Friday, July 15, 2011

Where Do People Conjure This Stuff Up? (3)

We continue now examining the latest whacky physics theory which purports to challenge Einstein's relativity.

We left off where our budding "theorist" began delving into a thought experiment (see diagram). He writes:

Is Space relative? (thought experiment)

This thought experiment I drew up myself. I didn’t find this somewhere on the internet. I was sitting here trying to understand the relationship between space and time. I decided to do a thought experiment.

So far, this is encouraging! He is assuring us that what he's come up with is totally original, and he didn't "find it on the internet". (Good thing, because there's bollocks in abundance on the net!) Of course, when one pursues this at more depth one must ask if this is really so, or if by some odd chance he's unknowingly tapped into a pre-existing theory!

He goes on:

The WHOLE original idea was the distance between two objects and a light source were the EXCACT same distance. One light year from the emission source to each object. Since light always travels the same speed. I used a light year for the distance and we know the speed the light is traveling at. So if both objects are 1 light year away it should take 1 light year from each perspective to see the light. I then used a time dilation effect for each mass relatively.

Of course, he doesn't elaborate on the "time dilation" effect, which is always a bugbear I have with these basement amateurs who conjure up their own theories. Thus, they toss out buzz words, but never show the mathematical working.

For example, his earlier claim (previous instalment) that the velocity u = 0 in the relativistic expression:

u = (u' + v)/ 1 + u'v/c^2

But is it? Check, using v = c (velocity of light) and u' = 0.99c - which value he assigns the moving observer.

Then: u = (0.99c + c)/ 1 + (0.99c)(c)/c^2

u = 1.99c/ 1.99c^2/c^2 = 1.99c/ 1.99 = c

So, he's flat wrong!

In this case, he's prepared to make an analogical and qualitative claim regarding the 'high mass' and 'low mass' observers in his diagram.

He continues:

Look at attached picture

So who would see the light first?
That is my main question. I used a time dilation calculator to determine the rates at which time passes; for each mass relatively to each other. The low mass is equal to the earth. Velocity and mass are different forms of the same thing.

Here we have the first major 'Gotcha!' moment, because mass and velocity are NOT "different forms of the same thing"! This is why it pays to do detailed physics in depth when you purport to come up with a new theory. Because of this major howler, ALL his further claims now become suspect and open to crankist interpretations.

Now, if he'd said energy and mass are different forms of the same thing, he'd be on much firmer ground, since by way of Einstein's famous equation:

m = E/ c^2

Also note, though he claims he uses a "time dilation calculator" he makes no mention at all of HOW he is calculating his time dilation! What is its basis? What is the relevant equation and where does it come from? Say, as I showed in a previous blog:

Anyway, let's see what more he has on offer:

So the large mass is still stationary and its mass is equivalent to .9999 the speed of light. How could light travel to the low mass observer in 1 year. But it has only been 5 light days for the high mass.

Here he compounds his original error, by asserting lower transit times for the lower mass than the larger mass. (And again, he simply inserts the 0.9999 value by fiat).

In fact, one of General Relativity's predictions is for a gravitational red shift of electro-magnetic radiation, wherein standard clocks SLOW next to larger masses! (E.g. relative to clocks far from large masses). In his example, therefore, given two equal distances of 'X' (1 LY) from large, and small masses respectively, a clock would operate more slowly near his "large mass observer" and more rapidly near the other. Thus, he has it exactly backwards.

Any EM wave has a frequency redshfit (delta f) - when propagating from a point near a large mass to a more distant point (far from large mass) equal to:

(delta f)/ f = -g L

where L is the distance and g = GM/r^2 the graviational field intensity. In his case L = X = 1 LY are equal for both masses, then:

(delta f)/ f ~ -g

So a larger (negative) frequency shift (e.g. translated to a shift to longer wavelengths or slower time) will apply to the larger mass.

Having bombed out here, he writes:

Since both objects were originally X distance from the emission point they could be put on the same side. Next to each other (as long as there masses don’t combine and the large mass alters the passage of time for the low mass). Is this experiment saying the distance between the large mass and the emission point is 73 times less distance than from the low mass to the emission point?

Actually not, it's saying the clock at the smaller mass - associated with any observer there- is going to run FASTER than any clock associated with an observer at the larger mass. We don't know how many times (factor difference) until and unless specific masses are applied.

Finally, we have his 'theory' for dark energy:


If the perceived distance between you and any object could change depending on your current mass. Shorter distances for a high mass than a low mass. Then if we were a specific mass, then loose mass distance from our perspective should appear to expand.

Again, total gobbeldegook! He doesn't even provide a principle or quantitative basis for making such a wild claim, but what can one expect when he confuses velocity and mass?

Once more with feeling:

We have approximately 30 galaxies in our local group. That could be considered our cosmological mass. All the galaxies are radiating of energy perhaps this is a contributing factor as to why space is expanding from our current perspective. Velocity is also mass so if we slow down our mass is then reduced and space would expand for us again.

Again, balderdash! He hereby fails physics 101! Velocity is not mass, and also there is no such entity as "cosmological mass" within the local group! Moreover, he makes no connection in all this aimless rambling to 'dark energy', though we are promised something.

My best advice to him? Hang on to your day job, buddy!

No comments: