) increases
with time, we can conclude (again) that the productiveness of the
"general work" increases exponentially. Because the productiveness of
"general work" increases with time it is worthwhile to determine what
the productiveness of "general work" is over a small (infinitesmal)
duration of time. So, when "t" approaches zero the rate at which
"general work" becomes "productive work" is the instantaneous change
in velocity - which is acceleration.
Say that we push a particle with an "effective force" "f_e" over
a displacement of "s". The time it takes for the particle to be
displaced is "(2ms/f_e)^½". In such a case the change in velocity is
"(2f_e*s/m)^½". Now, if the work becomes semi-effective then that
means that some of the "effective force" has turned into "ineffective
force". So, "f_e" will decrease; thus, the period of time - "(2ms/
f_e)^½" - will increase and the change in velocity - "(2f_e*s/m)^½" -
will decrease.
When "general work" is fully productive (due to "effective
force") the rate at which it becomes "productive work" is the
acceleration, which can be written as "f_e/m". So, as mass increases
it becomes harder to convert "general work" into "productive work".
As the "general work" becomes less productive (less displacement due
to "semi-effective force") the average change in velocity is less, and
so the rate at which "general work" becomes "productive work" is less
than the acceleration. As the "productive work" nears zero (no
displacement due to "ineffective force") then the average change in
velocity nears zero and so the work is almost entirely general.
When force is effective, power equals "f_e*v_a". So, "effective
power" is proportional to the rate at which "general work" becomes
"productive work".
---------------------------------------
Above, we observed that "productive work" depends force and
displacement while "general work" depends on force and time. I
propose that we now define the "magnitude" of work as "force". And,
when we are considering "displacement" and "time" from the point of
view of work we will call them the "duration" of work.
---------------------------------------
We are now going to consider the energy of a system which has one
particle with a mass of "m" moving at an initial velocity "v".
"Effective work" will be applied on the particle. We will call the
"magnitude" and "duration" of the work as "M" and "D" respectively.
Notice that the "mechanical energy" of a particle is generally
proportional to its mass and velocity. We will "measure" the
"mechanical energy" of the particle in two different ways; we will
name them "productive energy" and "general energy". If we are
considering the "productive energy" of the particle, we will "measure"
the energy of the particle using the equation "½mv²". If we are
considering the "general energy" of the particle, we will "measure"
the energy of the particle using the equation "mv". Both equations -
"½mv²" and "mv" - can be considered to be two different "rulers" used
to "measure" the energy of the particle in the system. Now, notice
that the change in "productive energy" due to "productive work" and
the change in "general energy" due to "general work" is "MD". So, we
can create the following functions to determine the "mechanical
energy" and change in "mechanical energy" of the system:
When we are considering "productive work":
(M = f_e = ma) , (D = s)
E_p = ½mv² + MD
E_g = mv + (2mMD)^½
When we are considering "general work":
(M = f_e = ma) , (D = t)
E_g = mv + MD
E_p = ½mv² + (MD)²/(2m)
· where "E_p" is the equation for "productive energy"
· where "E_g" is the equation for "general energy"
· where "m" is the mass of the particle
· where "v" is the initial velocity of the particle (prior to work)
Now in Newtonian mechanics kinetic energy is equal to "½mv²" and
momuntum is equal to "mv". So the equation for "productive energy"
gauges the Newtonian kinetic energy of the system while the equation
for "general energy" gauges the Newtonian momentum of the system.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-B) Relative Views-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
Now, "mechanical energy" depends on mass and velocity. But
velocity is relative; so, we must conclude that the "mechanical
energy" in a system is also relative! More precisely, "mechanical
energy" depends on what frame of reference you claim is at rest.
Here's a rule:
· The relative velocity of two objects is constant no matter what
frame of reference you are in (even accelerated frames) so long that
the two objects are not accelerating relative to each other.
For example, consider a skydiver plumetting to the Earth such
that he has reached his terminal velocity. Someone on the Earth will
claim that he is at rest and will observe the skydiver falling; he
will say that the "mechanical energy" of his own system depends on the
mass of the skydiver and the speed at which he is falling at. On the
other hand, the skydiver will claim that he is at rest and will
observe the Earth to be moving towards him; he will say that the
"mechanical energy" of his system depends on the mass of the Earth and
the speed at which the Earth is approaching him. In both cases the
speed of the skydiver and the speed of the Earth are the same (because
velocity is relative). But, the mass of the Earth is greater than the
mass of the skydiver. So, the skydiver will claim that there is more
"mechanical energy" in his frame of reference than what someone on the
ground will claim!
So, the "mechanical energy" of a system depends on what frame of
reference you claim is at rest.
---------------------------------------
The acceleration of the skydiver and the Earth due to gravity can
be determined by tactile observations. That is, the skydiver and the
Earth can feel the acceleration. (Of course, the acceleration of the
Earth is so small that we cannot feel it, but that is just because our
instruments aren't sensitive enough.) By knowing the acceleration we
can determine the force. If we determine acceleration by tactile
observations then we will say that it is a "real acceleration"; if we
determine force using "real acceleration" then we will say that it is
a "real force". The "real forces" of gravity on the skydiver and the
Earth are equivalent:
f_s = f_e = G m_s*m_e / r²
· where "f_s" is the "real force" on the skydiver
"f_e" the "real force" on the Earth
"G" is the Gravitational Constant
"m_s" is the mass of the skydiver
"m_e" is the mass of the Earth
"r" is the distance between the skydiver and the center of the
Earth
Work is proportional to force. Now, when you are *doing* work
then the work depends on "real forces". However, when you are
*observing* work then the work depends on "apparent forces".
"Apparent force" is determined by "apparent acceleration"; and
"apparent acceleration" is determined by visual observations of
acceleration, not by tactile observations like "real acceleration".
When we are *doing* work we will call the work "real work" while when
we are *observing* work we will call the work "apparent work".
The "total acceleration" is the sum of the "apparent
acceleration" of the skydiver and the "apparent acceleration" of the
Earth:
a_t = a_s + a_e
· where "a_t" is the "total acceleration"
"a_s" is the "apparent acceleration" of the skydiver
"a_e" is the "apparent acceleration" of the Earth
Notice that the "total acceleration" is constant no matter what frame
of reference you are in (even an accelerated frame!):
a_t = G (m_s+m_e) / r²
Here's a rule:
· The relative "apparent acceleration" of two objects (which is the
"total acceleration") is constant no matter what frame of reference
you are in (even accelerated frames) so long that the relative
"apparent acceleration" of the two objects is not increasing/
decreasing (that is, the "apparent acceleration" isn't itself
"accelerating").
If someone on Earth were to assume that he is at rest then he
will say that an "apparent force" is being applied on the skydiver; if
the skydiver were to say that he is at rest then he will say that an
"apparent force" is being applied on the Earth. Now, "apparent force"
is proportional to mass and "apparent acceleration". In both cases
the "apparent acceleration" of the skydiver and the "apparent
acceleration" of the Earth are the same (because "apparent
acceleration" is relative). But, the mass of the Earth is greater
than the mass of the skydiver. So, the skydiver will claim that a
greater "apparent force" is being applied on the Earth and so, more
"apparent work" is being done from his frame of reference than what
someone on the ground will claim! And so, a greater change in
"mechanical energy" will be witnessed by the skydiver.
Of course, we can always claim that a certain frame is at rest
such that an "apparent force" is being applied on the skydiver *and*
an "apparent force" is being applied on the Earth. For instance,
there is a frame which is at rest such that "apparent forces" equal
"real forces".
So, we saw above that the "mechanical energy" of a system depends
on what frame of reference you claim is at rest. Likewise, "apparent
acceleration", "apparent force", "apparent work" and change in
"mechancal energy" also depend on what frame of reference you claim is
at rest.
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (4) SPECIAL RELATIVITY -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-A) Preliminary=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
Here are Einstein's first two postulates of Special Relativity:
#1) The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of
reference. That is, one cannot distinguish one inertial frame from
the others or make one frame somehow more "correct" than another.
#2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames
of reference and is independent of the motion of the source.
---------------------------------------
When you *measure* a quantity using an instrument we will say
that that quantity is "measured". On the other hand, if you just use
an equation to determine a quantity we will say that the quantity is
"derived". It is often hard to determine whether a quantity is
"measured" or "derived" because in certain cases we can either use an
instrument to determine the unknown or use an equation to determine
the unknown. I make a distinction between the two here; a "measured
quantity" is always made by using an instrument (and perhaps an
equation), and we assume here that "measured quantities" are always
correct; "derived quantities" are merely "observations" (usually made
by solving equations) which may or may not agree with "measured
quantities".
(Side-tracking a bit; How do you measure a length? If the
endpoints of the thing you wish to measure are at rest with your own
frame then you can measure the thing using a ruler; otherwise, the
endpoints of the thing you wish to measure are moving relative to you
and so you need to measure the thing using visual observations (which
may include the use of something like a ruler, or other instrument).)
Now, a "measured length" is determined by using a ruler or by
using visual observations. A "measured time" is determined by using a
clock. On the other hand, you could figure out the distance or time
of an event by using the equation "d=vt" - where "d" is distance, "v"
is velocity, and "t" is time. By using that equation we can determine
"derived length" and "derived time".
Now, we can determine velocity using the Doppler effect. If we
use an instrument to determine the frequency then by the equation for
Doppler's effect we will find "measured velocity". On the other hand,
if we determine the frequency by other means then by the equation for
Doppler's effect we will find "derived velocity". Of course, we can
also find "derived velocity" by using the equation "v=d/t".
Also, a "measured mass" is determined by using a scale. Of
course, to use a scale you need to know the strength of the
gravitational field you are emmersed in, and if there is no
gravitation field then the scale will fail. "Derived mass" is figured
out by using the equation for kinetic energy or the equation for
momentum. "Measured mass" is usually called "rest mass"; "derived
mass" is usually called "inertial mass".
Now, there may be other ways to determine measured/derived
length, time, velocity and mass. I wonder how they should be added to
the mix..
Take note that when we measure *anything* our measurements may
not be accurate; this is especially true when we make "visual
measurements". There is always some error. "That there is a lower
limit to this error merely asserts that our intellects are more
delicate than our physical apparatus."
I said above that "we assume here that "measured quantities" are
always correct". If "derived quantities" do not correlate with
"measured quantities" then it is - to put it bluntly - the "derived
quantities" fault. It should be physics' goal in general to have all
"derived quantities" equal "measured quantities", for this is not so
in present day physics as we will see in what follows.
---------------------------------------
I am now going to invent two "thought devices"; "ideal emitters"
and "ideal receivers". Ideal emitters are used to send signals to
ideal receivers. The signal goes from the emitter to the receiver
*instantaneously*. So, there is absolutely no time lag; that's why
they're called "ideal".
In practice there is always some delay in our signalling devices;
there is always some error. "That there is a lower limit to this
error merely asserts that our intellects are more delicate than our
physical apparatus."
---------------------------------------
Also, we will be using three different devices, what I call "SD
devices" and "SMD devices", and "light-clocks". All three aparatus
have a light-source and a light-detector, and perhaps a clock and a
mirror. To simplify verbiage, the "light-source" will be called the
"source" and the "light-detector" will be called the "detector".
In any thought-experiments, all devices are equipped with ideal
emitters at the source and the detector. Anyone can get an ideal
receiver and thus determine *exactly* when the source emits the light
and when the light gets received by the detector.
A "SD device" is an apparatus consisting of a clock, a source and
a detector. The apparatus is set up such that the clock starts when
the source emits a flash of light. The light then gets registered by
the detector which causes the clock to stop. The device is called an
"SD" device because light goes from the (S)ource to the (D)etector.
For this entire section the distance between the source and the
detector in a SD device will be "L".
A "SMD device" is very similar to a "SD device" except that it
has a mirror. The apparatus is set up such that the clock starts when
the source emits a flash of light. The light is then reflected off
the mirror. The light returns to the source where it is registered by
the detector which causes the clock to stop. The device is called an
"SMD" device because light goes from the (S)ource to the (M)irror and
back to the (D)etector. For this entire section the distance between
the source/detector and the mirror in a SMD device will be "L".
It should be noted that "light-clocks" differ from SMD devices.
Einstein used light-clocks in his famous thought-experiments. A light-
clock is an apparatus set up like a SMD device but without the clock.
The crucial difference between the two is that a SMD device *measures*
an amount of time while a light-clock *derives* an amount of time.
How does a light-clock derive time? Well, when you look at a light-
clock in action you will see the light traverse a certain distance
"d". A user using a light-clock assumes that the speed of light is
the constant "c". Thus, the light clock - using displacement and the
speed of light - derives the time "t" elasped by using the equation
"t=d/c". The distance between the source/detector and the mirror in a
light-clock is "L"; this is always true no matter what frame you are
looking at the light-clock from. The displacement of light, "d", is
what differs depending on your frame.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-B) A Reality Check=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, when I looked at the moon a while ago it was a full circle.
Today I look at the moon and it is half a circle. I can look at this
from two angles. I can say that my observations are accurate and the
moon is now half of what it used to be. Or, I can say that my
observations are flawed and I can only see half the moon. Which is
true? From the Earth, from my particular observations, I cannot say
one is more right than the other. But, it is much better to believe
that I am only seeing half the moon because it is hard to explain
where half the moon suddenly disappeared to. Thus, when we examine a
situation we must decide what is reality in such a way that we can
easily describe the Universe.
For each individual case we must ask ourselves are our
observations an accurate description of reality or are our
observations flawed? It is fundamentally impossible to prove one over
the other; that is because our perception of reality is through our
observations, and one cannot know whether to trust the observations or
assume that there is a reality outside of our observations.
These questions must be asked when we consider simultaneity,
which follows in the next section.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-C) Simultaneity-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Einstein and relativity are wrong in their treatment of
simultaneity. The failure of relativity's treatment of simultaneous
events is best described by Professor W. D. MacMillan in "A Debate on
the Theory of Relativity":
"The notion of simultaneity in two distant places according to
Newtonian mechanics is not ambiguous, as is so frequently asserted by
the relativists. We can set two distant clocks to indicate the same
time with a certain margin of error. That there is a lower limit to
this error merely asserts that our intellects are more delicate than
our physical apparatus. However fast or slow light may go, we can
imagine a speed a million times as great, or any other ratio that may
be desired, and there is no lower limit, save zero itself, to the
determination of simultaneous events so far as the mind is concerned.
To say that simultaneity does not exist because it is unattainable in
practice is like saying that a straight line does not exist because
it, too, physically is unattainable. Shall we then put geometry into
the discard because it is ambiguous and without meaning? If we do the
matter is ended, for there is nothing left for us to talk about."
Different observers measure different events to be simultaneous.
Is each observer correct in his own frame? Or is there an underlying
reality unseen because our observations are faulty? What is reality?
Relativity claims the former idea.
Einstein claims that events which are simultaneous with reference
to one frame are not simultaneous with respect to another frame.
So, is simultaneity absolute or relative? Is only half the moon
showing or has half the moon disappeared?
The fact that we do observe events out of order is because our
observations are faulty. If we had a way to transmit information
instantaneously (like by using ideal emitters and ideal receivers)
then our observations would correlate with reality and simultaneity
would not seem to be ambiguous. The fact that we don't have such
devices merely implies "that our intellects are more delicate than our
physical apparatus".
So, simultaneity is absolute. That is, two events are either
simultaneous or not; it does not matter what frame you are in. Now,
if you were to see both events occur at the same time then we will say
that the events "appear to be simultaneous"; if you don't see both
events occur at the same time then we will say that the events "do not
appear to be simultaneous". If we had the use of ideal emitters and
ideal receivers then all simultaneous events would appear to be
simultaneous and all "non-simultaneous" events would not appear to be
simultaneous.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-D) The Constancy of the Speed of Light=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION:
To maintain the constancy of the speed of light we need to have
time dialate and/or length contract. We will now examine the thought-
experiments which are used to derive the equation for Special
Relativity's time dialation and length contraction.
This is how the "Time Dialation" thought-experiment is set up:
There are two people, an "insider" and an "outsider". The
"outsider" is standing on the Earth while the "insider" is sitting on
a train. The train is travelling forward at a velocity "v" relative
to the Earth. The velocity "v" is perpendicular to the line of sight
of the "outsider".
There is a light-clock on the train such that the source/detector
is secured on the floor of the train while the mirror is fastened
above the source such that it will (hopefully) reflect the light from
the source directly back down to the detector.
---------------------------------------
Einstein claims that the speed of light is always a constant.
However, he never said from which frame does light always leave the
source in a straight line. So, we will observe below that when light
appears to travel from the source in a straight line as observed by an
"outsider" then the "Time Dialation" thought-experiment fails.
---------------------------------------
"TIME DIALATION" THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT:
(assuming light leaves the source in a straight line as observed by an
"outsider")
As assumed, the flash of light will leave the source in a
straight line as observed by an "outsider". While the flash of light
is heading upwards towards the mirror, the train has moved forward by
a factor of "vt". Thus, if the train is fast enough then it may have
moved forward enough such that the flash of light might not even hit
the mirror at all! The light may not hit the mirror because the light
is travelling upwards as seen from outside the frame, not inside. The
"insider" will see light "bend". (Diagram A)
(A) ---> WHAT THE INSIDER SEES:
|
| vt
| ______
| · |
| · |
| · | L forward -->
| · |
| · |
| ·|
\_________________________________
The experiment as stated by Special Relativity requires that the
light gets reflected back to the detector on the ground and so, this
"Time Dialation" thought-experiment does not produce proper results
when we assume that light leaves the source in a straight line as
observed by an "outsider".
---------------------------------------
So, we will now assume that light appears to travel from the
source in a straight line as observed by the "insider".
---------------------------------------
"TIME DIALATION" THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT:
(assuming light leaves the source in a straight line as observed by an
"insider")
When the two observe the light-clock let the "insider" derive a
time of "tI" to elaspe while the "outsider" derives a time of "tO" to
have elasped.
The "insider" is at rest with the light-clock so he sees the
light travel a total distance "2L".
Meanwhile the "outsider" sees the light travel a total distance
"2[(vtO/2)²+L²]^½". (Diagram B)
(B) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
| ___
| | ·
| | ·|·
| | · | ·
| L | · | · forward -->
| | · | ·
| | · | ·
| _|_ ·_____|_____·
|
| |-----------|
| vtO
\_________________________________
And we assumed that both the "insider" and the "outsider" see
light travel at the constant "c". Now, we will use the equation "t=d/
c", where "t" is an amount of "derived time", "d" is the "measured
distance" the light traverses, and "c" is the speed at which light
(supposedly) travels at. So the "insider" derives a time
tI = 2L/c
while the "outsider" derives a time
tO = 2[{(vtO/2)²+L²}^½]/c
Using the above two equations, the "Time Dialation" thought-
experiment goes on to derive the following equation:
(1) tO = ytI
· where "y" equals "1/[1-(v/c)²]^½"
---------------------------------------
The above thought-experiment shows that if we want to maintain
the speed of light as a constant then we need for time to dialate. If
time doesn't dialate, that is, if time is constant for the "insider"
and "outsider", then the two will not agree that the speed of light is
"c".
---------------------------------------
As said above, for us to maintain that the speed of light is
constant for everyone we need for time to dialate and/or length to
contract. Essen describes this perfectly in his book "The Special
Theory of Relativity":
"A critical examination of Einstein's papers reveals that in the
course of thought-experiments he makes implicit assumptions that are
additional and contrary to his two initial principles. The initial
postulates of relativity and the constancy of the velocity of light
lead directly to length contraction and time dialation simply as new
units of measurements, and in several places Einstein gives support to
this view by making his observers adjust their clocks. More usually,
and this constitutes the second set of assumptions, he regards the
changes as being observed effects, even when the units are not
deliberately changed. This implies that there is some physical effect
even if it is not understood or described. The results are
symmetrical to observers in relative motion; and as such can only be
an effect in the process of the transmission of the signals. The
third assumption is that the clocks and lengths actually change. In
this case the relativity postulate can no longer hold.
"The first approach, in which the units of measurement are
changed, is not a physical theory, and the question of experimental
evidence does not arise. There is no evidence for the second approach
because no symmetrical experiment has ever been made. There is no
direct experimental evidence of the third statement of the theory
because no experiments have been made in an inertial system. There
are experimental results that support the idea of an observed time
dialation, but accelerations are always involved, and there is some
indication that they are responsible for the observed effects"
Essen discussed three cases; they all attempt to maintain the
speed of light as a constant for everyone by claiming that time
dialates and/or length contracts. Why does time dialate and length
contract? In short, either because..
CASE #1: .."measured quantities" change depending on your frame.
OR
CASE #2: ..we adjust our instruments and equations.
OR
CASE #3: ..it is a result of an intrinsic property of our
observations.
I will now discuss the above three cases in detail.
---------------------------------------
CASE #1:
Here we will consider that time dialates and length contracts
because "the clocks and lengths actually change"; that is, "measured
quantities" change depending on you frame.
Now, since the "outsider" sees the light travel a greater
distance than the "insider", Einstein and his friends then use the
equation "t=d/c" to claim that the "outsider" will measure a greater
amount of time to elapse than the "insider". The fact that the
"outsider" sees the flash of light travel a greater distance than the
"insider" is *directly* responsible for the fact that we then get an
equation which demonstrates that time dialates. All this says is that
the light *seemed* to travel a greater distance as seen by the
"outsider". The time dialation equation means that since the
"measured quantity" of distance differs depending on your frame then
the "derived quantity" for time has then dialated; this does not
neccesarily mean that "measured quantity" of time has dialated.
Einstein and his friends often make the mistake of saying "measured
time" dialates because "derived time" dialates; this is wrong.
Let me put it another way: What if I were with the "insider" on
the train and I was looking at the light-clock's reflection in a
concave mirror. Because the mirror is concave I would not see the
light-clock properly; the light-clock would appear to be larger.
Thus, it would seem to me that the light in the light-clock travels a
greater distance. Can I then conclude that "measured time" has
dialated for me because it seems that the light has travelled a
greater distance for me? Of course not! "Measured time" - the rate
at which your wrist-watch clicks - does not depend on how you *see*
light!
Let me clarify things: Einstein and I both agree that during the
above experiment the "outsider" and "insider" will measure the
distance travelled by the light to be different. Einstein then says
that the speed of light is constant so time has to dialate. I say
that time is a constant and so the speed of light is what "dialates";
that is, it is speed of light as observed by the "insider" and
"outsider" which differs, not time.
In any case, this is how most physics textbooks leave the
subject. However, what if we moved the light-clock down to Earth
beside the "outsider"? Then, in a sense, the "outsider" will become
the "insider" and the "insider" will become the "outsider". So, if
you repeat the "Time Dialation" thought-experiment one will derive the
following contradictory equation:
(2) tI = ytO
Now both equations - (1) and (2) - demonstrate that time
dialates! If we are to say that "derived time" dialates then there
doesn't seem to be much of a problem. But if we mean that "measured
time" dialates then we have the following problem: Which equation is
true and which is false? Both the "insider" and the "outsider" have
equal rights to have there "measured time" dialate with respect to the
other. In essence both equations together mean that "My time is
faster than your time which is faster than my time which is faster
than your time which is, etc..." Now, physics books and thought-
experiments often allow one of the equations to be true while the
other equation is dismissed (e.g. the famous "Twin Paradox" thought-
experiment); such action is unjustified.
Also, above we assumed that the velocity "v" of the "insider" is
perpendicular to the line of sight of the "outsider". Thus, the
equation for time dialation is subject to that restricting rule. So,
what happens if the velocity "v" is *not* perpendicular to the line of
sight of the "outsider"? In that case the "outsider" will see the
light in the light-clock traverse a different distance than what he
found above. Since the light traversed a different distance he will
then use the equation "t=d/c" to say that a different amount of time
has elapsed, that is, time has dialated by a different factor. Again,
if we are to say that "derived time" has dialated then we seem to have
no problems. However, if we are to say that "measured time" dialates
then only one observer - in a unique frame - can be right. This leads
us to the idea and necessity of creating an "absolute frame" if
"measured time" dialates.
This idea and necessity of creating an "absolute frame" also
appears in Einstein's thought-experiment for length contraction. He
introduced an equation for length contraction by using thought-
experiements. It is similar to his equation for time dialation in
that it can be written in two contradictory ways; here they are:
(3) LO = LI/y
and
(4) LI = LO/y
· where "LO" is the length derived by the "outsider"
· where "LI" is the length derived by the "insider"
Both equations - (3) and (4) - demonstrate that length
contracts! Again, which equation is right and which is wrong? Many
of the same problems encountered with the "Time Dialation" thought-
experiment are also encountered with the "Length Contraction" thought-
experiment.
Now, in Einstein's thought-experiment for length contraction we
are obviously deriving length. Nonetheless, relativists claim that
the thought-experiment means that "measured length" contracts; that
is, lengths really contract; it's not just a bad observation due to
solving an equation. This is unjustified.
Also, Einstein and his friends never accounted for the fact that
length contracts in their "Time Dialation" thought-experiment!
Oops.. The value "vtO" (in the above diagram) should contract!
Now, there may be other ways to determine the above equation for
time dialation and the equation for length contraction. From here on
in, I will discuss the problems which arise when using the equations
in general, no matter how they are derived.
When you say that "measured time" dialates or "measured length"
contracts then only one of the equations for time dialation can be
used and only one of the equations for length contraction can be
used. And when you use only one equation you are choosing a
particular frame from which to observe velocity. Thus we see the need
to create an "absolute frame" of reference (a *unique* frame) if
"measured time" dialates or "measured length" contracts; this
invalidates Postulate #1.
Even if "measured time" dialates or if "measured length"
contracts then this actually does not save Special Relativity's second
postulate. If "measured quantities" dialate and contract then
Postulate #1 goes to the garbage and the universe is no longer
"symmetrical". So, only some people will have their time dialate
properly and only some people will have their length to contract
properly to maintain the speed of light as a constant.
Now, if "measured quantities" don't dialate and contract then
Einstein's thought-experiments demonstrate that "derived time"
dialates and "derived length" contracts. There may be other ways to
show that "derived time" dialates and "derived length" contracts. We
are saying here that "derived quantities" do not correlate with
"measured quantities". So, in this case the fact that "derived time"
dialates and "derived length" contracts is due to our equations, not
due to reality. But shouldn't our equations describe reality?! -
shouldn't our equations describe "measured quantities"?! Nonetheless,
in this case if "derived time" dialates and "derived length" contracts
such that the speed of light is maintained a constant then we have
essentially described "CASE #2", which is discussed below.
---------------------------------------
CASE #2:
Now, what if we could adjust our instruments and equations such
that the speed of light *appears* to maintain the constant speed "c"?
This is the idea of creating "new units of measurements".
This method of maintaining that the speed of light is constant in
all frames is the most seductive because we need not abandon any "pre-
relativity" physics! So, we can say that light is not constant, but
behaves like anything else, and time does not *really* dialate and
length does not *really* contract. But, if we do let time to dialate
and we do let length to contract then we hope to find that the speed
of light *appears* to be travelling at the constant speed "c" from any
frame. We can let time dialate and length contract by adjusting our
instruments and equations.
This means that we'd need to dialate time by a certain factor and/
or contract length by a certain factor to maintain the constancy of
the speed of light.
Now, we found above that the distance light traveses depends on
what frame of reference you are looking at the light from. Thus,
"derived time" and "derived length" depend on what frame you're in.
So, time and length will have to dialate and contract by a different
factor for each *individual* frame. But what is the sense to change
time and length by a *different* factor in each frame just to have the
speed of light remain constant. If, on the other hand, we could
*always* have time dialate and length contract by a *constant* factor
and so maintain the constancy of the speed of light, then that would
be worthwhile..
In any case, this method of maintaining the speed of light as a
constant does not in any way clash with other theories, and so, we can
actually say without doubt in this case that the speed of light is not
constant.
---------------------------------------
CASE #3:
Let us assume that time dialates and length contracts because it
is a result of an intrinsic property of our observations. In this
case we are saying that the dialation of time and the contraction of
length is similar to an "optical illusion". "This implies that there
is some physical effect even if it is not understood or described."
In the above "Time Dialation" thought-experiment we've put ideal
emitters on the source and the detector. Anybody can use an ideal
receiver to determine the time interval of the experiment. Now,
consider two people each in a different frame. Both people should
determine the same amount of "measured time" elasped because they are
using ideal receivers, so long as "measured time" doesn't dialate.
Now, it's true that we don't have the use of ideal emitters and
ideal receivers. But nonetheless, we can use other apparatus. There
is some error in our measurements. "That there is a lower limit to
this error merely asserts that our intellects are more delicate than
our physical apparatus." Thus, we can say, with small uncertainty,
that anyone who watches the above thought-experiment will measure the
same amount of "measured time" to elapse.
If the speed of light is a constant because there is some
intrinsic property of our observations that make time dialate and
length contract then we can clearly see a problem; we've seen above
that with small uncertainty the time of the event is the same wherever
you are (so long as you are using reliable instruments), and so, time
*shouldn't* appear to dialate.
Moreover, this "effect" is "not understood or described" by any
physics theories; without an explanation of what the effect is or how
it's derived it is likely - by Occam's razor - that there actually
isn't an effect to begin with.
---------------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS:
Above, we tried to maintain the speed of light as a constant by
having time dialate and/or length contract. However, in our attempts
we found that when we had time dialate and length contract we ran into
problems and contradictions and so, it is likely that the speed of
light is not constant.
---------------------------------------
WHY DOES TIME DIALATE?:
We have seen above that time cannot dialate and length cannot
contract such that the speed of light can be maintained a constant.
Now, I have never seen a physical experiment that shows that "measured
length" contracts. However, there have been physical experiments that
demonstrate that "measured time" dialates. (But notice that the fact
that "measured time" dialates does not in this case maintain the speed
of light as a constant.) For example, it has been shown that muons
observed coming from space have the time of their half-lives
dialated. Why?:
· Perhaps the "real acceleration" of the muon as it approaches the
Earth causes time to dialate. This means that anything experiencing a
"real acceleration" will have their "measured time" dialate. Notice
that in this case we do not need to invent an "absolute frame".
· Perhaps our observation of the muon *causes* time to dialate. The
fact that the halflife dialates is directly because we made the
*measurement* of the muons velocity. It is the *act* of making the
measurement which causes time to dialate. This means that if we
*measure* the velocity of any particle then the time for that particle
will dialate according to the observed velocity. Now, we've never
observed that measuring the velocity of a train causes time to dialate
for the humans on the train; afterall, the velocity of the train can
be anything depending on your frame and so that means that time can
dialate by any factor. So, why doesn't this work with humans and
trains which are, afterall, just large conglomerates of particles?
Now, quantum mechanics describes the "small" world (things like
muons), but not the "big" world (things like humans and trains). So,
perhaps the dialation of time is like some kind of wierd "quantum
effect". Notice that in this case we do not need to invent an
"absolute frame".
Physical experiments need to be done to know why "measured time"
appears to dialate.
---------------------------------------
"SPEED OF LIGHT" EXPERIMENT:
We will now discuss the famous "Train" thought-experiment
Einstein used to show that events which are simultaneous with
reference to one frame are not simultaneous with respect to another
frame. We are discussing it here as a method to determine whether the
speed of light is constant for everyone.
There is a train passing by an embankment. The length of the
train is "2L". There is someone standing in the middle of the train;
let that person be called the "insider". There is also someone
standing on the embankment across the "insider"; let that person be
called the "outsider". The train is moving forward with a velocity
relative to the embankment.
Now, two flashes of light strike the tracks simultaneously, one
at the back of the train, the other at the front of the train.
---> DIAGRAM OF "TRAIN" THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT
|
|
| train __
| ||
| \/
| _______________________
| * | I | *
| FL * ------------------------- * FL --> forward
| * Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø *
|---------------------------------------------
| O
| /\
| embankment __||
|
|
| · where "I" is the "insider"
| "O" is the "outsider"
| "FL" is a flash of light
\_________________________________
Both the "outsider" and the "insider" will see both flashes of
light traverse the *same* distance "L".
If the events appear to be simultaneous then it takes
*equivalent* times for both flashes to cover the *same* distance "L";
this can only happen when the speed of light is *constant*.
We can also reverse that fact: If the events do not appear to be
simultaneous then it takes *different* times for both flashes to
traverse the *same* distance "L"; and this can only happen when the
speed of light is *different*.
So, if light travels at a constant speed for all frames then the
"outsider" and "insider" should *both* observe the events to appear to
be simultaneous!
We should conduct this experiment in reality. To conduct this
experiment we'd have to consider three cases; one, when the source of
flashes are at rest with the "outsider", the other, when the source of
flashes are at rest with the "insider", the third, when the source of
flashes are not at rest with the "insider" or the "outsider". And so,
if the "outsider" or "insider" do not see the events to appear to be
simulataneous then we can conclude that the speed of light is not
constant for everyone!
---------------------------------------
REMARKS:
Now, Einstein claimed many many years ago that the speed of light
is a constant in all frames. Why hasn't anybody checked this?!?! We
should do many experiments, some on Earth, some in space, some in
inertial frames, some in accelerated frames. We should observe the
distance the light traverses and the time elasped from many different
frames, and see if the speed of light is constant for everyone!!!
And we should not be satisfied with thought-experiments; we must
conduct real physical experiments to verify the integrity thought-
experiements!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-E) Outsider System vs. Insider System-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION:
For convience sake let us make the following defenitions:
· An "Outsider System" is true when all observers *outside* a frame
measure the speed of light which emanates from a source *inside* the
frame to be the constant "c".
· An "Insider System" is true when all observers *inside* a frame
measure the speed of light which emanates from a source *inside* the
frame to be the constant "c".
Now, for Postulate #2 to be true all observers *inside* a frame
should agree with all observers *outside* the frame that the speed of
light coming from a source *inside* the frame is the constant "c";
that is, the "Outsider System" should be compatible with the "Insider
System".
We will be analyzing two situations. We will first consider both
situations assuming that the "Outsider System" is true. Then we will
consider both situations assuming that the "Insider System" is true.
compatible with the "Insider System", that is, the speed of light isFrom this we hope to determine whether the "Outsider System" is
the constant "c" for everyone.
These situations we will be analyzing are thought-experiments.
They should be tested out in reality by physical experiments to verify
their integrity.
We saw above that time cannot dialate and length cannot contract
such that the speed of light is maintained a constant. So, we will
use Galilean transformations here instead of Lorentz transformations.
Nonetheless, we know from physical experiments that "measured time"
does dialate. At this point we do not know why; more physical
experiments need to be done. So, in this section we will say that
"measured time" doesn't dialate; by the nature of our thought-
experiements you will find that this premise should not affect our
conclusions.
We will call the person outside the frame the "outsider" while
the person inside the frame, on the space ship, will be the "insider".
Here we go!
---------------------------------------
SITUATION #1: (assuming "Outsider System" is correct)
On the space ship is a SD device secured such that the source is
at the back of the space ship and the detector is at the front.
Now, to start off the space ship is at rest with the
"outsider".
It is the "insider's" job to start the SD device when we decide
to do the experiment. Let the "insider" start the experiment.
The "outsider" will say he saw light traverse a distance "L" in a
time "t". Also, since we are using an "Outsider System" he will say
that the speed of light is "c". Thus, the "outsider" will say that:
L = ct
Now, the "insider" will also say that he saw a flash of light
travel a distance "L" in a time of "t". Thus, the "insider" will also
say that the light was travelling at a speed of "L/t". From the above
equation we can say that "L/t" equals "c" and so the "insider" will
agree with the "outsider" that the speed of light was "c".
Now, let's accelerate this space ship forward so that it ends up
with a speed of "v" relative to the "outsider". The velocity "v" is
perpendicular to the line of sight of the "outsider". Let's have the
"insider" do the experment once more. (Diagram A)
(A) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| ct
| |--------------------------|
|
| |··················|·······| forward -->
|
| |------------------|-------|
| L vt
\_________________________________
Notice that this round it will take more time for the light to be
detected. This is because the ship is moving forward, and so, the
front of the ship will have moved forward by a factor of "vt" before
the flash of light could reach the detector. So this time the
"outsider" will say that he saw a flash of light travelling at a speed
of "c" traverse a distance "L+vt" in a time of "t". Thus, we arrive
at the following equation:
L + vt = ct
Again, the "insider" will say that he saw a flash of light travel
a distance "L" in a time of "t". Thus, the "insider" will say that
the light was travelling at a speed of "L/t". From the above equation
we can say that "L/t" equals "c-v" and so the "insider" will not agree
with the "outsider" that the speed of light was "c"; he will say that
the speed of the flash of light was "c-v". Thus, when we use an
"Outsider System" somebody inside the frame where the source of the
light is might not agree with someone outside the frame that the speed
of light is the constant "c".
But notice that the above equation can be solved for "v"!:
v = c - L/t
So far we have said that "v" is the relative velocity of the
"outsider" and the space ship. But we have a little problem. The
"insider" will measure the time elasped during the experiment to be
some "fixed value". This fixed value has nothing to do with the
relative velocity of the "outsider" and the space ship! Even though
the above equation is what the "outsider" observes, the "insider" can
conduct the experiment on his own and thus get a value for "t" without
any aid or reference to the "outsider"! Thus, using that value of "t"
the "insider" can figure out the value of "v" using the above
equation! Now, what exactly is this velocity relative to? It must be
a velocity that is measured relative to some "absolute frame of
reference"!
Put another way: You can be alone on the space ship and conduct
this experiment and get a unique value for the change in time. Now,
"L" and "c" are constants, so we must conclude that "v" is also
unique. That is, a unique value of "t" corresponds to a unique value
of "v". Now, what is a "unique" velocity? It must be a velocity
measured from some "absolute frame".
And since we said above that "v" is the relative velocity of the
"outsider" and the space ship then we must notice that we have
inadvertently put the "outsider" at rest with the "absolute frame of
reference".
(From now on I will refer to a velocity measured relative to the
"absolute frame" as an "absolute velocity". In the previous section
we introduced the term "real acceleration". Perhaps instead of using
the term "absolute velocity" we should use the term "real velocity".
Which term we use to indicate a velocity measured relative to the
"absolute frame" is up for debate.)
And so we have just proved that the first postulate is wrong!
Look! We have distinguished one inertial frame from the others!
We've derived an equation that determines the velocity of the ship
relative to an "absolute frame".
Now, let's accelerate this space ship backward so that it ends up
with a speed of "v" relative to the "outsider". The velocity "v" is
perpendicular to the line of sight of the "outsider". Let's have the
"insider" do the experment once more. (Diagram B)
(B) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| ct
| |----------|
|
| |··········| forward -->
|
| |-------|
| vt
| |------------------|
| L
\_________________________________
Notice that this round it will take less time for the light to be
detected. This is because the ship is moving backward, and so, the
front of the ship will have moved backward by a factor of "vt" before
the flash of light could reach the detector. So this time the
"outsider" will say that he saw a flash of light travelling at a speed
of "c" traverse a distance "L-vt" in a time of "t". Thus, we arrive
at the following equation:
L - vt = ct
Again, the "insider" will say that he saw a flash of light travel
a distance "L" in a time of "t". Thus, the "insider" will say that
the light was travelling at a speed of "c+v". Thus, when we use an
"Outsider System" somebody inside the frame where the source of the
light is might not agree with someone outside the frame that the speed
of light is the constant "c".
Again, we can determine the "absolute velocity" of the ship:
v = L/t - c
Again, we have inadvertently put the "outsider" at rest with the
"absolute frame".
Now let's consider an "outsider" that is travelling at a speed of
"u" relative to the "absolute frame". If the "outsider's" velocity is
in forward direction of the space ship then the "outsider" will say
the light travelled at a speed of "c-u". Now, if the "outsider's"
velocity is in the backward direction of the space ship then he will
say he saw light travel at the speed of "c+u". Thus in this case only
the "outsider" at rest with the "absolute frame" will measure the
speed of light to be the constant "c".
---------------------------------------
ADDING TO DEFINITIONS:
Now, we need to add to the definition above of the "Outsider
System" and the "Insider System" because they are incomplete. We
avoided mentioning this before to avoid confusion: Sometimes light
will appear to move from the source in a straight line only from one
particular frame; all other frames will see the light "bend".
Einstein claims that the speed of light is constant. However, he
never decided from which frame does the light always seem to leave the
source in a straight line. Big error. I claim here - without any
justification - that the observer who witnesses light travel at the
constant speed "c" is also the observer who always sees light travel
from the source in a straight line. I claim this because my intuition
tells me so and I will only be validated or discredited by physical
experiments.
If we are using an "Outsider System" then the direction of the
light follows the direction the source is pointing in as seen by an
"outsider". Now, all the "outsiders" are in different frames so that
they will all (usually) disagree as to what the actual direction of
the light is. Because only one "outsider" can be "right" as to what
the actual direction of the light is, we are led to the conclusion
that only one frame of reference is "right". This leads us directly
back to the idea and necessity to create an "absolute frame". This
means that (usually) only one "outsider" in a unique frame will see
light follow from the source in a "straight" line. Everyone else will
(usually) see light "bend", that is, the light will not follow from
the source in a straight line.
On the other hand, if we are using an "Insider System" then the
direction of the light follows the direction the source is pointing in
as seen by an "insider". Now, since all "insiders" are in the same
frame then they will all agree as to what the actual direction the
light is moving in. So, we have no need in this case to create an
"absolute frame". This means that only the "insiders" will always see
light follow from the source in a "straight" line. Everyone else
("outsiders") will (usually) see light "bend", that is, the light will
not follow from the source in a straight line.
The reason why we could leave these points out of the definitions
before is because in Situation #1 all "outsiders" and all "insiders"
will agree as to what the direction the light is heading in; this is
not always the case as Situation #2 will demonstrate.
---------------------------------------
SITUATION #2: (assuming "Outsider System" is correct)
On the space ship is another SD device such that the source is
secured on the floor of the space ship and the detector is fastened
above so that it will (hopefully) register the light from the source.
To start off the space ship is at rest with the "outsider".
It is the "insider's" job to start the SD device when we decide
to do the experiment. Let the "insider" start the experiment.
The "outsider" will say he saw light traverse a distance "L" in a
time "t". Also, since we are using an "Outsider System" he will say
that the speed of light is "c". Thus, the "outsider" will say that:
L = ct
Now, the "insider" will also say that he saw a flash of light
travel a distance "L" in a time of "t". Thus, the "insider" will also
say that the light was travelling at a speed of "L/t". From the above
equation we can say that "L/t" equals "c" and so the "insider" will
agree with the "outsider" that the speed of light was "c".
Now, let's accelerate this space ship forward so that it ends up
with a speed of "v" relative to the "outsider". The velocity "v" is
perpendicular to the line of sight of the "outsider". Let's have the
"insider" do the experment once more. (Diagram C)
(C) ---> WHAT THE INSIDER SEES:
|
| vt
| ______
| · |
| · |
| · | L forward -->
| c[1+(v/c)²]^½ * t · |
| · |
| ·|
\_________________________________
Now, let's accelerate this space ship backward so that it ends up
with a speed of "v" relative to the "outsider". The velocity "v" is
perpendicular to the line of sight of the "outsider". Let's have the
"insider" do the experment once more. (Diagram D)
(D) ---> WHAT THE INSIDER SEES:
|
| ·|
| · |
| c[1+(v/c)²]^½ * t · | forward -->
| · | L
| · |
| ·_____|
| vt
\_________________________________
In both cases above, the "outsider" will see exactly what he saw
before. That is, he will see the light emanate from the source an
move upward. But while the flash of light is heading upwards towards
the detector, the space ship has moved forward or backward by a factor
of "vt". Thus, if the space ship is fast enough then it may have
moved forward or backward enough such that the flash of light might
not even hit the detector! The light may not hit the detector because
the light is travelling upwards as seen from outside the frame, not
inside. So, the "insider" will see light "bend".
Now, the light will hit the ceiling of the space ship at a
certain point. So, we can measure the length "vt" using a ruler; let
that length be "Z". We can also determine "t" using a clock. Then we
can create an equation that solves for the "absolute velocity", "v":
v = Z/t
Again, we have inadvertently put the "outsider" at rest with the
"absolute frame".
In both cases, the "insider" will say he saw light travel a
distance "((vt)²+(ct)²)^½" in a time "t". Thus, he will say he saw
light travel at the speed of "c[1+(v/c)²]^½". So, the "insider" will
measure the speed of light to be greater than or equal to the constant
"c", but never less. Thus in this case only the "outsider" at rest
with the "absolute frame" will measure the speed of light to be the
constant "c".
---------------------------------------
REMARKS:
Before we move on, it should be noted that above in Situation #1
and Situation #2 we only examined the velocity in one dimension. So,
if we are to try to actually implement the thought-experiments in real
life then one would have to consider the other dimensions of the
velocities of the spaceship and the flash of light.
---------------------------------------
NEGATIVE CONCLUSIONS: From the above, if we are to say that the
"Outsider System" is true then we are led to three inevitable negative
conclusions:
--> (1) Postulate #1 is wrong! There must be some "absolute frame"
for "v" to be relative to, and so, we have distinguished one frame
from the others.
--> (2) Postulate #2 has errors! We've used the "Outsider System"
and we've found that the original definition of the "Outsider System"
is wrong! The speed of light is only the constant "c" when it is
measured from the "absolute frame".
--> (3) When observed from inside the frame where the light source
is, the flash of light may seem to "bend", that is, it may not follow
from the source in a straight line.
---------------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS:
We have seen above that the "Outsider System" is ridden with
pitfalls. Now, many experiments have been done where the light source
and the experimenter are inside the same frame. In such experiments
the speed of light has never deviated from "c" and light has never
appeared to "bend". So with these problems it is likely that we
started with the wrong assumption.
So instead let us now assume that the "Insider System" is right
and redo the thought-experiments.
---------------------------------------
SITUATION #1: (assuming "Insider System" is correct)
On the space ship is a SD device secured such that the source is
at the back of the space ship and the detector is at the front.
Now, to start off the space ship is at rest with the
"outsider".
It is the "insider's" job to start the SD device when we decide
to do the experiment. Let the "insider" start the experiment.
The "insider" will see the light traverse a distance "L" in a
time "t". Also, since we are using an "Insider System" the "insider"
will say the light travelled at the speed of "c". So,
L = ct
Now let's consider an "outsider" that is travelling at a speed of
"v" relative to the space ship. The velocity "v" is perpendicular to
the line of sight of the "insider". Let the "insider" do the
experiment once more.
The "insider" will again see light traverse a distance "L" in a
time "t". In fact, the "insider" will *always* observe the same thing
because we are using an "Insider System", which means that the speed
of light is always constant within the frame.
If the "outsider's" velocity is in the forward direction of the
space ship, the front of the ship will have seemed to move backward by
a factor of "vt" before the flash of light could reach the detector.
So, the "outsider" will see the light traverse a distance "L-vt" in a
time "t". Using the above equation we can say that the "outsider"
will see the light travel at a speed of "c-v". (Diagram E)
(E) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| (c-v)t
| |----------|
|
| |··········| forward -->
|
| |-------|
| vt
| |------------------|
| L
\_________________________________
Now, if the "outsider's" velocity is in the backward direction of
the space ship, the front of the ship will have seemed to move forward
by a factor of "vt" before the flash of light could reach the
detector. So, the "outsider" will see the light traverse a distance "L
+vt" in a time "t". Thus, he will then say he saw light travel at the
speed of "c+v". (Diagram F)
(F) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| (c+v)t
| |--------------------------|
|
| |··················|·······| forward -->
|
| |------------------|-------|
| L vt
\_________________________________
This means that someone outside the frame will not agree with the
"insider" that the speed of light is the constant "c"!
---------------------------------------
SITUATION #2: (assuming "Insider System" is correct)
On the space ship is another SD device such that the source is
secured on the floor of the space ship and the detector is fastened
above so that it will (hopefully) register the light from the source.
Now, to start off the space ship is at rest with the
"outsider".
It is the "insider's" job to start the SD device when we decide
to do the experiment. Let the "insider" start the experiment.
The "insider" will see the light traverse a distance "L" in a
time "t". Also, since we are using an "Insider System" the "insider"
will say the light travelled at the speed of "c". So,
L = ct
Now let's consider an "outsider" that is travelling at a speed of
"v" relative to the space ship. The velocity "v" is perpendicular to
the line of sight of the "insider". Let the "insider" do the
experiment once more.
The "insider" will again see light traverse a distance "L" in a
time "t". In fact, the "insider" will *always* observe the same thing
because we are using an "Insider System", which means that the speed
of light is always constant within the frame.
The "outsider" will see the light "bend" because the light is
travelling upwards in a straight line as seen from inside the frame,
not outside.
If the "outsider's" velocity is in the forward direction of the
space ship, the "outsider" will see the light traverse a distance "(L²+
(vt)²)^½" in a time "t". (Diagram G)
(G) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| vt
| ______
| · |
| · |
| · | L forward -->
| c[1+(v/c)²]^½ * t · |
| · |
| ·|
\_________________________________
If the "outsider's" velocity is in the backward direction of the
space ship, the "outsider" will see the light traverse a distance "(L²+
(vt)²)^½" in a time "t" (again). (Diagram H)
(H) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| ·|
| · |
| c[1+(v/c)²]^½ * t · | forward -->
| · | L
| · |
| ·_____|
| vt
\_________________________________
Both observations above are symetrical. Thus, we find that the
"outsider" will measure the speed of light to be "c[1+(v/c)²]^½".
This means that someone outside the frame will not agree with the
"insider" that the speed of light is the constant "c"!
---------------------------------------
NEGATIVE CONCLUSIONS: From the above, if we are to say that the
"Insider System" is true then we are led to one inevitable negative
conclusion:
--> (1) Postulate #2 has errors! We've used the "Insider System"
and we've found that the speed of light is the constant "c" only when
measured from inside the frame where the light source is.
---------------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS:
Notice that two negative conclusions from when we considered the
"Outsider System" have gone!: (1) We no longer need to "create" an
"absolute frame" and (2) light does not seem to "bend" when the source
and the observer are in the same frame.
So, comparing the conclusions we find that it is likely that the
"Insider System" is correct, not the "Outsider System".
To recap, when we use the "Outsider System" then light travels at
the constant "c" from the "absolute frame" but not "c" from all other
frames. When we use the "Insider System" then light travels at the
constant "c" from inside the frame but not "c" from all other frames.
Thus, we can conclude that the "Outsider System" is incompatible with
the "Insider System". Postulate #2 is wrong no matter which way you
look at it! Either the "Outsider System" is right or the "Insider
System" is right, not both! The "Outsider System" means that the
speed of light does not depend on the motion of the source while the
"Insider System" means that the speed of light does depend on the
motion of the source; contradiction ensues.
---------------------------------------
ASIDE:
If we are to assume that light travels abiding by an "Insider
System" then that means that the speed of light depends on the motion
of the source. This means that if two objects are heading *away* from
each other such that the relative velocity of two objects is greater
than "c" then the light from one object will never reach the other.
Also, by the Doppler effect the frequency of the light would be an
imaginary number. Now, we know that the universe is expanding so it
is likely that our planet Earth has a relative velocity greater than
"c" with many of the objects in the universe. Perhaps that is why we
cannot see dark matter.. And what happens when the relative velocity
is greater than "c" when the two objects are heading *towards* each
other?! Again, the frequency of the light will be an imaginary
number.. So, is the Doppler effect right?..
---------------------------------------
"OUTSIDER SYSTEM VS. INSIDER SYSTEM" EXPERIMENT:
We can create a simple experiment to determine (at last!) if
light travels using an "Outsider System" or an "Insider System".
We start with two sources, Source A and Source B, and two
detectors, Detector A and Detector B. Source A is pointing at
Detector A and Source B is pointing at Detector B. Both detectors are
side-by-side. Source A is on the ground a fair distance away from
Detector A. Source B is on a train quite far behind Source A.
The idea of the experiment is to let the train (which has Source
B) accelerate towards Detector B. When Source B reaches Source A
(which is on the ground) both sources emit a flash of light. Both
flashes of light will traverse the same distance to reach the
detectors. We just have to see which flash of light gets recorded by
the detectors first and draw our conclusions from there! I predict
that Detector B will register the light first, and so the "Insider
System" will be validated. If Detector A and Detector B register the
light from the sources at the same time then the "Outsider System" is
validated.
Very simple idea. I wonder why I have never heard of such an
experiment being performed..
If the "Outsider System" is validated then we run into
difficulties. For instance, we can put Source B at the back of the
train and Detector B at the front of the train. Let "L" be the
distance between the source and the detector. Then we can redo the
experiment and measure the time "t" (using a clock) it takes for the
light to go from Source B to Detector B.
Now, if you were a person on the train you'd expect that "t"
would be a constant; this is not so. When the train is stationary
then the light traverses a distance "L" with a speed "c"; when the
train is moving (with velocity "v") then the light traverses a
distance "L+vt" with a speed "c". Thus, when the train is stationary
the time it takes to conduct the experiment is "L/c" while when the
train is moving it takes "L/(c-v)". Now, you can be alone on the
train and conduct this experiment and get a unique value for the
change in time. "L" and "c" are constants, so we must conclude that
"v" is also unique. That is, a unique value of "t" corresponds to a
unique value of "v". Now, what is a "unique" velocity? It must be a
velocity measured from some "absolute frame"..
(Again, we have inadvertently put ourselves at rest with the
"absolute frame" making the speed of light "c"; this assumption may
very well be wrong. If we are not at rest with the "absolute frame"
then the speed of light will not be "c".)
With these difficulties when we use the "Outsider System" it is
likely that light travels instead by the "Insider System", which is
why I predict it to be so above.
---------------------------------------
ASIDE:
Sound propagates through air using an "Outsider System".
Consider two people, a pilot and a co-pilot, both sitting in the
cockpit of a plane. The co-pilot is behind the pilot. The plane is
travelling faster than the speed of sound relative to the ground and
atmosphere.
Now, if the cockpit is closed then when the co-pilot says
something the sound of his voice will travel forward to the pilot.
The speed of the sound of his voice will be travelling at the speed of
sound relative to the air in the cockpit.
However, if the cockpit is open and the co-pilot says something
the sound of his voice will *not* travel forward to the pilot. The
speed of the sound of his voice will be travelling at the speed of
sound relative to the air of the atmosphere. But since the plane is
travelling faster than the speed of sound relative to the atmosphere,
the co-pilot's voice will not be heard by the pilot.
*(I am interested in knowing how open the cockpit can be such
that the pilot still hears the co-pilot's voice.)*
Notice that if the cockpit is open then we can determine the
velocity of the plane relative to the atmosphere as we did above with
light. The velocity is zero when the plane is stationary with the
atmosphere, the atmosphere being the medium through which sound
propagates through.
Thus, if we are to say that the "Outsider System" for light is
true, then we can say that when the space ship's "absolute velocity"
is zero then it is stationary with the "ether", the medium through
which light (supposedly) propagates through. If the "Insider System"
for light is true then we don't really need to introduce an "ether".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-F) Understanding the Michelson-Morley Experiment=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION:
My experiment is different from Michelson-Morley's setup but it
essentially demonstrates the same thing.
We will have two SMD devices, "SMD X" and "SMD Y", and we will do
this experiment on the equator of the Earth. "SMD X" is set up
parallel to the equator while "SMD Y" is set up perpendicular to the
equator. "SMD X" has the source/detector west and the mirror east
while "SMD Y" has the source/detector south and the mirror north.
And there are two people, an "insider" and an "outsider". The
"insider" is on the ground next to the two SMD devices. The
"outsider" is in a space ship above the Earth such that he observes
the SMD devices to be directly below him every 24 hours; so, the
"outsider" will see the Earth rotating at a velocity of "3*10^4"
meters per second.
We assume here that the "insider" and the SMD devices are at
rest; this is not so. The Earth is accelerating by rotating. But, if
we conduct the experiment quickly, then we can dismiss the fact that
the Earth is rotating.
(ASIDE: I define perpetual motion as motion that continually
causes a change in inertial frame without any external forces. An
"ideal" planet in rotation is in perpetual motion. If you are
attached to the planet you will be constantly changing inertial frames
of reference as the planet rotates. If the planet is "ideal" then the
planet will continue to rotate forever, thus making the motion
perpetual. It rotates forever because the force that causes the
rotation is the force that causes the rotation, which is the force
that causes the rotation.. you get the point. Once a force has been
applied to make it rotate, it will continue to rotate forever.)
In the experiment done by Michelson and Morley, they themselves
were the "insiders", and there was no "outsider".
The Michelson-Morley experiment attempts to find the Earth's
speed relative to the ether by observing a fringe shift in the
interference pattern of two beams of light. The fact that the
experiment fails is because there is no ether.
In this experiment we are not finding "fringe shifts"; we are
looking for a "time discreptancy" in the times of both SMD devices.
But if there is a time discreptancy then that implies that in a
Michelson Interferometer we should expect to find a fringe shift.
Now, when you look at both SMD devices then you will see light
traverse a different distance based on your frame. Everyone will
agree to that. When we add to that the assumption that the speed of
light is constant in all frames then you expect to find that "derived
time" dialates. And because "derived time" dialates then you'd expect
to find a time discreptancy which implies that the Michelson-Morley
experiment should work, that is, we should see a fringe shift in the
Michelson Interferometer.
I will show that (1) when we assume that the speed of light is
always "c" then we encounter a contradiction and (2) when we assume
that light abides by an "Insider System" then we understand why we get
a "null" result.
Now, let's do the experiment; let's activate the SMD devices.
---------------------------------------
FOR "SMD X" and "SMD Y": (for the "insider")
Now the speed of light from the "insider's" view is "c"; either
we assume that the speed is "c" because it is so in all frames or we
infer that the value is "c" because we are using an "Insider System".
For both SMD devices the "insider" will say he saw the light traverse
a distance "L" twice. So, if "t" is the total time it takes for the
light in both SMD devices to go from the source, to the mirror, and
back to the detector, then:
t = 2L/c
So, the "insider" will not observe a time discreptancy. And so,
when using a Michelson Interferometer the "insider" will not see a
fringe shift because the time elasped for both SMD devices is equal.
---------------------------------------
DEFINING VARIABLES:
The "outsider", on the other hand sees the experiment
differently.
As observed by the "outsider":
In "SMD X":
· let a time "tX1" pass as the light moves from the source to the
mirror
· let a time "tX2" pass as the light moves from the mirror to the
detector
In "SMD Y":
· let a time "tY1" pass as the light moves from the source to the
mirror
· let a time "tY2" pass as the light moves from the mirror to the
detector
Also,
tX = tX1 + tX2
tY = tY1 + tY2
We will derive two values of each: "tX1", "tX2", "tY1", and
"tY2"; the first by assuming that Postulate #2 is correct, the second
by assuming that the "Insider System" is right.
When we are deriving the time variables for the "Insider System"
we need to know the velocity of the light; one needs only refer to the
two situations in the section "Outsider System vs. Insider System"
where we assumed that the "Insider System" is right.
---------------------------------------
FOR "SMD X": (for the "outsider")
When the light is travelling towards the mirror the "outsider"
sees the light traversing a distance "L+vt" in a time "tX1". (Diagram
A)
· if the speed of light is "c" (by Postulate #2)
then "tX1 = L/(c-v)"
· if the speed of light is "c+v" (by "Insider System")
then "tX1 = L/c"
(A) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| (c+v)tX1 or ctX1
| |--------------------------|
|
| |··················|·······| East -->
|
| |------------------|-------|
| L vtX1
\_________________________________
When the light is returning back to the detector the "outsider"
sees the light traversing a distance "L-vt" in a time "tX2". (Diagram
B)
· if the speed of light is "c" (by Postulate #2)
then "tX2 = L/(c+v)"
· if the speed of light is "c-v" (by "Insider System")
then "tX2 = L/c"
(B) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| (c-v)tX2 or ctX2
| |----------|
|
| |··········| East -->
|
| |-------|
| vtX2
| |------------------|
| L
\_________________________________
---------------------------------------
FOR "SMD Y": (for the "outsider")
When the light is travelling towards the mirror the "outsider"
sees the light traversing a distance "[L²+(vt)²]^½" in a time "tY1".
(Diagram C)
(C) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| ·|
| · |
| c[1+(v/c)²]^½ * tY1 · | L East -->
| or c * tY1 · |
| · |
| ·_____|
| vt
\_________________________________
When the light is returning back to the detector the "outsider"
sees the light traversing a distance "[L²+(vt)²]^½" (again) in a time
"tY2". (Diagram D)
(D) ---> WHAT THE OUTSIDER SEES:
|
| |·
| | ·
| | · c[1+(v/c)²]^½ * tY2 East -->
| L | · or c * tY2
| | ·
| |_____·
| vt
\_________________________________
So, for both cases above:
· if the speed of light is "c" (by Postulate #2)
then "tY1 = tY2 = L/c * 1/[1-(v/c)²]^½"
· if the speed of light is "c[1+(v/c)²]^½" (by "Insider System")
then "tY1 = tY2 = L/c"
---------------------------------------
ASSUMING POSTULATE #2 IS CORRECT:
tX = tX1 + tX2 = L/(c-v) + L/(c+v)
= 2L/c * 1/[1-(v/c)²]
tY = tY1 + tY2 = (L/c * 1/[1-(v/c)²]^½) + (L/c * 1/[1-(v/c)²]^½)
= 2L/c * 1/[1-(v/c)²]^½
tX-tY = (2L/c * 1/[1-(v/c)²]) - (2L/c * 1/[1-(v/c)²]^½)
= 2L/c * {1/[1-(v/c)²] - 1/[1-(v/c)²]^½}
When we assume that the speed of light is always the constant "c"
then the "outsider" observes a time discreptancy in both SMD devices.
This implies that using a Michelson Interferometer the "outsider" will
see a fringe shift.
---------------------------------------
ASSUMING INSIDER SYSTEM IS CORRECT:
tX = tX1 + tX2 = L/c + L/c
= 2L/c
tY = tY1 + tY2 = L/c + L/c= 2L/c
tX-tY = 2L/c - 2L/c
= 0
When we assume that the "Insider System" is right the "outsider"
no longer expects to find a time discreptancy. This means that in a
Michelson Interferometer, if we abide by an "Insider System", the
"outsider" will not see a fringe shift.
---------------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS:
The truth is that the fringe shift doesn't exist, as demonstrated
by physical experiments. And so, we can conclude that there is no
ether. Now, when we assume that the speed of light is "c" in all
frames then we find that the "insider" does not observe a time
discreptancy while the "outsider" does. This means that in a
Michelson Interferometer the "insider" does not see a fringe shift
while the "outsider" does. So, one of them is wrong because either
the fringe shift exists or it doesn't; they can't both be right. Of
course, we know that it doesn't exist. But with this contradiction we
can conclude that the speed of light cannot be constant in all
frames. And so, when we don't see a fringe shift then the Michelson-
Morley experiment gets a "null" result. But when we assume the
"Insider System" is right for light then we see why we get a "null"
result.
Michelson and Morley expected to find a difference in the speed
of the flashes of light. The fact that they didn't implies that the
speed of light is a constant for the "insider". The experiment says
nothing about how an "outsider" would view the situation. Now,
Einstein's second postulate claims that the speed of light is constant
for the "insider" *and* the "outsider". Claiming that the "outsider"
views the speed of light as a constant is totally unjustified. And,
as we've seen above, the "outsider" cannot view the speed of light as
being constant; when he does, we encounter a contradiction. So,
Postulate #2 goes to the garbage and the "Insider System" is
validated.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-G) The Finale-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------
Until more experiments are performed this paper leaves physics in
a puddle of mud. In getting out of this puddle we may have to check
many things like the following:
· whether velocity and acceleration are relative
· whether there is an "absolute frame"
· the Doppler effect for light
· why time seems to dialate
· does light propogate using an "Insider System" or an "Outsider
System"
---------------------------------------
When you discount all the major pitfalls of Special Relativity -
and there are many - it turns out to be a very beautiful theory. I
believe that that is the main reason why the average physicist
believes that Special Relativity is a coherent theory. But watching
someone who is explaining Special Relativity is like watching a good
salesman try to sell a bad vacuum.
Or put more bluntly, as a certain "Mike" put it on the usenet
newsgroup "sci.physics.relativity":
"Relativists are cranks because they deny the immediately given. they
are also ad hominen animals, just watch how many of them will turn ad
hominen because of this post. they are so ad hominen, they do not even
get a job at MacDonalds and lurk in the usenet 24/7." hahahaha...
---------------------------------------
· A great but short book which I have often consulted identifies the
various failures of Special Relativity. I quoted it:
"The Special Theory of Relativity" by Essen, L.
· I have quoted this book:
"A Debate on the Theory of Relativity" by Professor W. D.
MacMillan.
· Ardeshir Mehta has come up with many clever thought-experiments
which debunk Special Relativity:
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Relativity.html
There must be many other people who have come to the same
conclusions I have here. The faults of Special Relativity are too
obvious.
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| THE END! -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
by Raheman Velji
blochee@xxxxxxxx
rahemanvelji@xxxxxxxxx
March 16, 2007
you can also view this paper (and updated versions) at...
...http://www.angelfire.com/un/rv
...http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/rahemanvelji
! ! ! BEWARE OF THE ILLUMINATI ! ! !
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hey Peck
- Next by Date: Re: Hey Peck
- Previous by thread: It's 70 Degrees Outside Today
- Next by thread: <Bizarro Trijcomm> it's 99 degrees in Phoenix today.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
