{"id":2835,"date":"2010-08-21T08:40:32","date_gmt":"2010-08-21T07:40:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/?p=2835"},"modified":"2010-08-21T08:40:32","modified_gmt":"2010-08-21T07:40:32","slug":"miles-mathis-%e2%80%9crelativity-demystified%e2%80%9d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/miles-mathis-%e2%80%9crelativity-demystified%e2%80%9d\/","title":{"rendered":"Miles Mathis: \u201cRelativity Demystified\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nachstehend bringe ich einen weiteren Beitrag von Miles Mathis. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Quelle: <\/strong>http:\/\/milesmathis.com\/rel4.html<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Zitat<\/strong>: <\/strong><\/p>\n

Relativity Demystified
\n<\/strong>by Miles Mathis<\/em>\n<\/p>\n

In this paper I will explain Relativity in the simplest possible terms. This paper might be called an explanation for laymen, except that it will also be useful to physicists, even those at the top of the field. Relativity has existed in such a partial and muddled state for the last century that everyone might be called laymen with regard to it. There has been no clergy of Relativity, except a false clergy. Einstein, the high priest, understood Relativity in large part, but his explanations only confused the rest of the world. And even Einstein did not understand Relativity in full. That is why he was not able to simplify it. Relativity is much more transparent than we have been led to believe.<\/p>\n

I have already published a hatful of papers on Relativity, and one of them has the word \u201csimple\u201d in the title. But even that one was a presentation of the \u201csimple\u201d math. In it I did not try to explain Relativity as a theory, in its simplest form. I will do that now.<\/p>\n

As most know, there are two famous forms of Relativity, Special and General. Special Relativity tells us how motion or distance affects our measurements, when we ignore gravity. General Relativity tells us how motion or distance affects our measurements, including the effect of gravity. Gravity is a sort of motion, so it doubles our math. General Relativity is just Special Relativity plus gravity. From now on I will abbreviate SR and GR.<\/p>\n

The reason we need Relativity is that physics is a science that relies on light for much of its data. You could say the same about chemistry, in that light has to come through the microscope, but in physics the light is often coming from far away. If you look through a microscope, the light is local light: it is coming from the little lamp under the base. But if you look through a telescope, the light is coming from deep space. It is not local light. Because it is not local light, the images or information that it carries are distorted from the trip. If we receive the image of a star, for example, the image is here, in our eyes, but the star is many light years away. There is a time separation <\/em>of many light years between the image of the star and the star itself. This time separation distorts the image. To get a non-distorted or normal image, we need to do a transform. This transform is just a simple equation that makes the image normal. Once the image is normal, we can compare it to local images, and know precisely what to make of it.<\/p>\n

But it is not only great distance that can distort an image. Great speed can also do it. You already know that great speed can make an image blurry, but Relativity is much more than that. Even if we have a very fast f-stop on our camera, and can get rid of any possible blur, great speed will still cause distortion. It causes distortion because the light we are seeing with must travel from the object to us. But since the object has size, different parts of the image reach us at slightly different times. If we give the object two ends, one end must be further away than the other end. All ends cannot be the same distance, unless the object is a point. And no object is a point, since a point is not an object. This means that we must<\/em> get distortion, and that the distortion is due to size.<\/p>\n

Now, according to this explanation, even an object at rest must be distorted, due to size. And this is also true. But the distortion of an object at rest is so small we may ignore it. To get any noticeable distortion due to Relativity on an object at rest, the object would have to be exceedingly large, so that light traveling from one end would arrive late. Normally, Relativity is not applied to objects at rest, and that is why.<\/p>\n

But motion increases this effect greatly, and very fast motion increases it to a point where it becomes measurable. The reason is that very fast motion can make the farthest end of an object seem closer than it is. A small object passing you very fast will seem even smaller, since any part of the object traveling away from you will seem to be compressed. This is called length contraction.<\/p>\n

The easiest way to visualize this is to think of SR like the Doppler Effect. In fact, SR is <\/em>the Doppler Effect on clocks and lightwaves. With mass increase and length contraction, we have more going on than just the Doppler Effect, but the primary effect of SR is an effect on waves.<\/p>\n

The Doppler Effect is the stretching or compressing of waves, due to motion. The most common application of the Doppler Effect is to sound waves, and most people have no problem visualizing the stretching or compressing of sound waves. In the standard example, we have the train passing, the sound being higher pitched as the train comes toward us and lower pitched as the train leaves. The sound is higher because the wavelength is shorter, and the wavelength is shorter because the waves have a shorter distance to go each time. At each second, the train gets nearer. We hear the train at 100 feet, then the train at 99 feet, and so on. So the sounds get pushed closer together, and we hear a higher pitch.<\/p>\n

Well, the same thing happens with light. Light, like sound, has a wave. The analogy to sound is not perfect or complete, but light does have a wave. A train approaching us will have its light waves compressed and a train departing will have its waves stretched, for the same reason as we saw with the sound waves. We see the train at 100 feet, and then the train at 99 feet, and so on. We don\u2019t see a continuous image, we create one from the still images we receive. Since the later light has less distance to travel, it makes up time on earlier light, and the wave we see gets compressed. In reverse the same thing happens as the train recedes.<\/p>\n

Many will think this must make the receding train look longer–since waves that are stretched must be longer–but this is not what happens. The longer waves only make the train look redder. We read longer waves as redder and shorter waves as bluer, so a larger wavelength will cause a redshift.<\/p>\n

The reason the receding train looks shorter is that the length of the train is determined by a single image. Unlike the wave, which is built of a series of images, the length is determined by one image only. In other words, we could take a picture with a real camera, and using that one image, we could determine the apparent length of the train. [And, yes, that one image would be distorted by Relativity. That real picture, taken by a real camera, would be distorted by Relativity.] Now, that one image is made up of all the light reaching us at the same instant, from all the points on the train. Since all the light is moving the same speed, the light from more distant points on the train must be earlier light. To say it another way, all the light is reaching US at the same time, to make the image, so it can\u2019t have left all points on the train at the same time. If we work backwards from our eye, and go the speed of light for x seconds, we can reach some points on the train, but not others. This means that our image is made up of older and newer light. For instance, if the light from the nearest parts of the train was emitted at t = .0002s, then the light from the farthest parts of the train might have been emitted at t = .0001s. The light has farther to go, so to reach us at the same time, it had to be emitted earlier. If it was emitted earlier, then it was emitted when the object was not quite as far away. Therefore, the far end of the object will appear closer than it is. Therefore, the object will appear smaller or shorter than it really is.<\/p>\n

That was a bit difficult, I realize. It is probably the most difficult thing to understand about Relativity, and it has been misunderstood and misinterpreted millions of times. If you can make sense of that paragraph, you can make sense of any of the subtleties of Relativity.<\/p>\n

As one more aid to understanding, I will point out that this length contraction is exactly the opposite of the contraction of sound. Remember that with sound, we found a compression with the train approaching. With light, we find a compression in apparent length with the train receding. Once again, this is due to difference in the data. We hear sound over a series of intervals. A sound takes time. The sound is not just one beep, it is a long whistle. We make up this whistle in our heads by collating a series of sounds. Therefore, pitch, as data, can only be discovered over this series. You can\u2019t get pitch from one wave crest. Pitch is defined and heard as the length between crests, and this length can only be discovered over some longer interval of time, a time that gives us multiple crests.<\/p>\n

But length is different than pitch. Length can be discovered from one image, as I showed above. This means that we have to look at how it is measured. We have to study the operation: how the data is processed by our minds or machines. Pitch is compressed while length is increased. It may seem confusing or even counter-intuitive at first, but once you look at the pretty simple mechanics, it becomes clear.<\/p>\n

(Zitatende) <\/strong><\/p>\n

Lesen Sie bitte hier<\/span><\/a><\/strong> weiter!<\/p>\n

Beste Gr\u00fc\u00dfe Ekkehard Friebe<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nachstehend bringe ich einen weiteren Beitrag von Miles Mathis. Quelle: http:\/\/milesmathis.com\/rel4.html Zitat: Relativity Demystified by Miles Mathis In this paper I will explain Relativity in the simplest possible terms. This paper might be called an explanation for laymen, except that it will also be useful to physicists, even those at the top of the field. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2835"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}