0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
By the way, I attempted to post on the French forum, but they used the excuse that I wrote in English as an excuse to "move" it into a black hole inaccessible to all except mods. The greater priority for them is clearly to protect the propagation of misinformation.
I was about to translate your message, but Obi closed the thread again. Shame on my french origin. :0)
I also plan to titillate the other scientific forums a bit, even if I know they won't like it. You never know if some interesting reader will not react favorably.
By the way, on the french forum, I received an PM from a guy that I met on a philosophy forum a few months ago. He did not recognize me because I didn't wear the same name. His Name is Philippe de Bellecise, and he wrote a book about the logical flaws of SR. I told him about you, but he told me he didn't know enough english to discuss with you.
I'm still trying to apply my new thinking to my own theory on motion, so since our two theories are similar, I still have to discover why Ivanhov thinks contraction is happening to both arms of the interferometer. You don't understand Russian by chance? :0) The translators are terrible!
In answer to the title . the mechanics of relativity is the purpose to describe how bodies change their position in space with time. Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.III. Space and Time in Classical MechanicsEinstein explains this in the opening sentence
Quote from: Thebox on 07/07/2017 02:38:45In answer to the title . the mechanics of relativity is the purpose to describe how bodies change their position in space with time. Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.III. Space and Time in Classical MechanicsEinstein explains this in the opening sentenceHow bodies move is described very well by the postulates of relativity. The how is not in question here. Postulates are not mechanics. What are the Mechanics strive to answer why? Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to answer this question. He recognized there was an Ether type communication but the rest of the science community rejected this line of reasoning. This rejection continues today in modern physics. Modern physics depends on the magic of telepathy between electrons to tick at their synchronized rate in a frame.
I'm sure it will turn out to be the result of him not lowering the frequency in accordance with time dilation.
The travelling rocket made its trip in two years while the Earth took four years to travel the same distance into the future, but it did so without its clocks running slow, and this means that the rocket has jumped two years ahead of the Earth into the future to be reunited with a future version of the Earth rather than the current version (which will still have to wait another two years before it experiences that same event of the rocket meeting up with it).
There are no time meshing problems.
What is this "time meshing" idea? Someone else used that expression earlier in this thread, I think, but it has nothing to do with me. On my page there are references to events meshing or failing to mesh, and what that refers to is the ability of things to meet up and interact at a Spacetime location. If two objects meet and interact at a Spacetime location, that is an event, and it's an event where things mesh together correctly - object 1 meets object 2 and object 2 is met by object 1. However, if the two objects reach that Spacetime location at different times (by a Newtonian time not accepted as existing in the model), the event cannot mesh correctly because one object is there too soon and the other is there too late for them to interact with each other there. But given that this Newtonian time isn't in the model, how can this ever be an issue? Well, if you claim that the time of the time dimension always runs at full speed without the clocks on some paths ticking more slowly than the clocks on other paths, you are necessarily adding Newtonian time to the model because it leads to different objects failing to arrive together at Spacetime locations where they are asserted to meet up.For example, in your diagram, you have one clock moving along path A and another along path B, but if the second of those clocks takes the left turn at point R and follows the line which I think you named D in your description, the two clocks will be reunited at the point where lines A and D meet up at the top of the diagram. One of the clocks takes 9.165s to reach that Spacetime location while the other clock takes 6s to get there. If both clocks travel through time at the same rate, one of the clocks will reach that Spacetime location too early to meet up with the other, so the event that happens there fails to mesh together.There are two rational approaches to get round this problem (each with a number of variations), but both of them have crucial consequences which should not be brushed under the carpet. The simplest way is to have one of the clocks tick at a slower rate than the other, but that requires the time of one frame of reference to control the slowing of clock ticks for all other frames (which means there is a preferred frame, which is not supposed to be in the model). The other way is to have a block universe so that the first clock to reach a Spacetime location persists there for a later-arriving clock to interact with when it catches up with it there, but that means events are initially running under a Newtonian time which is not supposed to be in the model either but which enables event-meshing failures to occur before the late-arriving objects reach the same Spacetime locations and rewrite history there.The model as it stands is deficient - it either needs Newtonian time to be added to it in order to allow a block universe to be generated (with events changing at individual Spacetime locations under Newtonian time as different objects arrive there and make their presence felt), or it needs the Newtonian time of a preferred frame to govern the rate at which all clocks tick so that events always mesh correctly at any individual Spacetime location, thereby allowing all the players arrive there simultaneously. The only way the model can come close to making sense without these additions is if you have a block universe that was never generated in order of causation, but which merely exists with apparent chains of causation running through it by luck alone (because none of the apparent effects can ever have been caused by their apparent causes).
What is this "time meshing" idea? Someone else used that expression earlier in this thread, I think, but it has nothing to do with me. On my page there are references to events meshing or failing to mesh, and what that refers to is the ability of things to meet up and interact at a Spacetime location. If two objects meet and interact at a Spacetime location, that is an event, and it's an event where things mesh together correctly - object 1 meets object 2 and object 2 is met by object 1. However, if the two objects reach that Spacetime location at different times (by a Newtonian time not accepted as existing in the model), the event cannot mesh correctly because one object is there too soon and the other is there too late for them to interact with each other there. But given that this Newtonian time isn't in the model, how can this ever be an issue? Well, if you claim that the time of the time dimension always runs at full speed without the clocks on some paths ticking more slowly than the clocks on other paths, you are necessarily adding Newtonian time to the model because it leads to different objects failing to arrive together at Spacetime locations where they are asserted to meet up.For example, in your diagram, you have one clock moving along path A and another along path B, but if the second of those clocks takes the left turn at point R and follows the line which I think you named D in your description, the two clocks will be reunited at the point where lines A and D meet up at the top of the diagram. One of the clocks takes 9.165s to reach that Spacetime location while the other clock takes 6s to get there. If both clocks travel through time at the same rate, one of the clocks will reach that Spacetime location too early to meet up with the other, so the event that happens there fails to mesh together.
It’s event meshing and it’s about time. The underlined statement is the problem. The A and B clocks move in space and their speed determines their rate of time/ticking. They do not move through ‘time’,since ‘time’ is not a thing with extent, like ‘space’, it was defined as a dimension only in a mathematical sense.. ‘Moving in time’ is a metaphorical interpretation promoted by physicist Brian Greene.
They do meet simultaneously in the earth frame where and when the event occurs.The A and B times are local and only meaningful to them. There is no universal ‘time’ lurking in the background overseeing and coordinating events. If clocks and their owners literally got behind or ahead in time, they should disappear and reappear, but that has not been observed.
Just considering the earth rotating, you can’t have one time for everyone, unless you want the people on the dark side to wake up and fix lunch!
it doesn't work if you want all frames to be the preferred frame because you then have contradictions in the mechanism with one frame's governance causing a clock to tick more slowly after an acceleration than it was ticking before while another frame's governance causes that same clock to tick more quickly after the same acceleration than it was running before.
For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.