0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I wasn't talking about the relativistic train and the light beam. The light clock is in my paper and it is a different interpretation of the relatistic train that shows that clock rates are slowed down and not time itself.
Ok, is your paper in that link? I could only see an abstract.
Do you think darkness exists underlying the light?
Today is exactly the same as yesterday, except we are in a different geometrical position in time and space. If motion was to stop, we would be froze in time and space in our geometrical position.
Quote from: GoC on 12/01/2017 17:10:18the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?Ok GOC an interesting idea. What do I observe is wrong with relativity?Well firstly I do intermingle relativity and special relativity, a slight bit confused ''what'' goes where.Firstly I observe youtube videos from credible sources about Albert Einstein and his work, often showing thought experiments, however in viewing these videos I observe logical errors in thinking and interpretation. Certain things are not possible and the wording of impossible comes into the scenario. Secondly I look further into the work finding articles and reasonable sources that explain in words the work of Einstein, I observe the same thing as when watching the videos, the thinking and logic is flawed. There are several aspects which is ''wrong'', which I have tried to discuss previously, My main concern is the thinking on time, the past,present and future, also I have a big concern about time dilation which is in fact a timing dilation. So I suppose it would be better if I asked you where ''we'' should start. Maybe you should please post some relativity ''facts'' , then I will put agree or disagree , then we could take it from there?
the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?
Quote from: Thebox on 13/01/2017 10:30:51Quote from: GoC on 12/01/2017 17:10:18the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?Ok GOC an interesting idea. What do I observe is wrong with relativity?Well firstly I do intermingle relativity and special relativity, a slight bit confused ''what'' goes where.Firstly I observe youtube videos from credible sources about Albert Einstein and his work, often showing thought experiments, however in viewing these videos I observe logical errors in thinking and interpretation. Certain things are not possible and the wording of impossible comes into the scenario. Secondly I look further into the work finding articles and reasonable sources that explain in words the work of Einstein, I observe the same thing as when watching the videos, the thinking and logic is flawed. There are several aspects which is ''wrong'', which I have tried to discuss previously, My main concern is the thinking on time, the past,present and future, also I have a big concern about time dilation which is in fact a timing dilation. So I suppose it would be better if I asked you where ''we'' should start. Maybe you should please post some relativity ''facts'' , then I will put agree or disagree , then we could take it from there?OK lets see if you agree with the postulates:1. Light is constant.2. Light is independent of the source.3. We measure the same speed of light in every frame.
QuoteOk, is your paper in that link? I could only see an abstract.there is a button that says download PDF or click the latest version v4QuoteDo you think darkness exists underlying the light? I'm not sure what you mean.There are anyway electromagnetic waves that pass undetected to a particular detector obviously, but it depends on what you use to detect them. If you use a photon detector it can detect photons within a spectrum. Eyes are like photon detectors between ir and uv. You can't see radio waves but you can use radio receivers to detect radio waves.There is no place in the universe where the EM field is zero.
1. Space geometryFor this concept to work, we need to define a flat space geometry. This flatgeometry space-time cannot be changed by definition. We will define an absolutereference frame with an origin for x, y and z axis. We will refer to this frame withflat space as the alpha frame (AF). AF will use alpha meters and time. This AF canbe real if we can prove the electromagnetic waves need an Aether to propagate, onlythe origins are arbitrarily chosen. Otherwise, empty space is an absolute void and flatgeometry is the way to tell that the structure of space and time does not change.
2. Time and space definitionBefore Special Relativity it was thought space and time were absolute and wealso measured them as absolute. Based on this, units of time and space were defined.Once Special Relativity (SR) was accepted by the mainstream, these definitionsremained the same but they were not absolute anymore. Instead, speed of lightbecame absolute which apparently made things work surprisingly well and equationshad a remarkable symmetry. Moreover, since the idea of an Aether was not necessaryanymore, only the speed of light could remain absolute and constant in every
This points to the idea of a space that has a dynamic structure and itis real. However, we can define an absolute space and time and speed of light will beobserver dependent in the AF frame. A medium for waves like the electromagneticwaves to propagate is no longer necessary in this context but the concept doesn'texclude it.When time was viewed as absolute, clocks were made and thought to measurethis time (absolute). Clocks accuracy improved over time, but they kept measuringthe same thing, namely relative time. We though clocks were measuring absolutetime, but they were measuring the relative time. If we define alpha time as absolute,we can see that our clocks will not be able to measure measure alpha time. Their tickrate will indicate alpha speed of the clock.An object like an atom, for example, that is stationary in AF will havethe highest oscillating frequency compared to the frequency in any other referenceframe we choose. In other words, a clock at rest in AF will have zero time dilationfactor. Any other reference frame we choose will have clocks at rest at a lower tickrate.Another property of time is that along the time axis the total amount ofinformation in the universe should be conserved. On any other dimension that doesn'thappen. This is the essence of time and it is how true time should be defined.3. Alpha dimensionsIn the alpha reference frame we will define alpha time and alpha length andrelative alpha speed of light (observer dependent):xα , tα , cr αcrα is a relative speed of light seen in AF, as the difference between cand object speed in AF.In any other reference frame, c will be measured will not vary becausethose frames use clocks that have variable tick rates in AF.Figure 1, represents 2 regions of space viewed from alpha frame
Thank youI don't see anything in those 2 images. Maybe I need IR glasses As a principle, it doesn't matter too much if you discover something or if you think you did, unless you convince the others that what you're saying is correct.
As a principle, it doesn't matter too much if you discover something or if you think you did, unless you convince the others that what you're saying is correct.
Quote from: GoC on 14/01/2017 00:11:50Quote from: Thebox on 13/01/2017 10:30:51Quote from: GoC on 12/01/2017 17:10:18the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?Ok GOC an interesting idea. What do I observe is wrong with relativity?Well firstly I do intermingle relativity and special relativity, a slight bit confused ''what'' goes where.Firstly I observe youtube videos from credible sources about Albert Einstein and his work, often showing thought experiments, however in viewing these videos I observe logical errors in thinking and interpretation. Certain things are not possible and the wording of impossible comes into the scenario. Secondly I look further into the work finding articles and reasonable sources that explain in words the work of Einstein, I observe the same thing as when watching the videos, the thinking and logic is flawed. There are several aspects which is ''wrong'', which I have tried to discuss previously, My main concern is the thinking on time, the past,present and future, also I have a big concern about time dilation which is in fact a timing dilation. So I suppose it would be better if I asked you where ''we'' should start. Maybe you should please post some relativity ''facts'' , then I will put agree or disagree , then we could take it from there?OK lets see if you agree with the postulates:1. Light is constant.2. Light is independent of the source.3. We measure the same speed of light in every frame.1. I agree2. Depends on what you are saying here exactly, I turn the light off, there is no independent visual light, but if we are talking about the ''unseen'' waves of light such as CBMR , then I suppose the answer is yes, although I don't particular like the yes answer much.3. Not quite true, the ''frame'' of a medium slows down light,. we measure the exact same speed of light in a vacuum.
1. Is light constant?2. Is light independent of the frame?3. do we measure the same speed of light in every frame?
Quote from: Nilak on 15/01/2017 16:26:03As a principle, it doesn't matter too much if you discover something or if you think you did, unless you convince the others that what you're saying is correct.Physics does not care if you get it correct.Quote from: Thebox on 14/01/2017 11:41:38Quote from: GoC on 14/01/2017 00:11:50Quote from: Thebox on 13/01/2017 10:30:51Quote from: GoC on 12/01/2017 17:10:18the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?Ok GOC an interesting idea. What do I observe is wrong with relativity?Well firstly I do intermingle relativity and special relativity, a slight bit confused ''what'' goes where.Firstly I observe youtube videos from credible sources about Albert Einstein and his work, often showing thought experiments, however in viewing these videos I observe logical errors in thinking and interpretation. Certain things are not possible and the wording of impossible comes into the scenario. Secondly I look further into the work finding articles and reasonable sources that explain in words the work of Einstein, I observe the same thing as when watching the videos, the thinking and logic is flawed. There are several aspects which is ''wrong'', which I have tried to discuss previously, My main concern is the thinking on time, the past,present and future, also I have a big concern about time dilation which is in fact a timing dilation. So I suppose it would be better if I asked you where ''we'' should start. Maybe you should please post some relativity ''facts'' , then I will put agree or disagree , then we could take it from there?OK lets see if you agree with the postulates:1. Light is constant.2. Light is independent of the source.3. We measure the same speed of light in every frame.1. I agree2. Depends on what you are saying here exactly, I turn the light off, there is no independent visual light, but if we are talking about the ''unseen'' waves of light such as CBMR , then I suppose the answer is yes, although I don't particular like the yes answer much.3. Not quite true, the ''frame'' of a medium slows down light,. we measure the exact same speed of light in a vacuum.1. Good because that is what we measure and observe.2..Like it or not that is what we observe.3.Your violating your answer to number 1So you are being inconsistent in your answers. Every frame measures the same speed of light and the tick rate of clocks slow in a frame moving at a greater vector speed. But the speed of light remains the same. This is because you are measuring a greater distance light has to travel. c is constant regardless of the vector speed of the frame. If you follow the Euclidean geometry of light being independent of the source and the angle that creates as a right triangle you will find the light clock angle and the light angle always follow the same angled ratio of distance. So the light angle increases its distance slowing its tick rate of the clock. You believe light is perpendicular when vector speed never allows perpendicular light travel. Remember light being independent of the source? The source moves forward but where the light came from has to travel a greater angle than 90 degrees. This causes a contracted view and a slower tick rate.Now let me ask you again:1. Is light constant?2. Is light independent of the frame?3. do we measure the same speed of light in every frame?We do not really measure the true distance light travels but the clock and distance are always confounded in the measurement by SR. The truly interesting fact is in GR dilation (which is physical expansion of energy) is equivalent to SR. Einstein could not explain the GR equivalence but the curve tenser is actually dilation in 3d. The electron and the light are also confounded in every frame. Which means the electron travel distance in SR is equal to the increased light travel distance. It is a beautiful mathematical arrangement.This is why there is no reference frame for time. Time is motion and motion is fundamental energy. Electrons have flow and giving them a charge confuses their reality in our minds. The proton is not positive and the electron is not negative. Fundamental energy allows the electron to move. Electrons move in and out of the proton. Gravity and momentum cause the cycle of the electron. Quantum mechanics is c and dilation of c in GR. The proton dilates space like a BH and the electron momentum moves the electron out to a less dilated energy where it curves back and returns to the proton to push out another. The more mass the more dilation and distance the electron moves out per cycle slowing the physical clock by GR.
Quote1. Is light constant?2. Is light independent of the frame?3. do we measure the same speed of light in every frame?1. It is constant relative to the medium. This medium does all this weird apparent "time dilation". It is all about waves. Sound waves cannot exceed the speed of sound just like light cannot exceed the speed of light. This is not a coincidence. The wave behaviour of light is responsible for the speed limit. I don't think this can be proven wrong .Relativity doesn't say anything about this. 2. Do you mean speed of light ? In this case it is the same question as 3.3. Yes, but only when we measure the two way speed of light. Otherwise it is c+v, c-v exactly as a third person will observe the speed difference.
Hello it seem's very pointless to me now, to post or discuss new ideas/theories, my reason is that nobody ''listens'' and replies back with present information not discussing the actual content and mostly ignoring the content. I can not ''see'' why so many replies involve present information discussed in a new information thread, also seemingly trying to force discipline and trying to force me to except present information like some form of brainwashing. The arrogance is ripe.
The boxIn relativity you are not just dealing with tick rate. You are also dealing with different lengths at different speeds. This is the basic understanding needed to understand relativity properly. Light being independent of the source is the clue to different distances for different tick rates.
Quote from: Thebox on 12/01/2017 05:23:13Hello it seem's very pointless to me now, to post or discuss new ideas/theories, my reason is that nobody ''listens'' and replies back with present information not discussing the actual content and mostly ignoring the content. I can not ''see'' why so many replies involve present information discussed in a new information thread, also seemingly trying to force discipline and trying to force me to except present information like some form of brainwashing. The arrogance is ripe. Is it possible that you are the arrogant one? Assuming oneself to be correct without evidence indicates intellectual arrogance. Repudiating well-established scientific knowledge supported by masses of evidence is also arrogant. From your description of your adventures in other forums, this seems to be what you have been doing. Analytical thinking and an ability to spot logical fallacies and biases are positively correlated with linguistic ability. Your lack of clarity in your sentences is indicative of a lack of linguistic ability. What on earth is "present information"? Perhaps you should be more humble and attempt to improve your linguistic skills before you try to conquer science.
Not quite. According to my concept a photon cannot measure anything because in the analogy with the helix of particles and clocks, photons are not helixes but travel straight. The wavefront is straight hence no tickrate of the clock. If you look at my light clock you will see that if the box travels at c, the zigzag it becomes a straight line and no tick rate. However the fact that you can't measure it doesn't mean time stops but only your device stops ticking. That is because I have defined an absolute time as a general case of relativity.Relativity cannot compute a reference frame for a photon. My model however allows abstract hypothetical frames and things at rest in this frame are only photons. A photon at rest in this frame "looks" like a wave drawn on a paper. These frames can only use the absolute time and space units.The analogy with water waves works very well. The time unit I have defined, doesn't care about clocks.Imagine our universe as a lake with waves at constant speed and travelling like light is simgle dirsction not radially. Particles would travel in variable zig zag patterns, generating varius speeds of front waves. In relativity observers can only be zig zag waves in the lake. My concept allows a hypothetical observer that can "watch" the lake from above and describe what it sees. That is the absolute observer and it can define an absolute frame where it is at rest. Even if it sees the lake clearly it will find difficult to stay at rest relative to the medium since there are no objects floating. But there are already experiments that claim to have found the aether drift. I've estimated a roughly 400 km/s the speed of Earth relative to the medium. It is clear that only the absolute observer can describe the lake properly. That is why I call it the general case.
You seem to be ignoring that the ''tip'' of light can be measured and nothing to do with tick rate