RELATIVITY   
AND
PHYSICS     1
www.erichaubert.com
INDEX
The original concept of Relativity was used by Galileo, in his
comparison of the Earth-centered system of Aristotle versus the
Sun-centered system of Copernicus.

In 1632, Galileo published his "Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems."

See the entire text, translated into English, at:

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

The old belief is that the Earth stays still, while the sky moves
around it. Even today, we speak of "sunrise" and "sunset," and
we track the movements of objects around the Earth, as if it
were the Earth that stays still.  The Earth is our "local frame of
reference," but the BIG PICTURE requires a different center, or
perhaps no center at all.

The new belief is that the Sun and stars stay still (basically),
while the Earth moves around the Sun, as do the other planets.
(Only the Moon moves around the Earth).

If the Earth is moving so fast, then why do we have times when
there is no wind.  Shouldn't it be very windy outside ALL THE
TIME ?

There is a song by Neil Young called "Comes a Time."  He
says, (the way) "this old world keeps spinning 'round, it's a
wonder tall trees ain't laying down."

While today we speak of spacecraft and starships, in the olden
days they didn't have such things, even in fiction.  Einstein
talked about TRAINS, and Galileo talked about BOATS, (or
SHIPS),  when they had a point to make.

If you are sitting inside of a very smooth-riding ship,  train, car
(automobile) or airplane, you won't feel like you are moving AT
ALL.  You can only tell you are moving if you look outside and
see movement, and even then you might not be sure if it is you
or the scenery that is being moved.

You can tell you are moving when the vehicle is speeding up or
slowing down, or when it is turning, or when it is moving back
and forth because of some "turbulence."  But if you are moving
in a completely straight line, with no turbulence, and you can't
see outside, you might FEEL that you are not moving AT ALL.

EINSTEIN'S first famous article on Relativity is called "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (About Electromagnetism
and Moving Objects).  This was published in 1905.  See the
entire text (in the English translation), at:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

He begins with an observation about electrical generators. A
wire (that is, a coil of wire), can be made to move within a
magnetic field, generating electricity.  Likewise, we could keep
the coil of wire completely still, and move the magnets.  We
could achieve the same result in terms of generating  electricity,
and it doesn't matter whether it is the wire or the magnet that is
moving.  What matters is the RELATIVE motion of the system.

Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are able to  DERIVE
the speed of light, -- that is, the speed of electromagnetic
waves, -- in "free space."

It had been the belief that EMPTY SPACE provides a type of
fluid through which these waves travel.  Water waves travel
through water.  Sound waves travel through the air (usually).
So, we would assume that light waves must have some kind of
medium through which to travel.

This concept of the "luminiferous ether" has been discredited,
although we may see it again in some other form. In any case,
the  concept of  an "absolute space" has been discredited.

Maxwell's equations derive the speed of light (electromagnetic
waves) from measured constants related to electricity and
magnetism.  This number can be compared to direct
measurements of the speed of visible light.

The speed of light is known today by the letter "
c" because it is
a CONSTANT.  The speed of light is considered to be, perhaps,
the most fundamental constant of all, against which everything
else is to be measured.

Einstein asked what would happen if an object were to travel
exactly AT the speed of light, parallel to a light beam. What
would happen if you traveled FASTER than light, or JUST
BELOW the speed of light ?

This is what he set out to investigate.

Anything that APPEARS TO BE  traveling "faster than light" is
said to have a "superluminal velocity." Is such a thing
POSSIBLE ?

Actually, it IS possible, and yet it is NOT possible to travel
"faster than light." Our measurements and calculations might
determine a speed to be "faster than light."

For example, a hypothetical starship might travel to a star that
is 20 light-years away, and it could get there in 10 years. Then
it returns, taking another 10 years to cover a distance of 20
light-years.

This is what is known as the
TWIN PARADOX. A traveling twin
would return and be YOUNGER than the stay-at-home twin. A
distance of 20 light-years each way means that 40 years could
be LOST. The stay-at-home twin could be 40 years older than
the traveling twin, because of the distance traveled in
"spacetime."

(It isn't really THAT simple, but this is a good way to figure it for
a first approximation. See
TIME DILATION AND THE
PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM
).

Speed is distance divided by time, but the CONSTANT factor in
our calculations is "the speed of light."   Distance and time are
NOT constant, but must be adjusted to keep "the speed of
light" constant.

*
There are some men with physics degrees who have published
books denying the reality of the
TWIN PARADOX.

One of these is Professor Dingle; (Herbert DIngle).

One of the best books on Relativity that I have found is called
"ABOUT TIME: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" by Paul
Davies (1995). He devotes a lot of space to refuting Dingle's
"refutation."
"In 1972, Dingle published an
anguished and caustic attack on
belief in the time-dilation effect in
particular, and the duplicity of the
scientific establishment in general,
in a book entitled '
Science at the
Crossroads
,' devoted entirely to
rubbishing Einstein's time"
(descriptions).

See page 56 of "About Time" by
Paul Davies.
We talk about the time-dilation effect as it relates to high speed
(near the "speed of light"), but this overcomplicates the matter.
Rather than looking at the SPEED, we should be looking at the
DISTANCE.

TIME DILATION can be readily understood by considering the
DISTANCE traveled, whether that distance is to and from some
distant location in space, or around and around the track of a
synchrotron particle accelerator.  

Time dilation is proved every day in the laboratory, but these
"Star Trek" voyages might not occur for thousands of years.
And even when travel to other star systems becomes a
possibility, it won't be like
Star Trek, because Star Trek ignores
the effects of time-dilation.

A physical object traveling through space should be interpreted
as a "
FAT LIGHT BEAM."  All physical objects are ultimately
comparable to electromagnetic phenomena (such as with the
famous formula "E equals emcee squared").
 
E=mc²

A spacecraft, a person, or a clock, which is traveling a great
distance, must be viewed as a "
FAT LIGHT BEAM," in the
sense that they will LOSE TIME, in much the same way as a
light beam would do.

Even though they are traveling much slower than the speed of
light, (and mass must ALWAYS be slower than light), it is still
the case that mass is MADE FROM LIGHT. Mass is a form of
light that travels around in tight circles. When MASS travels,
LIGHT ALSO travels, since light is the building block of mass.
Therefore, mass loses time when it travels, just as light does.

A SIGNAL sent from point "A" to point "B" must be DELAYED
because the speed of light is finite. Just as a CONVERSATION
with a reporter half-way around the world must suffer a
time-delay, the reporter must return home a fraction of a
second YOUNGER.

NOTE that a signal which travels through geosynchronous
satellites suffers a much larger time delay, because it travels a
much larger distance, than a telephone signal to a computer
expert in India, which travels through a cable under the ocean.

We should assume, just by "common sense," that an atomic
clock traveling with a reporter would lose time based on
DISTANCE ALONE, regardless of the speed of travel. (The
question is not so much WHETHER, but HOW MUCH time will
be lost).

This principle was tested by
HAFELE and KEATING, in 1971,
by taking atomic clocks around the world on commercial
airliners.

The time-dilation was much smaller than I would have
predicted, using my simple arithmetic, but it was the amount
predicted by the theory, using the proper mathematical
formulas. The numbers are in nanoseconds, or billionths of a
second. (See
HAFELE and  KEATING).

NOTE that a signal which travels through geosynchronous
satellites suffers a much larger time delay, because it travels a
much larger distance, than a telephone signal to a computer
expert in India, which travels through a cable under the ocean.

In any case, the concept of the "
FAT LIGHT BEAM" makes the
concept of TIME DILATION much simpler than it otherwise
would be.

(It isn't really THAT simple, but this is a good way to figure it for
a first approximation. See
TIME DILATION AND THE
PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM
).

This concept of the "
FAT LIGHT BEAM" is my own invention.

*
A few years ago, a weekly news magazine printed a story about
a deep-space probe that was confusing the experts.
(
Newsweek, October 04, 1999. Ronald Reagan is on the cover.  
The article is called "A Space Mystery").

Probes sent to Jupiter and the outer planets, and then out of
the solar system, which had been traveling for several years at
about 10 miles per second (a guess), are sending back signals
that put them at a different distance from where our
computations say they SHOULD BE  at the moment.

The spacecraft appear to be SLOWING DOWN, and nobody
knows WHY.

At the time, I was able to get a letter published in
The
Independent
, in which I suggested a different possible cause,
related to gravity (that is, General Relativity). It was not until
AFTER that letter was published that I thought of the "
FAT
LIGHT BEAM
."

The bottom line is that the spacecraft are at a different distance
from where the experts think they should be. Something is
wrong with the computations, and they are trying to figure it out.

It occurred to me that time-dilation might not be related to
SPEED alone, but also to DISTANCE.

Another possibility, however unlikely, is what we could call "the
wind resistance of empty space."

We are told that "empty space" contains about one hydrogen
atom per cubic centimeter. Whether we are talking about
merely high speeds or merely long distances, this lack of an
"absolute" vacuum amounts to WIND RESISTANCE, which
must be accounted for in the computations.

I am not very good at computations myself; and I can't be
expected to do everything by myself, in any case.

If I had a million dollars, I would hire some graduate students to
work with me in figuring out some of these things.

NOTE: All of the above-mentioned possible causes have
apparently been ruled out by the experts. See:

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/092598.html



http://www.aero.org/news/current/force.html

My best search results were obtained by looking for
"spacecraft, anderson, Laing," (after I found out from other
sources the names of the people involved).

After this search, I found that the problem is called the
"PIONEER ANOMALY."  There are also plenty of search results
under this name.

http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+anomaly

I found at least one article that said the "Pioneer Anomaly" has
something to do with the WAVELENGTH OF RADIO SIGNALS
being received from the probes.

The wavelengths are supposed to be stretched, (redshifted),
because the probes are moving away from us with some speed,
but the waves are getting shorter. This means that the waves
are not stretched as much as we think they should be.
Therefore, the probes are slowing down.
You can write to me at:
webmaster@erichaubert.com
or
erictimetraveler@yahoo.com
TRANSLATE
THIS WEBSITE
SEE MY WEBSITE TRANSLATED    by      YAHOO!   FROM ENGLISH TO:
GERMAN             DUTCH                    FRENCH               SPANISH      
PORTUGUESE    ITALIAN                   GREEK                                         
RUSSIAN             CHINESE  (SIMPLIFIED)                       JAPANESE       
                           
CHINESE (TRADITIONAL)                     KOREAN
*****************************************************************************************
SEE MY WEBSITE TRANSLATED    by    GOOGLE   FROM ENGLISH TO:
GERMAN                     FRENCH       SPANISH                 PORTUGUESE
ITALIAN
NOTE: THE NUMBERING OF THESE PAGES, AS WELL AS THE CONTENT, IS SUBJECT
TO CHANGE.  I HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE, AND THEN EDIT AS I GO.
NOTE: THE NEW YAHOO! SITEBUILDER (2.1.1) MAKES IT MUCH EASIER
TO MAKE SOME PAGE LINKS, AND MUCH HARDER TO MAKE OTHERS.
BECAUSE THE BOX DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO READ THE FULL PAGE
NAME, I AM FORCED TO INSERT THE NUMBERS AT AN AWKWARD
PLACE. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT I CAN SEE THE PAGE NUMBER TO
MAKE THE LINK.  
COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
You'll notice that, on this web site, I claim "copyright" on things I write. This is not meant to scare anyone.  
Feel free to copy and distribute anything you want, just as long you
GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.
I want to get the proper credit for whatever I write, and I want everyone else to get credit for what THEY write.
COPYRIGHT  is a very complicated legal issue, for which I would need legal representation beyond
what I can afford at the moment, in order to fully understand it or fully explain it.  In any case, a copyright
notice such as this is just a standard "boiler plate" thing you are supposed to attach to whatever you write. It
is not meant to stop ordinary people from using my work in ordinary ways, but just in case somebody thinks
they can make a million dollars off of something I wrote, without cutting ME in for "A Piece of the Action."

Everything on this web site is
COPYRIGHT         (c)         ERIC HAUBERT
                        (MASSILLON, OHIO)
unless it belongs to somebody else.   
[ Yahoo! ] options