# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?  (Read 9104 times)

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« on: 15/07/2010 07:04:11 »
One second of slow time covers more events than one second of fast time does. Any object overcomes greater distance in a second of the observer with slow time, than overcomes in a second of the observer with fast time. Therefore the measured speed by observer with slow time should be more than the same  measured speed by the observer with fast time.

#### Pmb

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1838
• Physicist
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #1 on: 15/07/2010 08:07:46 »
One second of slow time covers more events than one second of fast time does. Any object overcomes greater distance in a second of the observer with slow time, than overcomes in a second of the observer with fast time. Therefore the measured speed by observer with slow time should be more than the same  measured speed by the observer with fast time.
I don't understand what you mean by fast time and slow time. Can you define these terms for me and then explain what you're asking in terms of those definitions? Thanks.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #2 on: 15/07/2010 11:25:08 »
If atomic clock of the first observer ticks more slowly than atomic clock of the second observer ticks, then time of the first observer is slow, time of the second observer is fast.
Formula of the law of speeds measurement:

time of first observer/time of second observer = measured speed by second observer/measured speed by first observer

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #3 on: 15/07/2010 16:14:16 »
If atomic clock of the first observer ticks more slowly than atomic clock of the second observer ticks, then time of the first observer is slow, time of the second observer is fast.
Formula of the law of speeds measurement:

time of first observer/time of second observer = measured speed by second observer/measured speed by first observer
...if the space is the same, otherwise your formula is wrong (see relativity).

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #4 on: 15/07/2010 17:44:04 »
If atomic clock of the first observer ticks more slowly than atomic clock of the second observer ticks, then time of the first observer is slow, time of the second observer is fast.
Formula of the law of speeds measurement:

time of first observer/time of second observer = measured speed by second observer/measured speed by first observer
...if the space is the same, otherwise your formula is wrong (see relativity).
I do not think that a traveller relatively of dominant mass sees reduction of distances.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #5 on: 15/07/2010 19:49:45 »
If atomic clock of the first observer ticks more slowly than atomic clock of the second observer ticks, then time of the first observer is slow, time of the second observer is fast.
Formula of the law of speeds measurement:

time of first observer/time of second observer = measured speed by second observer/measured speed by first observer
...if the space is the same, otherwise your formula is wrong (see relativity).
I do not think that a traveller relatively of dominant mass sees reduction of distances.
But that's how nature really is. See "lorentz contraction" of lenghts.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #6 on: 19/07/2010 08:23:29 »
Nobody saw kinematic contraction of length of dominant mass.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #7 on: 19/07/2010 09:47:51 »
Quote
Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?

What is this "law of speeds measurement" and who's theory is it?  It's not anything I've heard of before.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #8 on: 19/07/2010 16:35:06 »
Quote
Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?

What is this "law of speeds measurement" and who's theory is it?  It's not anything I've heard of before.
I have already received the answer and an interdiction at other forum. My law is wrong for zero speed. Now I only state disagreement with the relativity.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #9 on: 20/07/2010 01:15:15 »
Quote
Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?

What is this "law of speeds measurement" and who's theory is it?  It's not anything I've heard of before.
I have already received the answer and an interdiction at other forum. My law is wrong for zero speed. Now I only state disagreement with the relativity.

So the theory is your own?  And you're asking why scientists ignore it?

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #10 on: 20/07/2010 05:39:50 »
Quote
Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?

What is this "law of speeds measurement" and who's theory is it?  It's not anything I've heard of before.
I have already received the answer and an interdiction at other forum. My law is wrong for zero speed. Now I only state disagreement with the relativity.

So the theory is your own?  And you're asking why scientists ignore it?
Yes, that idea explains something.Thanks.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #11 on: 20/07/2010 06:12:20 »
Since you're asking about a new law of your own, rather than something within standard physics, I'm going to move this to New Theories.  If you think it doesn't belong there, please let me know.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #12 on: 21/07/2010 05:27:33 »
Since you're asking about a new law of your own, rather than something within standard physics, I'm going to move this to New Theories.  If you think it doesn't belong there, please let me know.
Yes, that is my own. You can.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #13 on: 21/07/2010 06:36:36 »
Ok.  I don't fully understand what your theory is predicting, so its hard to tell you why scientists won't accept it.  Usually the problem is that a new theory doesn't agree with what's been observed in experiments or that a new theory does agree, in which case the theory isn't a good model of nature.  Relativity (so far) has been found to be in excellent agreement with experiments.  What does your theory predict that relativity doesn't?  Can you tell me an experiment that I could do to check your theory, and what I should expect to see when I do it?

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #14 on: 21/07/2010 20:15:32 »
Ok.  I don't fully understand what your theory is predicting, so its hard to tell you why scientists won't accept it.  Usually the problem is that a new theory doesn't agree with what's been observed in experiments or that a new theory does agree, in which case the theory isn't a good model of nature.  Relativity (so far) has been found to be in excellent agreement with experiments.  What does your theory predict that relativity doesn't?  Can you tell me an experiment that I could do to check your theory, and what I should expect to see when I do it?
For an example we are on South Pole. You are on a tower, I am below. Therefore your atomic clock go more quickly than my atomic clock (gravitational delay of time). Beside us the spaceship has begun movement. In the moment of the beginning of spaceship movement your clock show a zero, and my clock show a zero. Then the spaceship has made travel of 1000000 kilometers and has landed. In the moment of the landing my clock have shown time "x", your hours have shown time "x" + "y". "y" there is more than zero. Your measured speed is equal 1000000/(x+y) . My measured speed is equal 1000000/x .
1000000/x > 1000000/(x+y)

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #15 on: 22/07/2010 05:15:42 »
Ok. I get it now, and lightarrow was right.  You're accounting for time going faster and slower between observers, but not for lengths changing.  Since speed = length/time, you need to also account for length changes.  It's tricky to work out the mathematics for your experiment in terms of general relativity, but it can be done and the results of experiments match relativistic theory.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #16 on: 23/07/2010 04:32:31 »
Ok. I get it now, and lightarrow was right.  You're accounting for time going faster and slower between observers, but not for lengths changing.  Since speed = length/time, you need to also account for length changes.  It's tricky to work out the mathematics for your experiment in terms of general relativity, but it can be done and the results of experiments match relativistic theory.
I do not use wrong relativity. I shall make  my seсond law . Thank you for some understanding.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #17 on: 27/09/2010 15:50:18 »
Nobody saw kinematic contraction of length of dominant mass.

You sure Simplified?
We can see it looking on the muons arriving to Earth.
If your cryptic 'dominant mass' includes the mass of a muon?

You really need to explain the concepts and words you use.
Otherwise we will have to guess what you mean.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #18 on: 27/09/2010 16:13:35 »
This one argues nicely for both phenomena happening.
LENGTH CONTRACTION

As well as this explanation.

---Quote---

It could be argued that the length contraction and time dilation of special relativity are purely observational effects. One could say that the only means by which these two effects manifest themselves is by visually observing objects as they move away from us or towards us. Since these objects are always on the move, one cannot say whether the effect is real, or purely observational. But this line of reasoning quickly fails, and has been demonstrated to be false in a variety of settings, as we see below.

When a clock is placed in motion with respect to its original rest frame, the clock actually slows down. We know the clock slows down because it accumulates less time while in motion. If the moving clock is ultimately returned to its point of origin, the elapsed time physically displayed on the clock that was moving will be less than the elapsed time on the laboratory clock, even though they are now side by side in the same reference frame. This was demonstrated inconclusively by Hafele and Keating, but has been demonstrated to an unprecedented level of accuracy in the Global Positioning Satellite system. Each of the satellite clocks is pre-corrected for the effects of its orbital velocity prior to launch.

If the slowing of these clocks due to motion is the result of relativistic time-dilation, the effect is clearly real, as anticipated by Einstein, and is not simply an observational effect. If relativistic time-dilation is a physically detectable event, then relativistic length contraction must be physical as well, as anticipated by Einstein’s train-length measurement proposal. One of the difficulties in Lorentz’s original contraction theory was that he considered the length contraction to be real, while the time dilation was a mathematical artifact of no real significance. It would present an identical problem for special relativity to claim that time-dilation is real but that length contraction is simply a visual effect with no physical basis.

We can also consider the case of muons entering the Earth’s atmosphere. These particles travel the distance from the upper atmosphere to sea level in the course of an average muon lifetime. Even at velocities approaching c, the distance traveled by these particles would require the average life of a muon to be several times its rest value. As we stand on Earth, we can explain the muons’ ability to reach sea level as being due to time dilation. Since the particles are moving very fast, their internal clocks have slowed, causing their average life span to increase several fold. With a longer life, it is easy for them to finish the journey before they decay.

In the muons’ frame of reference, the situation is quite different. The only way this can happen in the muons’ reference frame is if the actual physical distance that must be traveled by them is shortened as in. This is not a visual effect for the muon. If the distance traveled by the muon is not physically shorter, the muon simply does not remain in existence long enough to make the trip, even at speeds greater than .9c. To the muon, length contraction is clearly not merely a visual effect, as the muon is not "seeing" anything. The distance to be traveled by the muon from the upper atmosphere to sea level is physically shorter than the same distance measured by a slower moving particle. The high speed muon performs Einstein’s train embankment experiment first hand.

As the SIM spacecraft follows the Earth in its orbit about the sun, its situation is indistinguishable from that of the high-speed muon. In the reference frame of the SIM, lengths must be physically contracted in the direction of motion, whether or not the SIM is "seeing" anything. To an observer at solar barycenter, no length contraction would occur, but the SIM clocks would be running slowly instead. However, we are interested only in what happens in the reference frame of SIM, and in that reference frame, as with the muon approaching sea level, all lengths are contracted in the direction of motion as compared to the solar barycenter frame, which we will use as our "stationary" reference.

------------End quote------------------

I believe you belonging to a minority here.
When people argue about muons most seem to accept the idea of a length contraction?
Did you notice how Lorentz saw it? If you believe Einstein to not know of what he is speaking off you're really sitting on the wrong side of the 'train'. Better change seats.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #19 on: 29/09/2010 16:31:48 »
For an example:  perpendicularly of solar beams the spacecraft travels with Lorentz's factor = 10. Length of this spacecraft = 10 meters. We see length of the shadow on the Earth = 1 meter. Though the traveller sees that the shadow of the spacecraft = 100 terrestrial meters. We see the spacecraft receives "x" photons in a second, and the traveller sees his spacecraft receives 100 "x" photons in a second, though time is identical. Do you see Einstein's mistake?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #20 on: 29/09/2010 21:11:26 »
Use muons instead Simplistic, take a look at the link and its equations, "Length Contraction.",  then prove to me that they are wrong. As they have to be if you want to be correct here.

The conundrum to the question lies in the idea of your own frame being 'invariant' as I like to call it. By that I mean that in all time-dilated frames, as defined from/to some other 'frame of reference', your heart will still be found to measure the same rate of beats per minute, according to your wristwatch.

"From the frame of reference of the muon, its half life is still 0.000002 seconds, and so as far as the muon is concerned (or if you prefer, from the perspective of someone "riding" on the back of the muon), it can only travel a distance of 600 metres from the point of generation, which as we have seen is not enough to reach the ground surface!"

And here's where the 'length contraction' comes into play.

"The answer lies in the (reciprocal) length contraction of the distance between the point of muon generation and the earth's surface, as seen from the frame of reference of the muon.  We can use the expression for length contraction above to show that the distance from point of creation to the earth's surface, as seen from the perspective of the muon, is equal to 600 metres, assuming that the muon has to travel 9,600 metres, in the frame of reference of the earth, in order to reach the surface of the earth.

So, even though the muon has a half-life on 0.000002 seconds in its own frame of reference, the distance it has to travel, from its frame of reference, is only 600 metres. It can accomplish this in 0.000002 seconds, at 99.8% of the speed of light."

Prove that wrong and you will have proved the invariance of time, as measured from/in your own 'frame of reference', also have to be wrong. Then your heartbeats will differ for you as you measure them, all depending on velocity and mass, relativistic or not..

==

It's quite simple.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2010 21:24:38 by yor_on »

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #21 on: 02/10/2010 14:05:09 »
Muon travel is more important than travel of spacecraft.Well.
Lorentz's coefficient of this speed = 16. And so the muon time streams slower than earth time does  in 16 times.At that time when our clock is showing time of 2 micro seconds, muon time =  0,125 micro seconds. Relative speed measured by the muon = 4787301647 m/c .

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #22 on: 02/10/2010 17:18:54 »
So use his definitions and see how far the 'length contraction', as seen from the frame of the muon, can take it, according to the muons 'intrinsic' life-time frame of 0.000002 s.  with a velocity of 99.8% of the speed of light.

If you prove it to be wrong :) you're on your way. It may not be a perfect description of it, but it's the best I've seen.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #23 on: 03/10/2010 07:53:38 »
So use his definitions and see how far the 'length contraction', as seen from the frame of the muon, can take it, according to the muons 'intrinsic' life-time frame of 0.000002 s.  with a velocity of 99.80449639% of the speed of light.
Speed(relative of Earth) of a photon measured by the  muon = 4796679328 m/s .
4796679328 *99,80449639/100 = 4787301647

If you prove it to be wrong :) you're on your way. It may not be a perfect description of it, but it's the best I've seen.
[/quote]

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #24 on: 06/10/2010 19:45:34 »
Don't know what you think there Sim?
That you disproved it?

What I meant was that you use the math shown to disprove the equations, using the postulations made by the that page, namely the length contraction as observed from the muons intrinsic frame. If you can show that they are wrong you will be on your way :)

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?
« Reply #24 on: 06/10/2010 19:45:34 »