In accord with the principle of identity, all motion is always one with itself thereby an absolute.
The universe is also one with itself and thereby an absolute.
Yet all motion also relative to the universe.
But what is an absolute relative to another absolute is itself a known absolute.
For example, a shoe is an absolute, and a foot is an absolute.
The shoe is an absolute relative to the foot as another absolute.
Also what is relative to another absolute, is itself an absolute.
The shoe is relative to the foot as an absolute, and thereby itself an absolute shoe.
Therefore, the shoe is itself an absolute as known from itself and as known relative to another absolute.
Likewise, a motion is an absolute from 1) itself and from 2) a relative to the absolute of the universe.
And therefore any motion is always absolute.
In special relativity theory, all motion is relative to a local observer.
Yet special relativity theory posits motion with velocity v is not one with itself as seen by another observer as modified by gamma in the transform equations.
Yet all motion is an absolute motion as shown above.
Therefore, because the SR equations remove the absolute from the nature of motion, SR theory is only a paper theory that is not realist.
Showing posts with label relativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relativity. Show all posts
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
The Problem of the Arbitrary Values of v and c in Special Relativity Theory.
Special Relativity (SR) theory posits all motion is relative motion.
Light photons move, therefore light is relative motion with a relative velocity.
Motion relative to an observer is only known relative to the observer.
Light motion of velocity c, is only known to the observer.
The observer's motion relative to light is the relative velocity v.
The observer's motion and light motion are only known relative to each other.
What is only known relative to another is not known from itself.
The observer's velocity is only known relative to light at c and is not known from itself.
Light velocity is only known relative to the observer is not known from itself.
As v and c are unknown in themselves, any relative velocity between the two velocities can be accounted for through any addition and subtraction of relative velocities.
Any such values of v and c are then never known in themselves but can be any value assigned to match the relative velocities of v and c.
Therefore the velocities of v and c are not knowable in themselves.
Therefore the assignment of numerical values to v and c are arbitrary.
Therefore the equations of SR that contain v or c are arbitrary equations.
What is arbitrary is not descriptive of the real.
For the real is natural, absolute and thereby knowable in itself, and not unknowable as related only to another as required of SR theory.
Therefore, due to the arbitrary values of v and c in the transform equations, SR theory is not realistic, and thereby false.
Discussion - SR postulates light is always at c in a vacuum, but the postulate must be linked back to the notion of relative reference frames. As c is the same value for all reference frames in a vacuum, c must be referred back to only reference frames which move at v relative to c. The assumption of relative motion entails v and c are also relative and thereby unknowable in themselves. The assignment of any numerical value to v or c must be arbitrary.
The SR transform equations that involve the use of c and v have an infinite number of solutions for any problems, for any number can be assigned to v and then have a corresponding value of c assigned to light to ensure the relative values of c and v as known through the observed c+-v. The infinite number of possible outcomes to the transform equations infers SR theory is impractical and unrealistic.
Light photons move, therefore light is relative motion with a relative velocity.
Motion relative to an observer is only known relative to the observer.
Light motion of velocity c, is only known to the observer.
The observer's motion relative to light is the relative velocity v.
The observer's motion and light motion are only known relative to each other.
What is only known relative to another is not known from itself.
The observer's velocity is only known relative to light at c and is not known from itself.
Light velocity is only known relative to the observer is not known from itself.
As v and c are unknown in themselves, any relative velocity between the two velocities can be accounted for through any addition and subtraction of relative velocities.
Any such values of v and c are then never known in themselves but can be any value assigned to match the relative velocities of v and c.
Therefore the velocities of v and c are not knowable in themselves.
Therefore the assignment of numerical values to v and c are arbitrary.
Therefore the equations of SR that contain v or c are arbitrary equations.
What is arbitrary is not descriptive of the real.
For the real is natural, absolute and thereby knowable in itself, and not unknowable as related only to another as required of SR theory.
Therefore, due to the arbitrary values of v and c in the transform equations, SR theory is not realistic, and thereby false.
Discussion - SR postulates light is always at c in a vacuum, but the postulate must be linked back to the notion of relative reference frames. As c is the same value for all reference frames in a vacuum, c must be referred back to only reference frames which move at v relative to c. The assumption of relative motion entails v and c are also relative and thereby unknowable in themselves. The assignment of any numerical value to v or c must be arbitrary.
The SR transform equations that involve the use of c and v have an infinite number of solutions for any problems, for any number can be assigned to v and then have a corresponding value of c assigned to light to ensure the relative values of c and v as known through the observed c+-v. The infinite number of possible outcomes to the transform equations infers SR theory is impractical and unrealistic.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
The Problem of Relatives and Absolutes Assumed within Special Relativity Equations.
Special Relativity (SR) theory posits the universal speed of light at c.
The postulate of light at c everywhere is a postulate of absolute motion.
1) Then c is an absolute velocity.
SR theory posits the observer moves at v as a relative motion, relative to the thing being observed.
2) Then v is a relative velocity.
The transform equation requires the use of both c and v together in the same equation.
But c is an absolute velocity and v is only a relative velocity.
But if c is absolute, v is relative to c as an absolute velocity.
For an act relative to a known absolute is itself an act known in relation to an absolute value.
3) Then v is an absolute velocity.
2) contradicts 3)
Or, if v is only a relative velocity, then c is relative to v as a relative velocity.
But v is a relative velocity and c is an absolute velocity.
For an act known in relation to a relative act takes on the value of that from which it is known as relative.
4) Then c is a relative velocity.
1) contradicts 4)
Therefore there are two contradictions within SR theory in relation to the notions of velocity as both relative and absolute.
Therefore SR theory is false.
The postulate of light at c everywhere is a postulate of absolute motion.
1) Then c is an absolute velocity.
SR theory posits the observer moves at v as a relative motion, relative to the thing being observed.
2) Then v is a relative velocity.
The transform equation requires the use of both c and v together in the same equation.
But c is an absolute velocity and v is only a relative velocity.
But if c is absolute, v is relative to c as an absolute velocity.
For an act relative to a known absolute is itself an act known in relation to an absolute value.
3) Then v is an absolute velocity.
2) contradicts 3)
Or, if v is only a relative velocity, then c is relative to v as a relative velocity.
But v is a relative velocity and c is an absolute velocity.
For an act known in relation to a relative act takes on the value of that from which it is known as relative.
4) Then c is a relative velocity.
1) contradicts 4)
Therefore there are two contradictions within SR theory in relation to the notions of velocity as both relative and absolute.
Therefore SR theory is false.
The Problem of Relative and Absolute Motion within Special Relativity.
According to Special Relativity (SR) theory, all motion is relative to the local observer.
Therefore all motion is relative motion.
As the local observer is identical to itself, the local motion is an absolute motion relative to itself.
As there are many possible observers within the universe, there are many local motions that are absolute motions of each possible observer.
Therefore all motion is absolute motion, relative to the local observer.
As every motion is locally absolute, every motion is locally moving relative to the universe.
The local absolute motion is then known as an absolute motion relative to the universe.
Therefore all motion is absolute motion, relative to the universe.
As all motion is absolute, relative to both the local observer and the universe, all motion is absolute.
But SR theory says all motion is only relative to the observer.
Therefore, SR theory has a false postulate concerning the motion of things that are only ever relative to local observers, without reference to any absolute motion.
Therefore all motion is relative motion.
As the local observer is identical to itself, the local motion is an absolute motion relative to itself.
As there are many possible observers within the universe, there are many local motions that are absolute motions of each possible observer.
Therefore all motion is absolute motion, relative to the local observer.
As every motion is locally absolute, every motion is locally moving relative to the universe.
The local absolute motion is then known as an absolute motion relative to the universe.
Therefore all motion is absolute motion, relative to the universe.
As all motion is absolute, relative to both the local observer and the universe, all motion is absolute.
But SR theory says all motion is only relative to the observer.
Therefore, SR theory has a false postulate concerning the motion of things that are only ever relative to local observers, without reference to any absolute motion.
The Problem of Third Universal Observer Implied within Special Relativity.
Special Relativity assumes light is at c, and observers see motion in accord with the transforms that require a knowledge of the observer's velocity relative to that which is observed.
The value of light at c, and the relative velocities of the observer to that of the thing being observed at v are both absolute values known to the third observer who knows all.
The third observer is like the divine mind who knows all absolute values and places those velocity and distance values into the equations to derive the transformed velocity and distance values of the Special Relativity equations.
As such values are never known in the real, for no observer knows the absolute value of light at c, or the relative observer velocity at v, the transforms and the associated SR equations are only ever paper fictions.
As the SR theory assumes a universal third observer within the theory that does not exist in the real, SR theory is only ever a paper fiction.
The value of light at c, and the relative velocities of the observer to that of the thing being observed at v are both absolute values known to the third observer who knows all.
The third observer is like the divine mind who knows all absolute values and places those velocity and distance values into the equations to derive the transformed velocity and distance values of the Special Relativity equations.
As such values are never known in the real, for no observer knows the absolute value of light at c, or the relative observer velocity at v, the transforms and the associated SR equations are only ever paper fictions.
As the SR theory assumes a universal third observer within the theory that does not exist in the real, SR theory is only ever a paper fiction.
The Problem of the Implied Guess Work Required within Special Relativity.
SR reduces all motion down to the observer.
And the observer is moving relative to the observed object.
Yet the observer exists within the universe.
Hence the observer must be moving at many different velocities relative to many different objects.
So because the observer's motion is unknown relative to all moving objects, then the observer's motion within the universe is unknowable.
As the observer's motion is unknowable, then consequently, the observed motions as related back to the observer are then unknowable.
Yet SR proposes that such motions as observed by the observer are knowable.
Hence the implied unknowability of motion within SR theory makes the theory unworkable.
And the observer is moving relative to the observed object.
Yet the observer exists within the universe.
Hence the observer must be moving at many different velocities relative to many different objects.
So because the observer's motion is unknown relative to all moving objects, then the observer's motion within the universe is unknowable.
As the observer's motion is unknowable, then consequently, the observed motions as related back to the observer are then unknowable.
Yet SR proposes that such motions as observed by the observer are knowable.
Hence the implied unknowability of motion within SR theory makes the theory unworkable.
The Problem of Special Pleading within Special Relativity.
Two bodies approach each other.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non-accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
To avoid this problem, the true velocities of body 1 and body 2 must be removed from the discussion, and reduced to the velocities as dictated by SR theory.
But to remove the true velocities is to special plead velocities of each body, down to what is dictated by a theory, made apart from logic and experience.
In effect, SR must remove the earth and all common experience of motion around the earth to transform its adherents into an imaginary world of mathematics, whereby bodies, time and velocities do what the postulates and maths dictate they must do.
Hence SR theory is a case of special pleading, made apart from common sense experience.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non-accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
To avoid this problem, the true velocities of body 1 and body 2 must be removed from the discussion, and reduced to the velocities as dictated by SR theory.
But to remove the true velocities is to special plead velocities of each body, down to what is dictated by a theory, made apart from logic and experience.
In effect, SR must remove the earth and all common experience of motion around the earth to transform its adherents into an imaginary world of mathematics, whereby bodies, time and velocities do what the postulates and maths dictate they must do.
Hence SR theory is a case of special pleading, made apart from common sense experience.
The Problem of the maximum velocity of c within Special Relativity.
Two bodies approach each other.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non-accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
The observer in object 1 would see the true relative velocity of object 2, yet SR would calculate the relative object's velocity to be less than c.
The SR velocity of less than c indicates SR theory is false.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non-accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
The observer in object 1 would see the true relative velocity of object 2, yet SR would calculate the relative object's velocity to be less than c.
The SR velocity of less than c indicates SR theory is false.
The Problem of the loss of Absolute Length within Special Relativity.
SR removes the ether and replaces the notion of absolute length with a measured length by the observer.
But length measured by the observer, varies with the observers motion.
Hence two observers viewing two identical objects, will see each object as smaller than each object's absolute length.
Yet both observer's know that each object is identical in length.
Therefore the observed length is always shorter than the real length.
Therefore according to SR, all observations of lengths are fictional, contrary to the principle of identity, L=L,
Hence according to SR, observation is always at variance from a fundamental principle of being.
Therefore SR theory infers all observations of lengths external to the observer are all fictional lengths.
But length measured by the observer, varies with the observers motion.
Hence two observers viewing two identical objects, will see each object as smaller than each object's absolute length.
Yet both observer's know that each object is identical in length.
Therefore the observed length is always shorter than the real length.
Therefore according to SR, all observations of lengths are fictional, contrary to the principle of identity, L=L,
Hence according to SR, observation is always at variance from a fundamental principle of being.
Therefore SR theory infers all observations of lengths external to the observer are all fictional lengths.
The Problem of Universal Quasi Idealism within Special Relativity.
Idealism is the theory that historically followed upon with Descartes understanding of knowledge, whereby the knower creates the object known. For example, in knowing the tree, the knower creates the tree. Idealism is false, for the knower does not create the tree, but receives the form of the tree, from the tree as the object of knowledge. Also Descarte's version of knowledge whereby the knower only knows an idea of the tree and not the tree, is also false. For the tree is known objectively, through the idea, as the formal concept, whereby the tree is presented as an object of knowledge. Descarte's theory of knowledge as a quasi-idealist theory, whereby the tree as known, is reduced down to the act of the observer, is false.
So too analogously, special relativity reduces the motion of light to an absolute for any circumstance. The earth-centered universe of the ancients is transformed into the light centered universe of relativity theory. In reducing the universe from earth-centered, to light centered, relativity reduces the universe to an observer-centered universe, whereby the entire universe of the individual conforms to the individual's motion. One can introduce, or remove the aether at will, as postulated by SR and GR respectively. One can postulate length change and time dilation at will to conform to the observer who sees light.
So too analogously, special relativity reduces the motion of light to an absolute for any circumstance. The earth-centered universe of the ancients is transformed into the light centered universe of relativity theory. In reducing the universe from earth-centered, to light centered, relativity reduces the universe to an observer-centered universe, whereby the entire universe of the individual conforms to the individual's motion. One can introduce, or remove the aether at will, as postulated by SR and GR respectively. One can postulate length change and time dilation at will to conform to the observer who sees light.
The light is seen by the observer at c, when not in an accelerating reference frame, but at any velocity, when in an accelerating reference frame. In effect, all physics in the universe is dictated mathematically by the ubiquitous observer. In reducing all the maths of physical reality down to that of the observer, it is the observer who (almost) creates the object observed, whereby the object known is subject to the mathematical manipulation of the observer. In doing so, the knower modifies the object of knowledge from the real, down to what is dictated by relativity theory. Such a manipulation of the object of knowledge is a form of quasi-idealism.
As quasi-idealism is false, therefore because relativity is quasi-idealist, then so too Special relativity is false.
A Problem with General Relativity and Gravitational Lensing.
Gravitational lensing is said to be the bending of light caused by a gravity field.
A gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.[1][2] (Classical physics also predicts bending of light, but only half that of general relativity's.[3])
For a light path to bend, light must have a force placed on the photon.
Now if the photon has no mass, then either -
1) no force can be applied to bend the photon's flight path. For, F=ma, which means F= 0a = 0.
or
2) F=ma does not apply in relativity and the gravity field acts on the massless photon apart from F=ma. Yet such a mechanism is unknown to man.
Hence, if a photon has no mass, the relativity claim that gravitational lensing occurs due to the bending of the space time continuum (S-T), infers the S-T bending acts on a photon in a superstitious or magical manner, apart from all known physics. Hence if a photon does not have mass, relativity is a physics theory that requires magic to account for bent photon flight paths.
But, if the photon has mass, then
1) the S-T can bend the photons light path according to F=ma.
but then,
2) the photon cannot travel at c, for the mass of a particle at c is infinite according to the longitudinal mass = m/(1-v2/c2)3 = m/0. Likewise the energy of a photon would be infinite according to E = mc2 / sqrt(1-v2/c2) = mc2 /0.
Now if the photon has no mass, then either -
1) no force can be applied to bend the photon's flight path. For, F=ma, which means F= 0a = 0.
or
2) F=ma does not apply in relativity and the gravity field acts on the massless photon apart from F=ma. Yet such a mechanism is unknown to man.
Hence, if a photon has no mass, the relativity claim that gravitational lensing occurs due to the bending of the space time continuum (S-T), infers the S-T bending acts on a photon in a superstitious or magical manner, apart from all known physics. Hence if a photon does not have mass, relativity is a physics theory that requires magic to account for bent photon flight paths.
But, if the photon has mass, then
1) the S-T can bend the photons light path according to F=ma.
but then,
2) the photon cannot travel at c, for the mass of a particle at c is infinite according to the longitudinal mass = m/(1-v2/c2)3 = m/0. Likewise the energy of a photon would be infinite according to E = mc2 / sqrt(1-v2/c2) = mc2 /0.
Friday, July 22, 2011
A summary Resource for Geocentrism
A unique planetary orbital flower pattern around the stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Flower%20Pattern.htm
The problem of the Venus dichotomy has been resolved within a geocentric model and has not been resolved within a heliocentric model – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Schroter.htm
The problem of the weather patterns on earth are clearly in favor of a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Restoring%20forces.htm
The problem of negative parallax is in favor of a stellartum that moves around a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm
Cosmic phenomena is in favor of geocentrism, such as –
1. Quantized galaxy light periodicity showing the galaxies are located in concentric shells around the earth
2. Gamma ray burst focused on the earth
3. Quasars located in spherical shells around the earth
4. BLac and X-Ray bursts having earth centered periodicity
5. Specroscopic Binaries and Globular clusters – axis of binary stars are pointed towards the earth (Barr effect). Globular clusters are also focused on the earth.
6. Quantized planetary orbits – a law of planetary distances matches the preferred redshift of quasars with a ratio of 1:1.23.
7. Sloan digital survey showing the cosmic bodies are organized around the earth in broad shells
8 . Michelson Morley experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift
9. Michelson Gale experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift
10. Sagnac effect showing light moves at c+-v relative to the ether and absolute earth.
11. Many other experimental outcomes as discussed in GWW
There have even been symposiums such as the Copernicus Symposium II in 1973, in which a paper was submitted, entitled – Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, in which evidence was presented for a non Copernican universe.
I also note that the apparently elegant heliocentric model is based upon a problematic Newtonian mechanics as shown here – http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1904170#post1904170
I have also invalidated relativity theory here –
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1907731#post1907731
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1907731#post1907731
The posts (including the 58 invalidations) were made in a physics forum where most were avowed relativists and nobody bothered to provide any compelling answers to any of the arguments made after about 1500 viewings of the arguments.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
An invalidation of Special Relativity and the Hafele Keating Experiment
Special Relativity theory doesn’t permit the existence of any physical clock because Einstein knew physical clocks act differently in motion/acceleration and therefore any physical experiment is dependent upon the interaction of motion/acceleration on the physical clock and not merely his thought equations. For example, the Hafele Keating experiment used atomic clocks to test time dilation, yet if they were consistent with relativity theory, they could have used –
A thought clock, which is nothing more than a rate in the mind
Any clock that has the same properties as a thought clock
Any clock other than an atomic clock
An atomic clock
Any clock with any tick rate at all, just as long as it corresponds to some other local clock rate.
The clock on the plane could have been an atomic clock and the clock on the earth could have been any other clock at all.
In fact SR is such a badly formed theory that we are not to know if the clock rate is changing, or only apparently changing, or what clock is changing, or if any change really occurs at all and time dilation is merely a maths fudge to transform from one reference to another and thereby save light at c in all frames. Also there is no relationship given in SR between the clock rate of the moving clock and the clock rate of the stationary clock, for the formula of simultaneity has nothing to do with clock rates at all, but only motion between two clocks and the speed of light at c between clocks A and B.
In fact the Hafele Keating experiment was flawed right from the beginning because any clock rate on the earth and plane is not known to change within the experiment at all, simply because any change in times between the two clocks could be accounted for in the following ways –
A thought clock, which is nothing more than a rate in the mind
Any clock that has the same properties as a thought clock
Any clock other than an atomic clock
An atomic clock
Any clock with any tick rate at all, just as long as it corresponds to some other local clock rate.
The clock on the plane could have been an atomic clock and the clock on the earth could have been any other clock at all.
In fact SR is such a badly formed theory that we are not to know if the clock rate is changing, or only apparently changing, or what clock is changing, or if any change really occurs at all and time dilation is merely a maths fudge to transform from one reference to another and thereby save light at c in all frames. Also there is no relationship given in SR between the clock rate of the moving clock and the clock rate of the stationary clock, for the formula of simultaneity has nothing to do with clock rates at all, but only motion between two clocks and the speed of light at c between clocks A and B.
In fact the Hafele Keating experiment was flawed right from the beginning because any clock rate on the earth and plane is not known to change within the experiment at all, simply because any change in times between the two clocks could be accounted for in the following ways –
- Plane clock sped up and the earth clock sped up at a different rate
- Plane clock sped up and the earth clock stayed the same rate
- Plane clock sped up and the earth clock slowed down
- Plane clock stayed the same rate and the earth clock sped up
- Plane clock stayed the same rate and the earth clock stayed the same rate
- Plane clock stayed the same rate and the earth clock slowed down
- Plane clock slowed down and the earth clock sped up
- Plane clock slowed down and the earth clock stayed the same rate
- Plane clock slowed down and the earth clock slowed down at a different rate
- Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock sped up
- Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock remained the same
- Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock slowed down
- Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock sped up
- Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down
- Plane clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory and the earth clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory
- Plane clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory and the earth clock was not under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory
- Plane clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory and the earth clock was only under forces included in relativity theory
In fact its well known that pendulum do undulate with a period due to a cosmic force acting all over the earth. As this force is not accounted for in modern physics (other than the geocentric ether model), then the search for experimental evidence of time dilation was definitely flawed from the beginning because we don't know what effect this force has on atomic clocks.
See the following links for evidence and discussions on the periodic effect of a cosmic cause on pendulums.
http://www.allais.info/panarep/panawork.htm
http://www.allais.info/panarep/colowork.htm
http://www.allais.info/panarep/ozwork.htm
JM
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Errors found in the 1905 paper, “On the Elecrodynamics of Moving bodies”
Einstein merely assumes the validity of local clocks in his thought experiment and proceeds from there. As absolute time was universally recognized as being the common sense approach to time before relativity, then the burden of proof clearly lies on the shoulders of Albert concerning the notion and use of time. If Albert merely assumes time is only a local phenomenon, then he must begin his theory, by assuming time is not in any sense absolute and therefore regular, unchanging an universal. This is quite a large step to take. I have analyzed Einstein’s paper – on the electrodynamics of moving bodies and found many problems with his understanding of time.
•
•
[quote]We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the stationary system.''
The ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. [/quote]
Comments – This is only true if the clock at the event is the same as the prime of common clock, but this assumes the classical understanding of time as absolute and universal to be true, which AE’s theory denies. His statement implies a contradiction. Further arguments concerning the apriori assumption of absolute time will be given below.
Also he still has not defined time. He tries to avoid the problem by appealing to “The ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock” and hence confuses time with a measure of time.
He also has another problem whereby because he has rejected the classic understanding of time, he cannot tell us which clock is the specified stationary clock in the real, or how this is done in his example. He cannot establish a uniform rate that is applicable to A and B because A only knows a particular measure of time at A and B at B whereby there is no relationship between the two.
There is also the problem concerning what constitutes the relationship between times at the “place of the event” and other places not at the event. He simply ignores the notion of place as having any definite meaning and then assumes the observer, who is also not defined, cannot obtain any information beyond the undefined places of A and B respectively.
He does not determine the nature of the relationship between the two other that to use the speed of light and the concluding maths equation which he uses to define his sole criteria for the determination of synchronization. But this is to reduce the synchronization to
1. two clock rates,
2. the notion of stationary
3. the notion of the observer
4. the notion of the speed of light
Which is to
Define according to quantity without having first proven quantity is the manner in which synchronization is to be properly defined. Which is an error.
Define synchronization assuming the notions of rate, stationary, observer and speed of light are all without error and are the appropriate manner in which these notions are to be used. We have seen that both assumptions are false.
Define synchronization, assuming causation is true and correctly understood by his theory. Yet causation arrives at the conclusion that time is determined from the nature of bodies and as the nature of bodies is not restricted to any particular body or any sum of individual bodies, then time is also not determined by any individual body. Time is then not from a clock, but a clock is only a particular numerical measure of a predetermined rate from a physical phenomena such as a vibrating atom.
Define synchronization according to an arbitrary bench mark which is the speed of light as quantified over a particular distance. This is to assume time traveled over a path between clocks determines time to equate at the two clocks when the difference is zero and to be different times at the clocks when the differences are not zero. He therefore assumes time at each clock is dependent on light speed and velocity between clocks and never demonstrates that this assumption is correct.
Other problems -
Who is this universal observer who can see the two events at one “time” to enable his example to function? AE does not tell us. Essentially AE is using a psychological trick whereby the reader, who psychologically uses the classical understanding of time, can observe outside his A-B clock example to determined that the time at A and B are the same and that the light ray passes from A to B via the classical laws of time.
Another version of this problem is which observer determines the experiment to have occurred? It cannot be A or B, because they both do not know anything outside the immediate place of A and B. It can only be the third, inferred observer who exists outside the experiment, who must be . . . Albert himself!!! Albert becomes the universal bench mark to determine what a uniform rate is, the relationship between the two clocks, whether the experiment occurred and any definition whatsoever he requires for his new version of time to be determined. Albert becomes the
If a light is emitted from A, how does A know the light is bounced back from B? Really if we are to take AE’s definition of time according to what is known in the “place of the event”, then the event not in that place cannot be timed, for only what occurs at the place of the event can be observed.
As the A-B clock example requires a light particle to be beamed from A to B to A, there is required a causal relationship that has the classical understanding of time as an a-prior assumption. For to have an effect, requires that the cause be at least occurring at the same time or even before the time of the effect. But AE attempts to derive a theory whereby the time is not known in the classical sense, which destroys the cause-effect relationship as measured by time.
As the AB clock experiment requires synchronisation of the clocks to be regulated by the light ray, then the uniform rate of the clocks becomes impossible to establish, for before the light ray hits B and returns to A there is no apriori way to synchronise the clocks at both A and B, without accepting apriori, he classical understanding of time, that it is universal throughout all space. One could attempt to answer this by saying the clock could be synchronised before the experiment by placing A next to B, then moving the two clocks apart. But even with this example, the classical understanding of time is assumed a priori and the light ray regulation becomes irrelevant.
The real conclusion so far is that the AB clock thought experiment fails to establish AE’s new understanding of time without assuming apriori that the classical understanding of time is true. His proof is self defeating and fallacious through implicit contradictions.
Further, the A-B clock experiment is that the experiment arrives at a descriptive definition through the use of empirical sciences of physics (notions such as clock rate, length and speed of light are physical properties used in the thought experiment) and maths. But this has the following problems –
The use of physics arrives at only a descriptive definition of time. But, descriptive definitions can be dependent upon either the proper or common accidentals. If through proper accident, such as quantity of a body, then the descriptive definition is based upon, and only describes observable empirical signs, that are not derived from the essence of the thing being defined. This means that the descriptive definition does not tell us anything about the essence of the thing defined, whereby the essence is not presented to the senses, but can only be known through the intellect via abstraction. In this manner, definitions derived from philosophy, determine the nature of the thing defined from the nature of the philosophical properties that immediately flow out from the underlying essence. The difference between these manners of defining are illustrated below according to the descriptive philosophical manners in which time is defined.
According to natural philosophy we can determine the nature of bodies that must have quantity sealed by primary matter as its cause of individuation of bodies (united with substantial form and being), to cause bodies to exist. From quantity as the foundational accident that resides in substance, we can determine the notions of before and after from location or place that flows from the accident of a body as quantified. Any change or movement can then be measured by a number (which is a mental being), via a relationship towards before and after. This accident as it is a relationship, or a be towards another, is the measure of movement according to before and after, known as time. Time is then defined as numbered movement according to before and after.
In summary, the philosophical definition of time is determined from the following argument.
1. Body is a substance caused from a combination of essence and being. Then,
2. Body is cause from a unity of substantial form (SF as prime principle of determinacy in the order of substance) and primary matter (PM as prime principle of indeterminacy in the order of substance) combined as an essence, plus being. Then
3. Body is caused as it is limited or individuated in the real as SF+PM+be+quantity, whereby quantity is the foundational accident dependent upon substance and through which all other accidents are also dependent.
4. Place is dependent upon quantity and before and after in place, are manners in which location is known in place.
5. Movement is from place to place as it is from before and after.
6. Movement is measured according to before and after via a number, whereby the number is a mental being that has a real relationship to before and after. The number as a measure of movement is founded upon the real, but is of itself a mental being.
7. This accident of numbered movement is known as time, which is determined in the real according to before and after.
8. Therefore time is defined as numbered movement according to before and after.
As a corollary of this definition, because number is of itself a mental being, it is then indifferent to the real, and is independent of any change of rate. As the number cannot be fast or slow, neither time can be fast or slow in the real.
The empirical definition is derived as follows.
We observe some things move with a constant rate. But rate is assigned a number and number is associated with the before and after of the movement occurring in the rate observed. A movement of uniform rate is known as a clock and the quantified movement according to before and after is known as time. Therefore the empirical definition for time is - Numbered movement as measured by a clock according to before and after.
Now if we take an observer distant from a real clock we can then define time as observed relative to the clock according to this manner of defining.
We use the above empirical definition and notice that an observer distant from the clock is dependent for his knowledge of time upon
§ The time or number measured by the clock
§ The distance from the clock
§ The speed of light
§ Velocity between the observer and the clock.
We then say that the observers definition of time, or time as known is - Numbered movement as measured by a clock, as it appears to the observer, who is dependent upon relative velocity, according to before and after. (A corollary of this definition is that the empirical definition is dependent upon the philosophical definition. ) This definition is contracted to read – clock rate observed as it is dependent upon relative velocity. This is close to the definition used by AE, whereby time is derived from the clock and can vary dependent upon the location and relative velocity of the observer.
We now have three definitions whereby the second and third definitions are dependent upon the prior definitions as follows –
1. Numbered movement according to before and after
2. Numbered movement as measured by a clock according to before and after.
3. Clock rate observed, as it is dependent upon relative velocity
We then use a clock experiment like AE’s thought experiment to determine the validity of his assumptions and conclusions and to find the experiment is deficient in several manners, the chief of which is that he confuses 3 with 1 as indicated above.
Also he still has not defined time. He tries to avoid the problem by appealing to “The ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock” and hence confuses time with a measure of time.
He also has another problem whereby because he has rejected the classic understanding of time, he cannot tell us which clock is the specified stationary clock in the real, or how this is done in his example. He cannot establish a uniform rate that is applicable to A and B because A only knows a particular measure of time at A and B at B whereby there is no relationship between the two.
There is also the problem concerning what constitutes the relationship between times at the “place of the event” and other places not at the event. He simply ignores the notion of place as having any definite meaning and then assumes the observer, who is also not defined, cannot obtain any information beyond the undefined places of A and B respectively.
He does not determine the nature of the relationship between the two other that to use the speed of light and the concluding maths equation which he uses to define his sole criteria for the determination of synchronization. But this is to reduce the synchronization to
1. two clock rates,
2. the notion of stationary
3. the notion of the observer
4. the notion of the speed of light
Which is to
Define according to quantity without having first proven quantity is the manner in which synchronization is to be properly defined. Which is an error.
Define synchronization assuming the notions of rate, stationary, observer and speed of light are all without error and are the appropriate manner in which these notions are to be used. We have seen that both assumptions are false.
Define synchronization, assuming causation is true and correctly understood by his theory. Yet causation arrives at the conclusion that time is determined from the nature of bodies and as the nature of bodies is not restricted to any particular body or any sum of individual bodies, then time is also not determined by any individual body. Time is then not from a clock, but a clock is only a particular numerical measure of a predetermined rate from a physical phenomena such as a vibrating atom.
Define synchronization according to an arbitrary bench mark which is the speed of light as quantified over a particular distance. This is to assume time traveled over a path between clocks determines time to equate at the two clocks when the difference is zero and to be different times at the clocks when the differences are not zero. He therefore assumes time at each clock is dependent on light speed and velocity between clocks and never demonstrates that this assumption is correct.
Other problems -
Who is this universal observer who can see the two events at one “time” to enable his example to function? AE does not tell us. Essentially AE is using a psychological trick whereby the reader, who psychologically uses the classical understanding of time, can observe outside his A-B clock example to determined that the time at A and B are the same and that the light ray passes from A to B via the classical laws of time.
Another version of this problem is which observer determines the experiment to have occurred? It cannot be A or B, because they both do not know anything outside the immediate place of A and B. It can only be the third, inferred observer who exists outside the experiment, who must be . . . Albert himself!!! Albert becomes the universal bench mark to determine what a uniform rate is, the relationship between the two clocks, whether the experiment occurred and any definition whatsoever he requires for his new version of time to be determined. Albert becomes the
If a light is emitted from A, how does A know the light is bounced back from B? Really if we are to take AE’s definition of time according to what is known in the “place of the event”, then the event not in that place cannot be timed, for only what occurs at the place of the event can be observed.
As the A-B clock example requires a light particle to be beamed from A to B to A, there is required a causal relationship that has the classical understanding of time as an a-prior assumption. For to have an effect, requires that the cause be at least occurring at the same time or even before the time of the effect. But AE attempts to derive a theory whereby the time is not known in the classical sense, which destroys the cause-effect relationship as measured by time.
As the AB clock experiment requires synchronisation of the clocks to be regulated by the light ray, then the uniform rate of the clocks becomes impossible to establish, for before the light ray hits B and returns to A there is no apriori way to synchronise the clocks at both A and B, without accepting apriori, he classical understanding of time, that it is universal throughout all space. One could attempt to answer this by saying the clock could be synchronised before the experiment by placing A next to B, then moving the two clocks apart. But even with this example, the classical understanding of time is assumed a priori and the light ray regulation becomes irrelevant.
The real conclusion so far is that the AB clock thought experiment fails to establish AE’s new understanding of time without assuming apriori that the classical understanding of time is true. His proof is self defeating and fallacious through implicit contradictions.
Further, the A-B clock experiment is that the experiment arrives at a descriptive definition through the use of empirical sciences of physics (notions such as clock rate, length and speed of light are physical properties used in the thought experiment) and maths. But this has the following problems –
The use of physics arrives at only a descriptive definition of time. But, descriptive definitions can be dependent upon either the proper or common accidentals. If through proper accident, such as quantity of a body, then the descriptive definition is based upon, and only describes observable empirical signs, that are not derived from the essence of the thing being defined. This means that the descriptive definition does not tell us anything about the essence of the thing defined, whereby the essence is not presented to the senses, but can only be known through the intellect via abstraction. In this manner, definitions derived from philosophy, determine the nature of the thing defined from the nature of the philosophical properties that immediately flow out from the underlying essence. The difference between these manners of defining are illustrated below according to the descriptive philosophical manners in which time is defined.
According to natural philosophy we can determine the nature of bodies that must have quantity sealed by primary matter as its cause of individuation of bodies (united with substantial form and being), to cause bodies to exist. From quantity as the foundational accident that resides in substance, we can determine the notions of before and after from location or place that flows from the accident of a body as quantified. Any change or movement can then be measured by a number (which is a mental being), via a relationship towards before and after. This accident as it is a relationship, or a be towards another, is the measure of movement according to before and after, known as time. Time is then defined as numbered movement according to before and after.
In summary, the philosophical definition of time is determined from the following argument.
1. Body is a substance caused from a combination of essence and being. Then,
2. Body is cause from a unity of substantial form (SF as prime principle of determinacy in the order of substance) and primary matter (PM as prime principle of indeterminacy in the order of substance) combined as an essence, plus being. Then
3. Body is caused as it is limited or individuated in the real as SF+PM+be+quantity, whereby quantity is the foundational accident dependent upon substance and through which all other accidents are also dependent.
4. Place is dependent upon quantity and before and after in place, are manners in which location is known in place.
5. Movement is from place to place as it is from before and after.
6. Movement is measured according to before and after via a number, whereby the number is a mental being that has a real relationship to before and after. The number as a measure of movement is founded upon the real, but is of itself a mental being.
7. This accident of numbered movement is known as time, which is determined in the real according to before and after.
8. Therefore time is defined as numbered movement according to before and after.
As a corollary of this definition, because number is of itself a mental being, it is then indifferent to the real, and is independent of any change of rate. As the number cannot be fast or slow, neither time can be fast or slow in the real.
The empirical definition is derived as follows.
We observe some things move with a constant rate. But rate is assigned a number and number is associated with the before and after of the movement occurring in the rate observed. A movement of uniform rate is known as a clock and the quantified movement according to before and after is known as time. Therefore the empirical definition for time is - Numbered movement as measured by a clock according to before and after.
Now if we take an observer distant from a real clock we can then define time as observed relative to the clock according to this manner of defining.
We use the above empirical definition and notice that an observer distant from the clock is dependent for his knowledge of time upon
§ The time or number measured by the clock
§ The distance from the clock
§ The speed of light
§ Velocity between the observer and the clock.
We then say that the observers definition of time, or time as known is - Numbered movement as measured by a clock, as it appears to the observer, who is dependent upon relative velocity, according to before and after. (A corollary of this definition is that the empirical definition is dependent upon the philosophical definition. ) This definition is contracted to read – clock rate observed as it is dependent upon relative velocity. This is close to the definition used by AE, whereby time is derived from the clock and can vary dependent upon the location and relative velocity of the observer.
We now have three definitions whereby the second and third definitions are dependent upon the prior definitions as follows –
1. Numbered movement according to before and after
2. Numbered movement as measured by a clock according to before and after.
3. Clock rate observed, as it is dependent upon relative velocity
We then use a clock experiment like AE’s thought experiment to determine the validity of his assumptions and conclusions and to find the experiment is deficient in several manners, the chief of which is that he confuses 3 with 1 as indicated above.
Under the title of “On the relativity of times and lengths”, synchronous time is then compared to time measured in a moving system. In the stationary frame the rod is of length L where clocks A and B at either end of the rod synchronise according to the equation given above. Then -
[quote] We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time4 tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t’A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
tB- tA= rAB/(c-v) and t’A- tB = rAB/(c+v)
where rABdenotes the length of the moving rod--measured in the stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous. [/quote]
Again this seems like a compelling argument for length contraction/time dilation, yet there is a fallacy in the conclusion, for time is to be understood in two manners according to
1. Time, as measured by the clocks A and B (call this clock face time at Clocks A and B).
2. Time, which is the duration for the light to travel from clock A to B and back again.
2. Time, which is the duration for the light to travel from clock A to B and back again.
The difference between the stationary and moving examples is evidently the time taken for the light to travel between the clocks (duration), which concludes to a mathematical difference of clock synchronisation between the stationary and moving examples. AE’s example, as expected, has the time (duration) differences change as the c+v and c-v are used as denominators in his equation. Yet the problem is that the equation is based on differences in times derived from both clock face time and duration. But clock face time and duration are based on two different realities, the former on the clock face position and the later on the speed of light.
For the moving clocks A and B, the face rate does not change according to the movement of the rod, as the light traveling from clock A to B cannot change the clock speeds. Therefore ontologically the clocks A and B will always be synchronized regardless of the rods speed.
Further, the equation equivocates the two notions of time, which then contradicts the ontological reality that, according to the principle of identity, the duration at both clocks is the same duration for the light to travel between the clocks, yet AE wants us to believe it is different.
Also AE never establishes that clock face rate is associated with rod movement, nor can he possibly do this without equivocation. Another way of putting this is that the clocks A and B measure a uniform rate of motion, whereby the numbers indicated on the clocks have a reference to this rate according to before and after. This rate and the numerical measure of this rate is unaffected by the motion of lack of motion of the clocks, which concludes to the times measured by the clocks are always synchronised regardless of the existence of motion of the rod or not. AE’s synchronisation equation is misleading to say the least, and his use of the equation to later derive equations for time dilation and length contraction ignore the reality of time synchronisation that is independent of the speed of light of motion between clocks.
Later, AE then states
For the moving clocks A and B, the face rate does not change according to the movement of the rod, as the light traveling from clock A to B cannot change the clock speeds. Therefore ontologically the clocks A and B will always be synchronized regardless of the rods speed.
Further, the equation equivocates the two notions of time, which then contradicts the ontological reality that, according to the principle of identity, the duration at both clocks is the same duration for the light to travel between the clocks, yet AE wants us to believe it is different.
Also AE never establishes that clock face rate is associated with rod movement, nor can he possibly do this without equivocation. Another way of putting this is that the clocks A and B measure a uniform rate of motion, whereby the numbers indicated on the clocks have a reference to this rate according to before and after. This rate and the numerical measure of this rate is unaffected by the motion of lack of motion of the clocks, which concludes to the times measured by the clocks are always synchronised regardless of the existence of motion of the rod or not. AE’s synchronisation equation is misleading to say the least, and his use of the equation to later derive equations for time dilation and length contraction ignore the reality of time synchronisation that is independent of the speed of light of motion between clocks.
Later, AE then states
[quote] So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system. [/quote]
This is to be distinguished as follows.
Clocks A and B will always be synchronised ontologically for the rods speed has no ontological effect on the clock rates. The times at A and B will always be simultaneous regardless of a stationary or moving clock. This may be expressed by the following equation to represent ontological simultaneity, which is simply this
tA= tB
Which is always true regardless of the reference frame, and regardless of the velocity of the rod.
However an important point is to be made as well that shows AE has made a correct conclusion in one respect. There is an apparent lack of simultaneity in the clock times due to the clock time differences not coinciding for the examples of stationary and moving rods. Yet this difference is a difference of light speeds only and has no effect on the clock speeds or clock synchronisation. The apparent clock difference is based on the real light speed difference between clocks A and B and is only apparent, based on a visual aberration caused by the varying light speeds. Time however does not ontologically change rate and this is the point both AE and many relativists miss.
Conclusion – The apparent change in time differences cannot be used to demonstrate a real change in rod length as such a change would be ontological. AE thinks he can, so relativity is invalid.
Clocks A and B will always be synchronised ontologically for the rods speed has no ontological effect on the clock rates. The times at A and B will always be simultaneous regardless of a stationary or moving clock. This may be expressed by the following equation to represent ontological simultaneity, which is simply this
tA= tB
Which is always true regardless of the reference frame, and regardless of the velocity of the rod.
However an important point is to be made as well that shows AE has made a correct conclusion in one respect. There is an apparent lack of simultaneity in the clock times due to the clock time differences not coinciding for the examples of stationary and moving rods. Yet this difference is a difference of light speeds only and has no effect on the clock speeds or clock synchronisation. The apparent clock difference is based on the real light speed difference between clocks A and B and is only apparent, based on a visual aberration caused by the varying light speeds. Time however does not ontologically change rate and this is the point both AE and many relativists miss.
Conclusion – The apparent change in time differences cannot be used to demonstrate a real change in rod length as such a change would be ontological. AE thinks he can, so relativity is invalid.
[quote]Section 3 of ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time. [/quote]
The question arises concerning homogeneity, which we attribute to space and time. If time is homogenous then one wonders how AE will later claim time can dilate?
Later AE establishes a system of coordinates to define the place and time of a system k.
Later AE establishes a system of coordinates to define the place and time of a system k.
[quote]If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first define as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have to express in equations that is nothing else than the summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to the rule given in § 1. [/quote]
We’ve already seen above that the equation of synchronisation requires distinctions to be carefully made to allow the real consequences of the equation to be known. We have made the distinction between the notions of time classically understood and the two manners in which AE uses the notion of time. We’ve also seen that the equation was derived based on some errors previously exposed.
Another distinction also needs to be made concerning what it is that defines the coordinate system. The values of x,y and z are mathematical coordinate points that locate a point in place. But as place is a continuum, these coordinates are a manner in which the location of a point within a continuum is to be determined. The fourth term, t, which is a measure of time, is also part of a continuum.
Continuum is distinguished according to the following-
Permanent continuum is where the parts of the continuum coexist, such as a line, surface or volume, which are divisible according to 1, 2 and 3 dimensions respectively. A mathematical continuum is a quantitative continuum, whereby all the quantities, or parts of the continuum are had potentially within the continuum. For example a mathematical continuum of a cube defined by the coordinates to have a 1x1x1m cubed volume, the parts of ½, ¼ and so exist potentially within the cube. As the mathematical continuum is quantitative, its parts are divisible infinitely.
A physical permanent continuum is a continuum had “in the concrete”, where the parts of the continuum coexist, but the parts cannot be divided infinitely. Such as a continuum of steel requires a minimum width, a continuum of water requires a minimum molecule size. A physical permanent continuum has parts that are determined to have a minimum size according to natural minima derived from the physical property of quality of the substance, whereby the minima parts are distinguished according to parts had according to different modes.
For example, parts exist in the continuum, yet the parts exist in different modes according to location, some existing within the continuum, while others located at the termination or end of the continuum. The physical permanent continuum exists in act as a whole, with its parts existing in potency, whereby parts of the whole exist through division of the whole. Such a continuum in the real is a natural extended body, which determines that the physical permanent continuum can only be of three dimensions (and no more or less).
The mathematical continuum is an abstract continuum whereby the dimensions had as directly represent dimensions had in the real. Mathematical continuums consist of lines, surfaces and volumes, that reflect edges, surfaces and solid bodies respectively had in the concrete. The mathematical continuum may consist of one, two or three dimensions when directly representing the real. The dimensions quantified directly represent the dimensions known through imagination. For example, a cube of 1m3 is a quantity containing quantified lengths, breadths and heights that directly represent the lengths, breadths and heights had in a real cube of say marble.
There is also another mode of mathematical continuum whereby the dimensions as quantified only indirectly represent the dimensions known through imagination, and in this mode of continuum, there can be any number of dimensions. Such mathematical continuums are later used in relativity by others such as Minkowski.
AE’s example uses four coordinates of x,y,z and t. Coordinates x,y and z are used to locate parts within a permanent mathematical continuum and t is used to determine the time at which the event occurs within a fluid continuum. As the theory now proposed involves the mixing of two contrary continuums, AE should have demonstrated how these can be harmonised from the very natures of continuum, place, and time.
We note that he does not do this, which shows he does not understand the nature of the continuum and from this error, he arrives at a notion called the space-time continuum that contains several contradictions such as
1. A continuum that contains both permanent parts (space) and non permanent parts (time).
2. A continuum that contains quantities that are derived from lengths and not from lengths (quantities of time are derived from movement).
3. A continuum that contains quantities that are local (non universal length) and quantities that are universal (the common number assigned to universal time).
4. A continuum that contains quantities that can change, such as length and position, with quantities then cannot change according to a universal rate as determined from the nature of time.
5. A continuum when applied in the real has parts in bodies that cannot be divided infinitely due to a natural minima of bodies, and parts in time that can be divided infinitely according to the nature of number as a measure of time.
There is also the problem the continuum contains several contrary notions of time, such as universal time, clock rate and duration. Also in his theory above, he uses time, t, as a clock time or a variable to define a coordinate system, which he intends to use to derive maths equations to establish his theory. But as maths is indifferent to existence in the real, the variable t, needed to firstly be established from the definition of time and not from its measure according to a clock. This error also permeates his theory.
There is a side note also as follows - The lack of knowledge concerning the notion of continuum within the science community has shown that the notions of a mathematical continuum and a physical continuum are routinely mixed up. A mathematical continuum may be valid according to it numerical derivation (relativity is not this), and yet it can be misunderstood to reflect of indicate the existence of a real physical continuum. Relativists consistently exchange the former for the later, which is the non sequitur fallacy.
Conclusion -
It is very evident from the many errors so far encountered with the derivation of the theory of relativity, that the theory is fundamentally flawed in many ways and can never be reconciled with reality. Therefore, relativity theory needs to be abandoned by science and in its place, a new theory be substituted, based on the reality of moderate realist philosophy, scientific facts obtained through observation and the God revealed cosmology of geocentrism.
Comments continued concerning Alberts document - ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
A mathematical consequence of AE’s version of time.
We have shown that there are innumerable problems with the time synchronisation thought experiment that AE uses to develop his theory of relativity. For his experiment to be valid it has to
1. Assume time is universal, absolute and uniform, and
2. His experiment then only works for the stationary scenario
Which concludes to an equation where t’=t. But this removes all his transforms to nothing and reduces his theory to that of the classical physics of Newton.
For AE’s times determined from his A-B clock thought experiment, the two clocks are simultaneous when at rest in K’
t’A- tB = tB- tA –(1)
Using this definition of time as
Time is that which is regulates distant clocks by light rays
He arrives at equations 2 and 3, when moving at v in K relative to K’, AE arrives at the following-
tB- tA = AB/ (c-v’) (2)
t’A - tB=AB/(c+v’) (3)
Where c is the velocity of light. Equations 2 and 3 do not satisfy 1 and consequently as we have already seen on another post
A mathematical consequence of AE’s version of time.
We have shown that there are innumerable problems with the time synchronisation thought experiment that AE uses to develop his theory of relativity. For his experiment to be valid it has to
1. Assume time is universal, absolute and uniform, and
2. His experiment then only works for the stationary scenario
Which concludes to an equation where t’=t. But this removes all his transforms to nothing and reduces his theory to that of the classical physics of Newton.
For AE’s times determined from his A-B clock thought experiment, the two clocks are simultaneous when at rest in K’
t’A- tB = tB- tA –(1)
Using this definition of time as
Time is that which is regulates distant clocks by light rays
He arrives at equations 2 and 3, when moving at v in K relative to K’, AE arrives at the following-
tB- tA = AB/ (c-v’) (2)
t’A - tB=AB/(c+v’) (3)
Where c is the velocity of light. Equations 2 and 3 do not satisfy 1 and consequently as we have already seen on another post
[quote]So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system. [/quote]
Later in section 5 § 5. The Composition of Velocities, he examines the situation whereby two systems moved relative to each other, one with velocity w and the other u, The velocity of one system relative to the other is then, when moving in the same direction according to x’=w+u and according to x’’=w-u, he arrives at the equations
x’= (w+u)/(1+(uw’)/c2) (4)
x’’= (w-u)/(1-(uw’)/c2) (5)
Using AE’s own equations 4 and 5 where w=c and u=v then
x’= (c+v)/(1+(vc)/c2) (6)
x’’= (c-v)/(1-(vc)/c2) (7)
which reduce to
x’= c (8)
x’’= c (9)
And substituting back into equations 4 and 5 we conclude to
t’A- tB = tB- tA (10)
Which is the same equation as 1 above. We see that from AE’s definition of time and synchronisation, that when times are synchronous in one reference (inertial) frame, they are synchronous with all other reference (inertial) frames, which is an absolute. But this is contradictory to his theory, where he says “we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity”, which and shows relativity to be in error. Therefore using AE’s own principles, relativity is invalidated.
x’= (w+u)/(1+(uw’)/c2) (4)
x’’= (w-u)/(1-(uw’)/c2) (5)
Using AE’s own equations 4 and 5 where w=c and u=v then
x’= (c+v)/(1+(vc)/c2) (6)
x’’= (c-v)/(1-(vc)/c2) (7)
which reduce to
x’= c (8)
x’’= c (9)
And substituting back into equations 4 and 5 we conclude to
t’A- tB = tB- tA (10)
Which is the same equation as 1 above. We see that from AE’s definition of time and synchronisation, that when times are synchronous in one reference (inertial) frame, they are synchronous with all other reference (inertial) frames, which is an absolute. But this is contradictory to his theory, where he says “we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity”, which and shows relativity to be in error. Therefore using AE’s own principles, relativity is invalidated.
Comments continued concerning Alberts document - ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
Another invalidation of Relativity
The classical understanding of time has units by which the number of time is to be measured, which is typically seconds or a variation thereof such as 60 seconds equals a minute. This unit of measure is to be understood as universal and absolute. However, AE’s understanding of time we can ask what is the common unit for time calculation?
From AE’s A-B clock thought experiment, each clock is measured by each observer, independently of any other clock. As each clock runs independently of any other clock, there can be no common time unit.
AE briefly infers a reference to time unit where he says immediately before he presents his clock experiment
Another invalidation of Relativity
The classical understanding of time has units by which the number of time is to be measured, which is typically seconds or a variation thereof such as 60 seconds equals a minute. This unit of measure is to be understood as universal and absolute. However, AE’s understanding of time we can ask what is the common unit for time calculation?
From AE’s A-B clock thought experiment, each clock is measured by each observer, independently of any other clock. As each clock runs independently of any other clock, there can be no common time unit.
AE briefly infers a reference to time unit where he says immediately before he presents his clock experiment
[quote] But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought [/quote]
The phrase “as we know from experience” means he is using an example that is foundational to his theory, whereby time is known independently of any other clock.
Now an equation is developed whereby a light ray is moved from A to B and then back to A which equates to
2AB/(t’A - t’A) = c (1)
Which is universal constant whereby his clock experiment could occur at any point in the universe, therefore his equation must also hold true throughout the universe. (Which in itself is an absolute and which contradicts his understanding that time synchronisation cannot be understood in any absolute manner).
With the above equation (1), a question comes to mind – what are the units to be used for t and t’? To answer this we need to see that AE’s clock example assumes that in a stationary frame, the light speed has a constant value derived or at least implied by the equation
c=d/time (2)
where d is the distance between clocks A and B. From AE’s clock example which is given below for reference
Now an equation is developed whereby a light ray is moved from A to B and then back to A which equates to
2AB/(t’A - t’A) = c (1)
Which is universal constant whereby his clock experiment could occur at any point in the universe, therefore his equation must also hold true throughout the universe. (Which in itself is an absolute and which contradicts his understanding that time synchronisation cannot be understood in any absolute manner).
With the above equation (1), a question comes to mind – what are the units to be used for t and t’? To answer this we need to see that AE’s clock example assumes that in a stationary frame, the light speed has a constant value derived or at least implied by the equation
c=d/time (2)
where d is the distance between clocks A and B. From AE’s clock example which is given below for reference
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the ``A time'' tA from A towards B, let it at the ``B time'' tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' t’A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
But this equation that AE uses to define time can only be true if the light ray has the same properties it had from A as it has from B. But if the time unit between A and B changes then the light ray has different properties between A and B that it has from B to A, which means that the light ray from A to B is not the same as the light ray from B to A. To vary time according to t and t’ then breaches the principle of identity that says the above equation (2) requires the units of time for A to B to be the same from B to A.
Or according to equations for light speed from A to B
c=d/time A-B (4)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock A. We can assume the time units from A are A-seconds for the sake of clarity.
The equation for light speed from B to A is
c=d/time B-A (5)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock B. We can assume the time units from A are B-seconds for the sake of clarity.
But as the units of A-seconds are not B-seconds, then light from A to B is not the same light from B to A. But the units in the equation three given below according to
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
require the units of time at A and B to be the same, otherwise equation 3 becomes a meaningless bundle of numbers, each with different units. It would be like saying the time frame A-B is 10 seconds and from B-A is 12 quasi seconds, where seconds and quasi seconds have no relationship to each other, because each unit is determined by clocks A and B independently of each other.
As relativity breaches the laws of causation and makes the fundamental equations of relativity meaningless, relativity is invalidated.
A secondary conclusion of this invalidation is that the statement – light has a speed of 300,000km/s is meaningless.
Or according to equations for light speed from A to B
c=d/time A-B (4)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock A. We can assume the time units from A are A-seconds for the sake of clarity.
The equation for light speed from B to A is
c=d/time B-A (5)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock B. We can assume the time units from A are B-seconds for the sake of clarity.
But as the units of A-seconds are not B-seconds, then light from A to B is not the same light from B to A. But the units in the equation three given below according to
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
require the units of time at A and B to be the same, otherwise equation 3 becomes a meaningless bundle of numbers, each with different units. It would be like saying the time frame A-B is 10 seconds and from B-A is 12 quasi seconds, where seconds and quasi seconds have no relationship to each other, because each unit is determined by clocks A and B independently of each other.
As relativity breaches the laws of causation and makes the fundamental equations of relativity meaningless, relativity is invalidated.
A secondary conclusion of this invalidation is that the statement – light has a speed of 300,000km/s is meaningless.
Comments continued concerning Alberts document - ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
The classical understanding of time has units by which the number of time is to be measured, which is typically seconds or a variation thereof such as 60 seconds equals a minute. This unit of measure is to be understood as universal and absolute. However, AE’s understanding of time we can ask what is the common unit for time calculation?
From AE’s A-B clock thought experiment, each clock is measured by each observer, independently of any other clock. As each clock runs independently of any other clock, there can be no common time unit.
AE briefly infers a reference to time unit where he says immediately before he presents his clock experiment
The phrase “as we know from experience” means he is using an example that is foundational to his theory, whereby time is known independently of any other clock.
Now an equation is developed whereby a light ray is moved from A to B and then back to A which equates to
2AB/(t’A - t’A) = c (1)
Which is universal constant whereby his clock experiment could occur at any point in the universe, therefore his equation must also hold true throughout the universe. (Which in itself is an absolute and which contradicts his understanding that time synchronisation cannot be understood in any absolute manner).
With the above equation (1), a question comes to mind – what are the units to be used for t and t’? To answer this we need to see that AE’s clock example assumes that in a stationary frame, the light speed has a constant value derived or at least implied by the equation
c=d/time (2)
where d is the distance between clocks A and B. From AE’s clock example which is given below for reference
But this equation that AE uses to define time can only be true if the light ray has the same properties it had from A as it has from B. But if the time unit between A and B changes then the light ray has different properties between A and B that it has from B to A, which means that the light ray from A to B is not the same as the light ray from B to A. To vary time according to t and t’ then breaches the principle of identity that says the above equation (2) requires the units of time for A to B to be the same from B to A.
Or according to equations for light speed from A to B
c=d/time A-B (4)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock A. We can assume the time units from A are A-seconds for the sake of clarity.
The equation for light speed from B to A is
c=d/time B-A (5)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock B. We can assume the time units from A are B-seconds for the sake of clarity.
But as the units of A-seconds are not B-seconds, then light from A to B is not the same light from B to A. But the units in the equation three given below according to
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
require the units of time at A and B to be the same, otherwise equation 3 becomes a meaningless bundle of numbers, each with different units. It would be like saying the time frame A-B is 10 seconds and from B-A is 12 quasi seconds, where seconds and quasi seconds have no relationship to each other, because each unit is determined by clocks A and B independently of each other.
As relativity breaches the laws of causation and makes the fundamental equations of relativity meaningless, relativity is invalidated.
A secondary conclusion of this invalidation is that the statement – light has a speed of 300,000km/s is meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The classical understanding of time has units by which the number of time is to be measured, which is typically seconds or a variation thereof such as 60 seconds equals a minute. This unit of measure is to be understood as universal and absolute. However, AE’s understanding of time we can ask what is the common unit for time calculation?
From AE’s A-B clock thought experiment, each clock is measured by each observer, independently of any other clock. As each clock runs independently of any other clock, there can be no common time unit.
AE briefly infers a reference to time unit where he says immediately before he presents his clock experiment
The phrase “as we know from experience” means he is using an example that is foundational to his theory, whereby time is known independently of any other clock.
Now an equation is developed whereby a light ray is moved from A to B and then back to A which equates to
2AB/(t’A - t’A) = c (1)
Which is universal constant whereby his clock experiment could occur at any point in the universe, therefore his equation must also hold true throughout the universe. (Which in itself is an absolute and which contradicts his understanding that time synchronisation cannot be understood in any absolute manner).
With the above equation (1), a question comes to mind – what are the units to be used for t and t’? To answer this we need to see that AE’s clock example assumes that in a stationary frame, the light speed has a constant value derived or at least implied by the equation
c=d/time (2)
where d is the distance between clocks A and B. From AE’s clock example which is given below for reference
But this equation that AE uses to define time can only be true if the light ray has the same properties it had from A as it has from B. But if the time unit between A and B changes then the light ray has different properties between A and B that it has from B to A, which means that the light ray from A to B is not the same as the light ray from B to A. To vary time according to t and t’ then breaches the principle of identity that says the above equation (2) requires the units of time for A to B to be the same from B to A.
Or according to equations for light speed from A to B
c=d/time A-B (4)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock A. We can assume the time units from A are A-seconds for the sake of clarity.
The equation for light speed from B to A is
c=d/time B-A (5)
where d is the distance from A to B and time A-B is the time taken from A to B which has units determined from clock B. We can assume the time units from A are B-seconds for the sake of clarity.
But as the units of A-seconds are not B-seconds, then light from A to B is not the same light from B to A. But the units in the equation three given below according to
tB - tA = t’A- tB (3)
require the units of time at A and B to be the same, otherwise equation 3 becomes a meaningless bundle of numbers, each with different units. It would be like saying the time frame A-B is 10 seconds and from B-A is 12 quasi seconds, where seconds and quasi seconds have no relationship to each other, because each unit is determined by clocks A and B independently of each other.
As relativity breaches the laws of causation and makes the fundamental equations of relativity meaningless, relativity is invalidated.
A secondary conclusion of this invalidation is that the statement – light has a speed of 300,000km/s is meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further conclusions regarding the A-B clock experiment
1. The time unit is unknowable
2. The light ray outside the vicinity of either A or B is unknowable to A or B, making the light ray inconceivable along the flight path between A and B.
3. As the time constantly changes between A and B, or time between A and B is unknown to either A or B, then an equation for the flight path between A and B in not possible to derive with any real meaning.
4. The constant velocity of light applies only to the observers in their own immediate reference frame, meaning that the light velocity is unknown from one reference frame to the other.
5. As the time unit is unknowable, then relativity invalidates the famous equation E=mc2, but this equation has been validated, so relativity is invalidated.
A short critique of relativistic mass
To specify is to know what formally makes, or formally constitutes, or determinately constitutes something to be what it is according to a principle of determinacy either inside or outside the thing. For example the substantial form of water, as an intrinsic determination, determines matter to be water. An accidental form of heat making or determining the water hot. Whilst a paint brush is extrinsically determined to be a brush from the determination of the brush to paint, or again, a shoe’s shape from the shape of a foot.
Relative is what is ordered towards another, whilst absolute is what is not ordered towards another. An absolute can be an absolute in one respect and a relative under another respect. For example a man as he is a man is an absolute, for man as man is not man according as man is ordered towards something other, but is a man as he is ordered towards being a man. However a man as an absolute, can also be considered by a power, such as an intellect, whereby the man can be considered as ordered say, economically under the notion of productive output, or under the notion of man as he is colored, of as he is of a particular height and so on. In this manner man is ordered towards another and is known as a relative.
The notions of movement, time, length and mass are all absolutes whereby each notion is to be defined from its nature, or IOW from what formally constitutes, or determinately constitutes something to be what it is according to a principle of determinacy inside the thing. But relativity ignores this truth and posits that definitions of movement, time, length and mass are to be made according to mathematical definitions, whereby these notions are to be judged as determined by quantities. But to define according to mathematical equations is to define according to accidentals, but accidentals are dependent upon natures, which are absolutes.
Therefore relativity implicitly assumes absolutes in the notions of movement, time, length and mass are true even though the theory purports to deny absolutes. Therefore relativity is invalidated.
Relativity denies the existence of absolutes, but absolutes are pre-required for relatives to exist. Therefore the notions of movement, time, length and mass according to relativity are unknowable and relativity is invalidated.
Lets see how problems arise when we consider relativistic mass. According to AE
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett, Einstein wrote
[quote]
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than `the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." [/quote]
He readily admits that a relative mass given by his equation is hopelessly flawed and no clear definition can be given for relative mass. So what does he do to salvage his theory? He appeals to an arbitrary ‘rest mass’. But this will not resolve the problem, for in the electrodynamics of moving bodies in 1905 he says
[quote]
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. [/quote]
According to his theory, the “phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest “ But no properties includes the property of mass at rest. Relativistic mass has no meaning according to Albert and absolute mass is not permitted, so any notion of mass in relativity has no meaning. Therefore relativity is invalidated.
Also, as all motions are relative, there is no way to determine a state of rest exists, as all motions are determined by an arbitrary observer and each observer sees an event as relative. He is trapped within his own theory, which is full of contradictions and errors. Therefore relativity is invalidated.
Another problem with the relativistic mass equation is that it is derived using the notions of time (there are at least three different ways AE uses time), which have been shown to be full of errors. Therefore his relativistic mass equation is invalidated and relativity is invalidated.
Also, as all motions are relative, there is no way to determine a state of rest exists, as all motions are determined by an arbitrary observer and each observer sees an event as relative. He is trapped within his own theory, which is full of contradictions and errors. Therefore relativity is invalidated.
Another problem with the relativistic mass equation is that it is derived using the notions of time (there are at least three different ways AE uses time), which have been shown to be full of errors. Therefore his relativistic mass equation is invalidated and relativity is invalidated.
JM
Some more Invalidations of Relativity
Here’s another fallacy within relativity – from Robert Bennett.
1- E=mc2 applies to all objects with energy
2- Photons have radiant energy via E = hf
3- E=mc2 applies to photons => photons have mass.
4 – Any object with mass cannot travel at c.
5 – light travels at c in any inertial frame.
6- But as light has mass, it therefore cannot travel at c in any inertial frame.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity theory is invalidated.
1- A real inertial frame is not testable in relativity theory . . . only quasi/pseudo inertial frames
2- The scientific method requires testability
3- The inertial frame concept is not falsifiable by the scientific method
4 - Ergo, the inertial frame concept is not scientific.
5 –As the inertial frame is not scientific, then relativity is not science.
6 - But relativity claims to be a scientific maths model.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity is invalid.
1- To allow clocks to be synchronized, the observer must know the initial tick rate of the clock compared to a universal bench mark.
2- For to only know a tick rate locally, means the tick rate is arbitrary.
3- But the tick rate of the clock is only known locally in relativity
4- As the clock rate is only known locally, then it is unknown universally
5- Therefore the tick rate of the clock is arbitrary
6- But what is arbitrary cannot be synchronized
7- But relativity claims to synchronize clocks.
8- 6 contradicts 7, therefore relativity is invalid.
1- E=mc2 applies to all objects with energy
2- Photons have radiant energy via E = hf
3- E=mc2 applies to photons => photons have mass.
4 – Any object with mass cannot travel at c.
5 – light travels at c in any inertial frame.
6- But as light has mass, it therefore cannot travel at c in any inertial frame.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity theory is invalidated.
1- A real inertial frame is not testable in relativity theory . . . only quasi/pseudo inertial frames
2- The scientific method requires testability
3- The inertial frame concept is not falsifiable by the scientific method
4 - Ergo, the inertial frame concept is not scientific.
5 –As the inertial frame is not scientific, then relativity is not science.
6 - But relativity claims to be a scientific maths model.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity is invalid.
1- To allow clocks to be synchronized, the observer must know the initial tick rate of the clock compared to a universal bench mark.
2- For to only know a tick rate locally, means the tick rate is arbitrary.
3- But the tick rate of the clock is only known locally in relativity
4- As the clock rate is only known locally, then it is unknown universally
5- Therefore the tick rate of the clock is arbitrary
6- But what is arbitrary cannot be synchronized
7- But relativity claims to synchronize clocks.
8- 6 contradicts 7, therefore relativity is invalid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)