Friday, March 18, 2005
Gendanken de nada
I received the March issue of Dr. Dobb's Math Power Newsletter and read that the editor & chief expositor, Homer Tilton, was flacking a book he and Florentin Smarandache wrote to expose Einstein's error--that a rocketship (sic) cannot go faster than the speed of light: Begin the Adventure: How to Break the Light Barrier by A.D. 2070.
Apparently, in Tilton & Smarandache's Gedankenexperiments, you can get over the hurdle of light speed by jettisoning all non-essential items on the ship (at high speeds)--or maybe that is how you avoid smacking into the Himalayas in your balloon trip around the world--I am confused on this point, which is a non sequitur. Non sequiturs, in the hands of T&S, turn out to be a powerful means of adducing proof. Find them in Einstein's expositions and you poke a hole in his theory.
Since Dr. Dobb's has put the Math Power Newsletter in an area available only to subscribers, and since Tilton has expressly restricted duplication such that only "A limited number of copies may be made at educational institutions for internal use of faculty and students," I won't quote the newsletter in full, but I can give a few excerpts. First of all, let me preface my critique by saying that since no "hard numbers" or equations are adduced, Tilton basically uses rhetoric to find the flaws in Einstein's arguments; accordingly, I will just have my rhetorical fun in return. For those who want a firmer foundation for their scientific entertainment, see my recommended reading below.
Since there is no luminiferous ether, there can be no "road" in space upon which to conceptually post a sign like this for rocketships: ------------------------------------------- | SPEED lIMIT 300 MEGAMETERS PER SECOND | | STRICTLY ENFORCED | ------------------------------------------- | | | | -------- --------
I love this since the line printer orientation of the rebuttal does lend itself to dramatic effect. I also envision Tilton as a high altitude sky diver who shreds his chute because there is no sign saying
| ----- TERMINAL VELOCITY FOR FREEFALL REACHED ----- |.
The reference to "luminiferous ether" is an egregious non sequitur, but I can't tell if it is used for irony or not. One would hope so, since it is a long row to hoe if one has yet to get past Michelson-Morley on one's way to overturning Einstein.
Looks like another non sequitur, and an easing back by Einstein from an earlier position; for aren't gravitation and acceleration fields equivalent?
Yes, in just the same way that mammals and Homer Tilton are equivalent. The Einstein quote that Tilton is trying to sucker punch only mentions acceleration, not an "acceleration field," ("Quick, step on the gas and create an acceleration field!") but we'll ignore that, since I would much rather see Tilton set up an equivalence between a gravitational field and a cyclotron.
"Immaterial"? Consider that an atomic clock will run slower in a stronger gravitational field but a pendulum clock will run faster there. Non sequitur.
Again non sequitur, that tarry brush, is used. I feel like paraphrasing Inigo Montoya here, but must instead admit a truism that has been revealed to me: When you only allow your premises to be assumed, everyone else speaks in non sequiturs. (This is not an original insight, since it is merely a variation on begging the question.) Tilton asserts rebuttal via a Newtonian approximation of the motion of a pendulum in extreme ("relativistic") conditions and seems to use the time frame of the observer for atomic clocks and the time frame of the observed for the pendulum.
No, Mr. Tilton, I think you really do need to at least attempt to come up with a relativistic description of pendulum motion before declaring that you know how it acts at the event horizon of a black hole. You also need to keep straight where you are keeping your time. Then perhaps I'd be more charitable to your pithy rebuttals.
And lastly, my favorite excerpt from the newsletter
From my 1990 book, with co-author Florentin Smarandache, The Light Barrier, (p. 4-2): "But the same relativistic factor that suggests the traveling twin well be younger also suggests -- with equal authority -- that he will be significantly more massive and shorter as well (or skinnier, depending on his orientation in the vehicle)! Why is it never said, 'he was also found, on his return, to be much heavier and shorter'?"
Thus we learn that going on a space voyage at near-light speeds is the same as pigging out on fast food. At last, a crackpot assertion I embrace! For years, everyone laughed at me, but I knew, deep, deep inside, that I had The Right Stuff! I am going to put "Deep Space Voyager" on my resume--my experience will be measured by my girth.
The thinking here is flawed in that T&S seem to believe that the twin paradox means that the faster twin gets !BONUS MASS! As in what? Extra atoms? Heavier protons? Sorry, T&A, the mass & length change is only in the observer's frame of reference relative to the fast twin. Once the twin "reunites" her inertial frame of reference with the observer (i.e., her twin) there is no relativistic difference to be measured. Here the word paradox in "The Twin Paradox" means that a Newtonian mindset experiences cognitive dissonance when pondering it. An Einsteinian mindset would relabel it as the "Twin Example."
And that's enough to give you a taste of the newsletter. There is also a bit of inspirational fiction in there as well as some evasive correspondence from people who don't want to endorse T&S, but don't want to be confrontational.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that T&S should be laughed out of town, but that they need real, not rhetorical, arguments to be taken seriously. However, I find their arguments entertaining, if only as an exercise for rebuttal. Do I think that they are wrong? Certainly. Are they cranks? Most likely. How do you treat cranks? Well, the redoubtable Underwood Dudley says, I believe, don't encourage them. (But I haven't read his latest book on cranks, so I don't know what his current advice is.) Accordingly, I won't say mealy-mouthed things like, "Well, they haven't been proven wrong...." but I will encourage you to read their book once you have a handle on what relativity is. Then you can draw your own conclusion. (But for heaven's sake, don't learn their version of relativity.)
Where to learn relativity? Am I, Jared, an authority on relativity? No. Heck, I can hardly predict what my own relatives will do. The best way to understand relativity is to study it. Fortunately, there are some really good resources for doing so. The first two are books that I've read long ago, but still recall as being good the rest are all on line.
- Einstein for Beginners
Cartoon format, easy to read, author is a Marxist (e.g., in setting historical context & interpretation). I read and understood this book in junior high and didn't become a Marxist, so what's not to recommend, based upon my experience? - Relativity Visualized
Pictures to help understand what is going on. Look for the mathematics elsewhere. - Spacetime 101
A nice on-line tutorial I just found. The navigation is not as intuitive for those expecting "Previous" and "Next" links on each page, but you should be able to figure it out. (Hint: Use the links at the top of the page.)
Links to on-line tutorials for relativity
Don't feel pressured to learn this all at once. I have a feeling that you have some time to absorb this before T&S bolster their arguments with convincing mathematics.
