The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Time dilation and length contraction fails according to all observers of time.  (Read 933 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
(A) observes (B) and (C)

(B) observes (A) and (C)

(C) observes (A) and (B)

All observers agree that the rest length of space between themselves L=Lx

added- (C) is 8 minutes of light travel away from (A) and equally 8 minutes of light travel away from (B),  Like wise for all observers.

The clock at (A), (B) and (C) is synchronised, a Rocket is going to travel from (A) to (B)

Observer (A) Observes Rocket travelling that left at 12am

Observer (B) Observes Rocket travelling that left at 12am

Observer (C) Observes Rocket travelling that left at 12am


Observer (A) observes the rocket arriving at (B) at 12.08am

Observer (B) observes the rocket arriving at (B) at 12.08am

Observer (C) observes the rocket arriving at (B) at 12.08am and confirms with an unbiased view that everything is synchronous and the length contraction is not true, likewise from any point to point , the third observer can confirm synchronous.









« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 11:50:40 by Thebox »


 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Why do you jump right into this without bothering to learn any relativity theory first? If you say, "All observers agree that the rest length of space between themselves L=Lx", then you are just ignoring relativity theory.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
The problem is that you are thinking from an infinite light speed reference plane whereas the universe we live in is limited to light speed C. Einstein's answers are a best fit approximation to variations of length and time. they account for the problems associated with a limited light speed.
   Our thinking does not account for this limit. Our normal Newtonian equations assume unlimited light speed and an observer could instantly know where something was. Thus special relativity is basically true although for myself I prefer simple Doppler Equations which provide the same answers.
   So you will think that you are right because this is natural for you to do. It is logical for you to say that your ideas are true but it has been verified that Einstein's clock orbiting the Earth is true and one scientist on TV pointed out that unless we used Einstein's clock, our GPS system would not work. So his answers are true for orbital motion but I disagree for linear motion since I use Doppler equations where the geometric mean of the Doppler equals Einstein.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
then you are just ignoring relativity theory.

That would be because this is my theory and not relativity theory , so why do you respond with such an attempt at subjection to another theory?

I have done the dimensional analysis of the scenario and L=Lx for all observers. 






 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
The problem is that you are thinking from an infinite light speed reference plane whereas the universe we live in is limited to light speed C.


Now you assume you know what I am thinking and assume there is a problem with what I am thinking in which you would be wrong on both accounts, I am not thinking an infinite speed of light, I already defined that point (c) is 8 light minutes away from (A) and (B).




 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
The problem is that you are thinking from an infinite light speed reference plane whereas the universe we live in is limited to light speed C.


Now you assume you know what I am thinking and assume there is a problem with what I am thinking in which you would be wrong on both accounts, I am not thinking an infinite speed of light, I already defined that point (c) is 8 light minutes away from (A) and (B).
You may have put in the 8 light minutes but you are still looking at things by means of our normal thinking processes in which we can visualize the entire problem as if we existed upon an infinite light speed reference plane. And this is our normal way of thinking. Einstein's thinking was not normal. So you believe you are correct because of the normal way you think. To think like Einstein is like turning yourself inside out. So he does this and gets great answers.
  Basically he turned the physical world into an electrical theory world which turns simple linear problems into a circular loop. thus it is a different universe that he created. It is an electrical approximation to physical reality. Your brain denies that his universe is correct. I do as well. However his approximation yields excellent results for many things.
  I like the Doppler Equations which to me are more true of the nature of the universe. They provide the same answers but they depend upon basic physics and not Einsteinian space time. However Einstein's concepts are great!
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
then you are just ignoring relativity theory.

That would be because this is my theory and not relativity theory , so why do you respond with such an attempt at subjection to another theory?

I have done the dimensional analysis of the scenario and L=Lx for all observers.

 For my Doppler Equations I define a gravitational length which is
L = Lo[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
Thus the object shrinks as the object moves faster. Basically this is Einsteins solution. The interesting thing is that there is an inertial length which is has an opposite effect and is equal to Lo. Thus depending on how you observe the object, it is the same size. The same is true of the clock. The gravitational time clock slows with velocity but the inertial time clock is constant.  So we could say that real time never changes with velocity but gravitational or apparent time does. In many respects the universe behaves like it has an infinite light speed reference plane.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
So we could say that real time never changes with velocity but gravitational or apparent time does. In many respects the universe behaves like it has an infinite light speed reference plane.

I do not understand your maths sorry but I do agree with that real time does not change but gravitational time or timing does. To me the Universe does not behave like it has an infinite speed of light but rather the reality is the infinite speed of sight.

In the example (c) is observing (A) and (B) simultaneously , (A) does not contract to (B) when an object travels between points.

Likewise all points observe each other simultaneously . Not because the speed of light is infinite, but because the speed  of sight is infinite because of the Photon-'Photon link between masses. Imagine Photons are really really big and not really really small, imagine living inside this Photon that you are the center of, all the information is instantly accessible.

« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 17:10:47 by Thebox »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
That would be because this is my theory and not relativity theory ,
OK, so we know that your theory doesn't work. Thanks for the information!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
That would be because this is my theory and not relativity theory ,
OK, so we know that your theory doesn't work. Thanks for the information!

So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?

 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?
I'm just assuming that your diagrams are correct in establishing that your theory can't produce time dilation and length contraction. If this is the case, then your theory doesn't match the available empirical evidence. Again, thank you for pointing this out.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?
I'm just assuming that your diagrams are correct in establishing that your theory can't produce time dilation and length contraction. If this is the case, then your theory doesn't match the available empirical evidence. Again, thank you for pointing this out.

Correct my theory does not match the present empirical evidence, but my theory does not need to match present evidence because my theory is a new theory and has nothing to do with present information, although my new theory by no means is to mock present theory, my theory shows the present theory to be wrong and the empirical evidence of observation such as time dilation of the Caesium atom and the GPs system, is all viewed by observer (C) who confirms the time dilation is only relative between two masses and does not effect space with contraction or effect the observation of time.

The problem is people only look out and never consider looking in, when you look in things look different ,

simply imagine you are at point (B) observing the Caesium clock being transported in an orbital around point (C), you observe events happening in time not events that change time.







« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 21:54:37 by Thebox »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?
I'm just assuming that your diagrams are correct in establishing that your theory can't produce time dilation and length contraction. If this is the case, then your theory doesn't match the available empirical evidence. Again, thank you for pointing this out.
The Einsteinian solution cannot be denied since it is a best fit solution. This does not mean that the universe we live in works that way. All it means is that linear space time with motion or gravitational differences match Einsteins work.
   The alternate proposal of looking at  space and time is deeply philosophical. The writer states that the speed of vision is infinite. to me this necessitates an infinite light speed reference plane. from this plane things are different. A ruler is absolute. A time clock doesn't vary with velocity. We are in a lightspeed C reference plane. Yet if a space ship left the earth and traveled for a million years at high speed, his clock would be slow. the degenerative processes would be reduced. Yet when the space ship returned to the Earth, it would be in the correct time period. It could not return the day before even though its clocks would say so. therefore time is absolute. You cannot return the day before. You cannot faster than lightspeed and return yesterday.
   The universe we live in only exists from a split second ago, this split second, and a future split second. thus it is a sandwich of three time periods where the difference in time is of the nanosecond range. Yesterday do not exist. It has been erased. And this appears all over the universe simultaneously. So what did Einstein prove? He proved that clocks slow with speed and gravitational fields. He did not prove that yesterday exists. Thus time is absolute. The writer sees that this is true but he does not understand Einsteins variation of mass, length, and time with velocity.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?
I'm just assuming that your diagrams are correct in establishing that your theory can't produce time dilation and length contraction. If this is the case, then your theory doesn't match the available empirical evidence. Again, thank you for pointing this out.
The Einsteinian solution cannot be denied since it is a best fit solution. This does not mean that the universe we live in works that way. All it means is that linear space time with motion or gravitational differences match Einsteins work.
   The alternate proposal of looking at  space and time is deeply philosophical. The writer states that the speed of vision is infinite. to me this necessitates an infinite light speed reference plane. from this plane things are different. A ruler is absolute. A time clock doesn't vary with velocity. We are in a lightspeed C reference plane. Yet if a space ship left the earth and traveled for a million years at high speed, his clock would be slow. the degenerative processes would be reduced. Yet when the space ship returned to the Earth, it would be in the correct time period. It could not return the day before even though its clocks would say so. therefore time is absolute. You cannot return the day before. You cannot faster than lightspeed and return yesterday.
   The universe we live in only exists from a split second ago, this split second, and a future split second. thus it is a sandwich of three time periods where the difference in time is of the nanosecond range. Yesterday do not exist. It has been erased. And this appears all over the universe simultaneously. So what did Einstein prove? He proved that clocks slow with speed and gravitational fields. He did not prove that yesterday exists. Thus time is absolute. The writer sees that this is true but he does not understand Einsteins variation of mass, length, and time with velocity.

An objective mind likes to play spot the difference, yet if a spaceship left Earth and travelled at high speed for a million light years and their clock slowed down, the slowing of the clock is only relative to the left behind Earth clock and not relative to the space and time the spaceship is passing through. People miss the huge point that the time dilation of one clock is only relative to another clock and relative to nothing else, a clock is not time.


« Last Edit: 13/07/2016 15:07:51 by Thebox »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Correct my theory does not match the present empirical evidence,
No, that is entirely wrong. If your theory cannot account for present empirical evidence, then it is not physics and never will be physics.

Quote
, my theory shows the present theory to be wrong
No, your theory has absolutely nothing to do with present theory because, as you said, you are ignoring what the present theory says and making up your own theory. If you want to show the present theory to be wrong, then you have to actually engage with the present theory rather than simply make up your own stuff.

Quote
The problem is people only look out and never consider looking in, when you look in things look different ,
I'm sure things look very different to you, but you are making no effort to actually learn what other people are saying or doing. You are refusing to look at the world and you are instead looking at the world as you imagine it to be. Very few people will agree with your position, since you are basing your work on ignoring others.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Correct my theory does not match the present empirical evidence,
Quote from: ph
No, that is entirely wrong. If your theory cannot account for present empirical evidence, then it is not physics and never will be physics.

I think you missed the point of that the present empirical evidence is independent to the matter compared to another piece of matter

Quote
, my theory shows the present theory to be wrong
Quote from: ph
No, your theory has absolutely nothing to do with present theory because, as you said, you are ignoring what the present theory says and making up your own theory. If you want to show the present theory to be wrong, then you have to actually engage with the present theory rather than simply make up your own stuff.


My premise for argument is the ''gin-clear'' of observation, it is hardly made up.

Quote
The problem is people only look out and never consider looking in, when you look in things look different ,
Quote from: ph
I'm sure things look very different to you, but you are making no effort to actually learn what other people are saying or doing. You are refusing to look at the world and you are instead looking at the world as you imagine it to be. Very few people will agree with your position, since you are basing your work on ignoring others.

Do you think I could make a theory about something if I did not know what was presently thought? 

You assume I don't understand present science.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile


 To me the Universe does not behave like it has an infinite speed of light but rather the reality is the infinite speed of sight.

Rubbish,...................................you can't separate the speed of light, which brings it's information to the physical eye we observe with from the faculty of sight. That information is restricted by the speed of light and your "infinite speed of sight" is utter nonsense. We only see this information after that information has traveled to us at the speed of c, 186,282 miles per second. Every thing our eye observes is history, and depending upon how far away it might be, takes the speed of light to reach us, and making statements like; "the infinite speed of sight" shows any knowledgeable scientist your ignorance of the facts.................
« Last Edit: 14/07/2016 01:09:49 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
You assume I don't understand present science.
I wonder what gave you that idea??
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile


An objective mind likes to play spot the difference, yet if a spaceship left Earth and travelled at high speed for a million light years and their clock slowed down, the slowing of the clock is only relative to the left behind Earth clock and not relative to the space and time the spaceship is passing through. People miss the huge point that the time dilation of one clock is only relative to another clock and relative to nothing else, a clock is not time.
  This is partially true because all clocks are slower than the clock of the universe at the center of the universe. What you say is true that we use the Earth clock as the reference. the Earth clock is slightly slower than the universe clock. Yet it is our reference plane. People go crazy over how one reference clock varies with another. Since we live in a linear portion of space time, we can observe Einsteins time differences. Yet he did not understand that this universe has a fixed reference point. We measure the speed of light with respect to our Earth. If we went to an area of pure free space it would measure slightly higher. Within a dense gravitational field area it will measure much less.
   Unfortunately many people tend to believe that the strange universe of Einstein is true. One big problem is the Doppler effect in which the frontal mass is larger than the rearward mass. In addition the frontal time is faster in the front and slower in the rear with the geometric mean equal to Einstein but the actual time when compared to the clock of the universe is the same. therefore true time is invarient and true ruler is also invariant. This is self evident to me but people are fooled by the MM experiment which is invalid since photonic energy adjusts to the gravitational field they encounter.
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile


 To me the Universe does not behave like it has an infinite speed of light but rather the reality is the infinite speed of sight.

Rubbish,...................................you can't separate the speed of light, which brings it's information to the physical eye we observe with from the faculty of sight. That information is restricted by the speed of light and your "infinite speed of sight" is utter nonsense. We only see this information after that information has traveled to us at the speed of c, 186,282 miles per second. Every thing our eye observes is history, and depending upon how far away it might be, takes the speed of light to reach us, and making statements like; "the infinite speed of sight" shows any knowledgeable scientist your ignorance of the facts.................

Yes we know that theory Ethos , that one is on Wiki, that theory is different to my theory.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile


An objective mind likes to play spot the difference, yet if a spaceship left Earth and travelled at high speed for a million light years and their clock slowed down, the slowing of the clock is only relative to the left behind Earth clock and not relative to the space and time the spaceship is passing through. People miss the huge point that the time dilation of one clock is only relative to another clock and relative to nothing else, a clock is not time.
  This is partially true because all clocks are slower than the clock of the universe at the center of the universe. What you say is true that we use the Earth clock as the reference. the Earth clock is slightly slower than the universe clock. Yet it is our reference plane. People go crazy over how one reference clock varies with another. Since we live in a linear portion of space time, we can observe Einsteins time differences. Yet he did not understand that this universe has a fixed reference point. We measure the speed of light with respect to our Earth. If we went to an area of pure free space it would measure slightly higher. Within a dense gravitational field area it will measure much less.
   Unfortunately many people tend to believe that the strange universe of Einstein is true. One big problem is the Doppler effect in which the frontal mass is larger than the rearward mass. In addition the frontal time is faster in the front and slower in the rear with the geometric mean equal to Einstein but the actual time when compared to the clock of the universe is the same. therefore true time is invarient and true ruler is also invariant. This is self evident to me but people are fooled by the MM experiment which is invalid since photonic energy adjusts to the gravitational field they encounter.

We just have to consider that all experiments are observed in time and space , including the MM experiment.


Well done on being a realist Jerry, I will get back to you on the Doppler effect, I have to go out.

 

Offline Zowie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Great. Now test it and find you are wrong, as has been done already by general relativity.

You seem to get hung up on 'a clock is not time'. Of course it isn't. Time is an abstract concept. A clock measures atomic vibrations or another form of change. Clocks tell us that depending on the energy of a system, atoms vibrate faster or slower relative to other systems. Since all atoms are universally identical, this must mean that time passes at a rate dependent on the properties of any given system.

« Last Edit: 14/07/2016 08:07:51 by Zowie »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Great. Now test it and find you are wrong, as has been done already by general relativity.

You seem to get hung up on 'a clock is not time'. Of course it isn't. Time is an abstract concept. A clock measures atomic vibrations or another form of change. Clocks tell us that depending on the energy of a system, atoms vibrate faster or slower relative to other systems. Since all atoms are universally identical, this must mean that time passes at a rate dependent on the properties of any given system.
   A clock runs according to the speed of a system and the gravitational intensity. So the speed of the clock will vary. If we can find an area of space time that is absolutely stationary with a perfectly zero gravitational field then this would produce absolute time. To me this occurs at the center of the universe. However we live on a plane so we can never achieve the center. All we can achieve is islands of difference gravitational fields with slightly different properties until we reach near black holes where linear analysis is no good.
  If you look at the universe from a absolute clock and ruler things are different. However you can only imagine this because everything we can see and measure basically agrees with Einsteins special relativity except for Doppler effects. And I only use the Doppler equations since the geometric mean of Doppler = Einstein.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Another thing to consider is that even though we are moving through space and have Doppler Distortions, our instruments are also distorted the same way so when we look at a circle it may really be an ellipse but our eyes and instruments are also ellipses and thus a circle looks like a circle to us. Thus distortions in reality are not self evident is everything is distorted the same way.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Great. Now test it and find you are wrong, as has been done already by general relativity.

You seem to get hung up on 'a clock is not time'. Of course it isn't. Time is an abstract concept. A clock measures atomic vibrations or another form of change. Clocks tell us that depending on the energy of a system, atoms vibrate faster or slower relative to other systems. Since all atoms are universally identical, this must mean that time passes at a rate dependent on the properties of any given system.

I am not hung up on  a clock is not time, I know a clock is not time and that is why I am able to make conclusions about the said time dilation,  what people fail to recognise is that the time function of space is different to a timing function of humanity, timing and time is two separate things. The relative difference between two caesium atoms, one at ground state and one in motion is timing and not a time difference.

We try to measure something that can not be measured by using timing comparisons.

I do agree that light contracts and expands, if we were to send a satellite signal of ''light'' to Earth from space, the signal starts of decompressed as it travels through ''empty'' space, however when the signal enters the Earth medium, the ''light'' will compress slightly and there will show a variance of light speed, not a variance of time, simplicity is that while the light may contract that the space is unaltered in its length,






 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums