Post by: A.J.Hodgson on 20/01/2016 17:33:07
Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing.
Speed of light constant & not additive, so when moving parallel relative to setup light pulse observed as tracing out a longer, angled path, the effect cannot be change in the consistent speed of light, therefore, according to relativity, must be accredited to effects on time (dilation).
However when the relativists returned to earth & the stationary me was unexpectedly younger, it was found that I hadn't been stationary but travelling at speed of earths rotation + suns rotation + galaxies rotation etc. while they had just been travelling in a straight line.
Or in other words; speed of light is not additive - including sideways - once it is emitted from its source it travels in a straight line, but is dispersed, a constant by which the movement of rest of universe can be measured.
Post by: Colin2B on 20/01/2016 19:21:44
Relativity has nothing to do with light travelling in a straight line, that is a red herring.
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/01/2016 19:36:19
where the result is a value between 1 and 2. At 1 we are at the speed of light and at 2 we are stationary with respect to the background. Both excluded by relativity. Clear and simple.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2016 21:03:38
You have typed some words
Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing.
Speed of light constant & not additive, so when moving parallel relative to setup light pulse observed as tracing out a longer, angled path, the effect cannot be change in the consistent speed of light, therefore, according to relativity, must be accredited to effects on time (dilation).
However when the relativists returned to earth & the stationary me was unexpectedly younger, it was found that I hadn't been stationary but travelling at speed of earths rotation + suns rotation + galaxies rotation etc. while they had just been travelling in a straight line.
Or in other words; speed of light is not additive - including sideways - once it is emitted from its source it travels in a straight line, but is dispersed, a constant by which the movement of rest of universe can be measured.
Experiments have shown that time dilation is real and has the value predicted by relativity.
What should I believe?
Post by: alysdexia on 23/01/2016 04:33:29
I disagree that the complicated path travelled by earth can be calculated by people who do not know what dark matter, dark energy & dark flow are, let alone find gravitational waves.
Prove it.
Quote
Regarding straight lines - Light is energy liberated in one direction, 1 dimensional space.
If you mean the radial direction, the wave also undergoes polarization.
Quote
My point was to even talk of stationary frame of reference is worthless, you only know of one constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, I am simply using it to also ascertain all other movement.
I specifically mentioned Light as separate from the space that warps it & hence a constant that can be used to ascertain said warping. All experiments have shown is space can be warped, this takes energy, so for example, when a beam of light sent from a satellite to earth & the path is curved, the signal must either be sent earlier to account for longer curved path, or more energy used to fill the extra space of a curved path compared to a straight one.
velocity ∈ special relativity.
acceleration ∈ general relativity.
Post by: Colin2B on 24/01/2016 00:49:11
I disagree that the complicated path travelled by earth can be calculated by people who do not know what dark matter, dark energy & dark flow are, let alone find gravitational waves.When the geocentric view was commonly held the motions of the planets relative to earth appeared extremely complex - some planets appeared to reverse direction. However, Arab mathematicians were close to solving the equations when Copernicus and Galileo changed the game with the heliocentric theory. By the time Keppler and Newton had finished with it we had a pretty accurate view of the motions of the universe, all without the use of today's supercomputers.
Regarding straight lines - Light is energy liberated in one direction, 1 dimensional space.Light has speed hence requires at least 2 dimensions, distance and time.
My point was to even talk of stationary frame of reference is worthless,That's why we don't. We talk of being at rest within an inertial ie non accelerating, frame of reference, and consider other motions relative to that frame. However, that frame can be moving.
Consider 2 cars travelling towards each other at a constant 30mph. We can define car A as being at rest in an inertial frame surrounding it and moving with it. Relative to car A, Car B is moving towards it at 60mph. This concept was developed by Galileo, in fact it is named Galilean Relativity in his honour, all he was lacking was the knowledge the constancy of the speed of light and he would have discovered Special Relativity.
you only know of one constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, I am simply using it to also ascertain all other movement.There are many constants, but as with the speed of light they cannot be used to ascertain all other movements.
I specifically mentioned Light as separate from the space that warps it & hence a constant that can be used to ascertain said warping.This is accepted by relativity, but your original post was regarding time dilation which has nothing to do with warping of spacetime.
when a beam of light sent from a satellite to earth & the path is curved, the signal must either be sent earlier to account for longer curved path,If the satellite is geostationary then no, if it is moving relative to earth surface the beam will need to be aimed off, as with a rifle, in order to hit the target. Although the path is curved relative to earth surface, the light is still travelling in a straight line.
Prove it.This is good advice if you want to debunk time dilation or any other part of relativity. However, you are working against very large number of experiments which show the theories hold true, so you will have to devise and perform a series of experiments which consistently demonstrate they do not, and these experiments will need to be repeatable by anyone else.
Don't shirk from this task, if you succeed fame and fortune await you.
Post by: A.J.Hodgson on 25/01/2016 17:33:08
This is about whether time or space is warped, I propose space is warped never time/electromagnetic wave, I have tried to demonstrate this by showing the electromagnetic wave sent down a curved path must be either sent earlier or require more energy to fill when compared to a straight path.
Please tell me what experiment has confirmed the electromagnetic wave is given sideways additive momentum, as is proposed in the analogy of a spaceship flying off at nearly light speed & returning with a younger crew due to additive sideways momentum requiring the electromagnetic wave to have travelled a further distance than without the addition?
Post by: Colin2B on 25/01/2016 18:01:05
Please tell me what experiment has confirmed the electromagnetic wave is given sideways additive momentum, as is proposed in the analogy of a spaceship flying off at nearly light speed & returning with a younger crew due to additive sideways momentum requiring the electromagnetic wave to have travelled a further distance than without the addition?I think you must have misunderstood what relativity is all about.
There is no additive sideways momentum requiring the electromagnetic wave to have travelled a further distance. No extra energy is required.
That has never been a part of special or general relativity.
Post by: GoC on 25/01/2016 21:04:27
« on: Today at 17:33:08 »
"Please tell me what experiment has confirmed the electromagnetic wave is given sideways additive momentum, as is proposed in the analogy of a spaceship flying off at nearly light speed & returning with a younger crew due to additive sideways momentum requiring the electromagnetic wave to have travelled a further distance than without the addition?"
Atomic clocks of course. You are misunderstanding the basic premise of time dilation. It is time of reaction in different frames. Life being a biological clock is affected by that frames chemical reaction clock. Lets say the electron cycles. We will not argue about the path of the cycle but just that there is a cycle (distance). At the speed of light there is no energy left for cycling because all of the energy is used in inertial travel. Also this is also not a linear relationship. Half the speed of light the reaction time is 86.6% of the reaction speed at relative rest. 13.4% slower chemical reaction relative. At 86.6% of the speed of light the chemical reaction vs. being at rest is one half or 50% of the reaction speed relative to rest.
Why is the reaction speed less? Because of the increased distance the electron has to travel per cycle with inertial speed. The amount of motion possible is c. Inertial speed reduces the potential cycle time at rest for the atom by increasing the relative distance through space the electron travels.
The electron travel distance and the light travel distance is always relative to measure the speed of light the same in every frame.
In GR space dilates by 13.4% to have an attraction of half the speed of light. When space dilates to 100% of the speed of light there is no energy left to keep atoms apart and a black hole forms void of the energy of time.
In SR Inertial distance is relative to dilation of space caused by mass in GR.
There is an equivalence but not equal in cause. While both are related to c.
This is just what I suspect. Reality may or may not be different then this subjective interpretation.
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/01/2016 09:22:54
Posted by: A.J.Hodgson
« on: Today at 17:33:08 »
"Please tell me what experiment has confirmed the electromagnetic wave is given sideways additive momentum, as is proposed in the analogy of a spaceship flying off at nearly light speed & returning with a younger crew due to additive sideways momentum requiring the electromagnetic wave to have travelled a further distance than without the addition?"
Atomic clocks of course. You are misunderstanding the basic premise of time dilation. It is time of reaction in different frames. Life being a biological clock is affected by that frames chemical reaction clock. Lets say the electron cycles. We will not argue about the path of the cycle but just that there is a cycle (distance). At the speed of light there is no energy left for cycling because all of the energy is used in inertial travel. Also this is also not a linear relationship. Half the speed of light the reaction time is 86.6% of the reaction speed at relative rest. 13.4% slower chemical reaction relative. At 86.6% of the speed of light the chemical reaction vs. being at rest is one half or 50% of the reaction speed relative to rest.
Why is the reaction speed less? Because of the increased distance the electron has to travel per cycle with inertial speed. The amount of motion possible is c. Inertial speed reduces the potential cycle time at rest for the atom by increasing the relative distance through space the electron travels.
The electron travel distance and the light travel distance is always relative to measure the speed of light the same in every frame.
In GR space dilates by 13.4% to have an attraction of half the speed of light. When space dilates to 100% of the speed of light there is no energy left to keep atoms apart and a black hole forms void of the energy of time.
In SR Inertial distance is relative to dilation of space caused by mass in GR.
There is an equivalence but not equal in cause. While both are related to c.
This is just what I suspect. Reality may or may not be different then this subjective interpretation.
I will be getting back to you on this point. Very interesting.
Post by: puppypower on 26/01/2016 14:02:01
One well know phenomena that cycles is energy; sine waves. We are using the cyclic nature of energy to describe and measure time, even though energy has wavelength (distance) and frequency (time), while time only has time. There is a conceptual disconnect. The numbers may work out, but the disconnect between the two phenomena, will have an impact on how the mind equates the clock and time.
As an analogy, I can measure temperature with a hydrometer; relative humidity, if I keep pressure constant. At any given temperature and pressure, so much water vapor will be in equilibrium with its liquid. In this detached thermometer, I am using the evaporation of water, at constant pressure, to measure temperature. This method will give good results, based on humidity charts. However, conceptually, the brain will begin to theorize how temperature is somehow connected to evaporation.The cause and effect can become backwards or upside down, if we use the tool's action to describe temperature.
In the case of time, since clocks measure time with a cycle, similar to energy, we will attempt to explain time in terms of (distance-time); space-time, speed of light, inertial speed, wavelength/frequency of energy. We are explaining what happens to the clock, not time. Time does not use distance. The idea of integrated space-time stems from the cyclic clock, since time is never fully separated from distance.
Let us infer a better tool that more closely parallels time. The flow of time is far closer to the concept of entropy, than the cyclic nature of energy. Both time and entropy naturally increase; 2nd law, as we move to the future. Neither time or entropy will spontaneously cycle backwards.
In chemistry, entropy is a state function, meaning a given state of matter will have a given level of entropy. The original definition of entropy, was not randomness, but was based on states. Random appears to help the disconnect. For example, water at 25C has an entropy value of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. The magnitude of entropy is not random, but has exact value; the state is an average for all the units.
An entropy based clock might be a human life, such as in the twin paradox. Entropy increase implies forward progressing changes of state, with each state having more entropy than the last. A slowing of time will simply slow the rate of entropy. A slowing of entropy will mean the human clock will take longer to reach each successive state; age slower.
If we use cyclic clocks, instead of entropy clocks, we will explain this with distance and time; curved space-time and the movement of light, wavelength changes, etc., since these are all connected to the units of energy based clocks, which do not accurately portray the nature of time.
Relative to GR, when gravity acts upon matter, it causes the entropy of the matter to decrease. Gravitation pressure is being applied. For example, liquid water has lower entropy than water vapor. The pressure increase created by gravity, will turn water vapor into liquid, lowering the entropy of the water. The result is a lowered entropy platform. This lower entropy floor sets a potential, that lowers the rate of entropy gain. Our human entropy clock ages slower. Entropy and time will still increase, but they will do so slower.
Special Relativity only works, in reality, if we have mass in motion. This is why Einstein defined three parameters in SR; mass, distance and time. If you use just distance and time, such as in the imagination; fly to the moon near C, nothing tangible will happen to reality. It may happen on paper, via math, but this a mental exercise will not impact your human entropy clock. Your mass needs to move since entropy is connected to states of matter.
The changes in relativistic mass, is altering the platform for entropy. Velocity will lower the platform for entropy, placing a drag on entropy. We don't go back in time, but will move slower to the future. Twin ages slower.
The two different approaches simply depend on whether you use an energy or entropy clock to describe time. It is much simpler with the entropy clock since you don't require a complicated translation process that leads to confusion, such as how pressure can alter temperate using an hydrometer thermometer.
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/01/2016 14:55:29
Post by: A.J.Hodgson on 26/01/2016 18:36:02
Post by: A.J.Hodgson on 26/01/2016 18:47:19
That is frequency multiplied by distance-shortest wavelength gives an energy value, when distance changes the effect must be in changing of frequency & when the frequency changes the effect must be in distance.
Post by: GoC on 27/01/2016 01:21:23
Post by: Colin2B on 27/01/2016 12:59:56
That is frequency multiplied by distance-shortest wavelengthWhat do you mean by distance-shortest wavelength.
The frequency and wavelength of an electromagnetic wave are linked by a constant c, the speed of light.
Post by: GoC on 27/01/2016 15:43:59
Post by: A.J.Hodgson on 29/01/2016 04:25:57
When distance added to c, frequency proves better constant for measurement of speed.
When frequency of c remains constant, intensity proves better constant for measurement of distance.
Post by: Colin2B on 29/01/2016 11:52:42
When distance added to c, frequency proves better constant for measurement of speed.Can you explain your reasoning please
Also what do you mean by "distance-shortest wavelength"? I have never come across this term.
Post by: GoC on 29/01/2016 16:06:47
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/02/2016 18:22:42
Post by: puppypower on 02/03/2016 23:20:45
Getting back to GoC and puppypower. If gravity lowers entropy (locally only) and increasing gravitational field strength slows down time then there looks like there is an indirect relationship between time dilation and entropy. If an increase in time dilation can be tied to lower entropy then at the event horizon of a black hole the entropy would have to decrease. Yet tidal forces would have exactly the opposite effect. Both can't be true. To resolve this issue there would need to be a velocity dependence on the state of entropy when moving through an increasing gravitational field.
Gravity not only impacts space-time, but gravity also generates pressure. This pressure is separate from space-time as inferred by time. For example, at the bottom of the space-time well time runs slowest. Yet in the center of gravity, which is the same spot, this place of highest pressure, defines phases of matter with the fastest frequencies; matter gets faster. There are two separate layers of time affects.
The simplest way to explain this is, gravity is an acceleration; d/t/t. Using simple dimensional analysis, acceleration is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time is one part distance and one part time. We need to account for the extra time. Pressure makes use of the second unit of time, which in the case of the core of the star, allows the fastest material phase frequencies. This aspect of time (faster) goes the other way compared to the time in space-time (slower).
In special relativity, since we deal with velocity; d/t, which is one part time and one part distance, we don't have to deal with the extra time of gravity. A relativistic space-ship will not implode, due to the extreme pressure that one will see if this reference was based on gravity.
As you go from space to the event horizon, space-time contracts. However, we also have that extra time due to acceleration. The pressure causes matter to assume phases of higher and higher frequency. The entropy change will depend on what these phases are.
For example, if we add pressure to water vapor we can get liquid water. This change of phase from vapor to liquid, by gravitational pressure, causes a drop in entropy. As we increase pressure even more, liquid water molecules will get closer, disrupting low entropy water structures that form in water. These structures depend on the hydrogen bonds being somewhat stretched. If we push these bonds closer, this disrupts the order and causes the entropy of the liquid water to increase.
Theoretically, pressure can make entropy go both ways based on the nature of the new phases and what happens in the phases. Fusion by binding two mobile atoms into one heavier and slower atom, lowers entropy. If we keep adding pressure, we can make the sub particles inside the nuclei to get too close, which may result in larger sub-particle composites with even higher entropy. This may occur when we exceed neutron density.
In the case of event horizon, it all depends on the phases due to pressure and materials. One possible scenario is say the pressure causes phases with extreme frequency and increasing entropy. What does this spectrum look like? If we red shift this extreme spectrum so it is larger, it still may be small to see or detect? The percent difference in the space-time well of the sun is much tighter than the material frequency difference from the surface to the core. We may need an extreme pressure sub-particle film to see it. What is smaller than gamma?
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/03/2016 09:53:57