1

**New Theories / The Speed of Light is Infinite**

« **on:**08/06/2011 14:02:28 »

........and there, I think we will leave it.

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

........and there, I think we will leave it.

2

Tamoorkahn,

Thankyou. Yes I understand your point, that if you don't add energy, you don't get acceleration, also that there isn't enough energy available to accelerate it to infinite speed.

BUT, that is not what is happening.

Firstly, the photon does not accelerate itself, say like a rocket with a reacting force. It does not use any of its energy to move. It moves at the speed of light because that is what light does. I cannot explain that, neither can anyone else. It is just a law of nature that light spreads out at "c" relative to anything.

Secondly, and more importantly, no energy is required for the photon to accelerate from the speed of light in the frame of the light. Why? Because the time dilation which decreases its time rate to zero by the time "c" is reached, comes FREE from Special Relativity. It is the result of the nature of space-time described by Lorentz. It is simply the time rate reducing to zero that produces the relative effect of increasing the speed within the frame to infinite speed. It is not an inertial, mechanical effect or a Newtonian mechanism, it is a temporal one.

In our frame, velocoity v(stationary frame) = Distance "s"/time taken in our frame = "c"

In the photon's frame, velocoity v(moving frame) = Distance "s"/zero time taken in the moving frame = ∞

This effect requires no energy to happen. The "acceleration" is simply due to the time dilation and the time dilation is a result of the motion. All relative, of course.

I know you can measure time taken for photons to travel certain distances, but this time is the time taken in YOUR frame. It takes no time at all in the frame of the photon for the photon to travel ANY distance, because time stands still in the frame of the photon relative to our frame.

Thankyou. Yes I understand your point, that if you don't add energy, you don't get acceleration, also that there isn't enough energy available to accelerate it to infinite speed.

BUT, that is not what is happening.

Firstly, the photon does not accelerate itself, say like a rocket with a reacting force. It does not use any of its energy to move. It moves at the speed of light because that is what light does. I cannot explain that, neither can anyone else. It is just a law of nature that light spreads out at "c" relative to anything.

Secondly, and more importantly, no energy is required for the photon to accelerate from the speed of light in the frame of the light. Why? Because the time dilation which decreases its time rate to zero by the time "c" is reached, comes FREE from Special Relativity. It is the result of the nature of space-time described by Lorentz. It is simply the time rate reducing to zero that produces the relative effect of increasing the speed within the frame to infinite speed. It is not an inertial, mechanical effect or a Newtonian mechanism, it is a temporal one.

In our frame, velocoity v(stationary frame) = Distance "s"/time taken in our frame = "c"

In the photon's frame, velocoity v(moving frame) = Distance "s"/zero time taken in the moving frame = ∞

This effect requires no energy to happen. The "acceleration" is simply due to the time dilation and the time dilation is a result of the motion. All relative, of course.

I know you can measure time taken for photons to travel certain distances, but this time is the time taken in YOUR frame. It takes no time at all in the frame of the photon for the photon to travel ANY distance, because time stands still in the frame of the photon relative to our frame.

3

Tamoorkahn,

I am not proposing any changes to the laws of physics, either for waves or particles. Their speed will always be "c" relative to us or to other waves or particles.

If you are suggesting the existence of waves or particles that travel at different speeds (slower or faster than light), then that does not change the proposal, but would perhaps change Lorentz for a faster than light particle. In other words, for an infinitely fast wave/particle, the speed would not be contracted by as much as normal, ie in accordance with Lorentz, and so it would appear to us to move faster than light. This would mean that the space time continuum for the wave/particle, would be different than ours.

Is this what you meant?

I am not proposing any changes to the laws of physics, either for waves or particles. Their speed will always be "c" relative to us or to other waves or particles.

If you are suggesting the existence of waves or particles that travel at different speeds (slower or faster than light), then that does not change the proposal, but would perhaps change Lorentz for a faster than light particle. In other words, for an infinitely fast wave/particle, the speed would not be contracted by as much as normal, ie in accordance with Lorentz, and so it would appear to us to move faster than light. This would mean that the space time continuum for the wave/particle, would be different than ours.

Is this what you meant?

4

Tamoorkahn,

I don't know why you're telling me this. I agreed with you !

Please read my last post again.

I don't know why you're telling me this. I agreed with you !

Please read my last post again.

5

Tamoorkhan,

I think you misunderstand.

I agree, the relative speed of light is invariant. It is always 300 x 10^{6} m/s or thereabouts.

This new theory does not dispute that and Einstein's relativity remains unchallanged.

The proposal is simply that although the relative velocity of light is "c" as observed from any other frame, its velocity as experienced WITHIN its own frame is infinite, due to the fact that time has dilated to a standstill in the frame of the light, relative to the rest of the universe.

Frankly, I don't see what the arguments are about as this actually fits well with mainstream relativity theory, but it does challenge some of our longstanding beliefs and perceptions of reality.

If we entertain this postulate, then we have to change our thinking and let go of length contraction due to motion, at least as a real effect, and accept that this is just a relative illusion.

The problem in getting this idea across is that it does not disagree with the experimental results and observations or even the math of mainstream science. It seems the mainstream will only accept a new theory if it disagrees and mathematically disproves the existing theory. Otherwise, existing theory still stands. Also, at the moment, there is no envisaged practical use in the new ideas, but then that has always changed historically as new ideas become accepted.

Finally, this does not really constitute a new theory, but suggests a modification to Special Relativity

I think you misunderstand.

I agree, the relative speed of light is invariant. It is always 300 x 10

This new theory does not dispute that and Einstein's relativity remains unchallanged.

The proposal is simply that although the relative velocity of light is "c" as observed from any other frame, its velocity as experienced WITHIN its own frame is infinite, due to the fact that time has dilated to a standstill in the frame of the light, relative to the rest of the universe.

Frankly, I don't see what the arguments are about as this actually fits well with mainstream relativity theory, but it does challenge some of our longstanding beliefs and perceptions of reality.

If we entertain this postulate, then we have to change our thinking and let go of length contraction due to motion, at least as a real effect, and accept that this is just a relative illusion.

The problem in getting this idea across is that it does not disagree with the experimental results and observations or even the math of mainstream science. It seems the mainstream will only accept a new theory if it disagrees and mathematically disproves the existing theory. Otherwise, existing theory still stands. Also, at the moment, there is no envisaged practical use in the new ideas, but then that has always changed historically as new ideas become accepted.

Finally, this does not really constitute a new theory, but suggests a modification to Special Relativity

6

Simplified,

I don't.

Maybe I should've written "EVEN the mainstream says so".

It was not my intention to make the point that if the mainstream says something then it must be true.

I don't.

Maybe I should've written "EVEN the mainstream says so".

It was not my intention to make the point that if the mainstream says something then it must be true.

7

CPT ArkAngel, imatfaal,Simplified,

Yes, space and time are directly related by Lorentz.

Observing the wave side of matter, we have a choice. We can choose to believe that lengths contract or we can believe the wave impacts at increased speed and therefore SEEMS contracted. Either way the time dilation is the cause.

If you develop the Lorentz factor from the basic geometry of clock motion you reach a point where you have to choose whether or not to hold velocity constant across both frames.

If you do, you end up with the mainstream physics.

BUT, if you can accept, at least for just a moment, that the velocity in the moving frame must be greater because the clock is slower, then length contraction does not happen but velocity increase does.

Now I can hear you all screaming about the much loved length contraction, and you may have noticed that I don't necessarily believe everything I read, whatever the source. If you try this with the math, you get velocity in the moving frame approaching infinite speed as the velocity observed from the stationary frame approaches "c".

The relative limit of "c" remains intact but the speed experienced from the moving frame eventually increases to infinite speed due to the increasing time dilation. This infinite speed, is not only consistant with the time rate of zero at a relative velocity of "c", but it also clearly demonstrates WHY the finite value of "c" is the limit of relative velocity.

With the mainstream view, in the limit, we get a velocity of "c", a time rate of zero and length contraction to zero in the direction of motion only. These are all in consistant amongst themselves!

Frankly, when I hear "These are the counter intuitive effects of relativity so just accept them.", I become suspicious and this is what has driven me to explore this alternative. There are NO counter intuitive effects to swallow with this view of SR.

You may still have a problem accepting this because of the clearly observed relative effect of length contraction. All our education, experimental results and the sheer weight of consensus prevents us from even wanting to question SR at this level, but I can tell you that EITHER works mathematically and experimentally. So, it is a simple matter of choosing which one best reflects reality.

I don't know about you, but I have a problem accepting length contraction in anything but the purely relative sense, especially since it is only applicable in the direction of motion. This clearly is not a real effect.

Time dilation IS a real and proven effect of motion. Velocity increase is an indisputable result of time dilation. So, There is no contest between these options.

The mainstream is correct in that we CAN consider lengths to contract via Lorentz, but we can also explain these same effects as being due to velocity increase, if only you wanted to, or should I say, if only you were prepared to consider this option.

I have no problem at all with accepting the time dilation and the resulting velocity increase in the time dilated frame moving frame.

v = s/t, and if you dilate the "t" then v increases without any energy being applied. it's so simple.

Just don't expect me to accept length contraction as a real effect of motion. It's frankly ludicrous.

By the way, Simplified, Time is indeed relative. The mainstream also says so.

Yes, space and time are directly related by Lorentz.

Observing the wave side of matter, we have a choice. We can choose to believe that lengths contract or we can believe the wave impacts at increased speed and therefore SEEMS contracted. Either way the time dilation is the cause.

If you develop the Lorentz factor from the basic geometry of clock motion you reach a point where you have to choose whether or not to hold velocity constant across both frames.

If you do, you end up with the mainstream physics.

BUT, if you can accept, at least for just a moment, that the velocity in the moving frame must be greater because the clock is slower, then length contraction does not happen but velocity increase does.

Now I can hear you all screaming about the much loved length contraction, and you may have noticed that I don't necessarily believe everything I read, whatever the source. If you try this with the math, you get velocity in the moving frame approaching infinite speed as the velocity observed from the stationary frame approaches "c".

The relative limit of "c" remains intact but the speed experienced from the moving frame eventually increases to infinite speed due to the increasing time dilation. This infinite speed, is not only consistant with the time rate of zero at a relative velocity of "c", but it also clearly demonstrates WHY the finite value of "c" is the limit of relative velocity.

With the mainstream view, in the limit, we get a velocity of "c", a time rate of zero and length contraction to zero in the direction of motion only. These are all in consistant amongst themselves!

Frankly, when I hear "These are the counter intuitive effects of relativity so just accept them.", I become suspicious and this is what has driven me to explore this alternative. There are NO counter intuitive effects to swallow with this view of SR.

You may still have a problem accepting this because of the clearly observed relative effect of length contraction. All our education, experimental results and the sheer weight of consensus prevents us from even wanting to question SR at this level, but I can tell you that EITHER works mathematically and experimentally. So, it is a simple matter of choosing which one best reflects reality.

I don't know about you, but I have a problem accepting length contraction in anything but the purely relative sense, especially since it is only applicable in the direction of motion. This clearly is not a real effect.

Time dilation IS a real and proven effect of motion. Velocity increase is an indisputable result of time dilation. So, There is no contest between these options.

The mainstream is correct in that we CAN consider lengths to contract via Lorentz, but we can also explain these same effects as being due to velocity increase, if only you wanted to, or should I say, if only you were prepared to consider this option.

I have no problem at all with accepting the time dilation and the resulting velocity increase in the time dilated frame moving frame.

v = s/t, and if you dilate the "t" then v increases without any energy being applied. it's so simple.

Just don't expect me to accept length contraction as a real effect of motion. It's frankly ludicrous.

By the way, Simplified, Time is indeed relative. The mainstream also says so.

8

Imatfaal,

The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."

I am interested in why you believe this to be so?

The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."

I am interested in why you believe this to be so?

9

Hi Imatfaal,

I do understand the mainstream arguments and the way you have presented them. There is nothing wrong with the numbers. I agree with all of them.

I'm just not sure I agree with the mainstream interpretation of them. I still have my nagging doubt that there is something amiss, simply because the net end result is the moving twin being younger than the stay at home. This effect was proven in 1971.

I interpret this as the twin who has undergone the journey has had his clock slowed down throughout and therefore the ultimate, net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one. The moving clock changed its time rate due to its motion, but the stay at home did not.

I simply do not see the difference between say gravitational time dilation, where we all accept redshift in one direction and blueshift in the other, and inertial time dilation.

Now I know the mainstream says one is reciprocal and the other is not, but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.

I am more than willing to accept an overriding argument, but so far, I haven't heard one.

To me, time dilation is time dilation and it doesn't matter how it is created. I believe the relative effects must be the same for the same phenomena "viewed" from the same perspectives.

What I mean is, if you look outwards from a large mass, say the Earth, we observe blueshift, simply because we are looking out into a region with a faster clock. Why should we think of inertial time dilation any differently?

I understand the mainstream, I just do not agree with it. (We are in New Theories after all).

I guess the key is my idea that Time Dilation is the reality and everything else is either a man made creation, or an illusion.

After all, we cannot detect a gravitational field, but only infer its existence from the acceleration of entities within it. We cannot find the graviton. We now know the gravitational force is unreal. We cannot prove the distortion of a vacuum in GR is a reality even though it gives us the right answers. Einstein never gave us the cause and effect of gravitation but only suggested that mass somehow "distorts" space and time. Don't forget Newton gave us the right answers but his gravitational law does not reflect reality, it is more a convenient, behavioural rule but it does not contain the cause and effect.

HOWEVER, we CAN detect the time rate field and this is the ONLY thing we can actually detect.

GR does state that "Newtonian gravitation can be regarded as the curvature of time" and you can develop a formula that describes the cause and effect relationship between time and "g". THIS is the fundamental law of gravitation, but it involves only the time curvature and nothing else.

Einstein has brilliantly conceived a geometrical way to model space itself in order to explain and quantify relative effects due to gravitational fields, or in my mind, time dilation fields.

Obviously. the mainstream may dismiss such ideas as "hand waving" until a mathematical proof is forthcoming, but ask yourself how did science get to where it is now without developing new ideas first and then the math?

Although we can make deductions from mathematical formulae and science can improve its understanding with this method, I do not believe Einstein, for instance, did the math first and then inetrpreted the meaning from it.

I do understand the mainstream arguments and the way you have presented them. There is nothing wrong with the numbers. I agree with all of them.

I'm just not sure I agree with the mainstream interpretation of them. I still have my nagging doubt that there is something amiss, simply because the net end result is the moving twin being younger than the stay at home. This effect was proven in 1971.

I interpret this as the twin who has undergone the journey has had his clock slowed down throughout and therefore the ultimate, net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one. The moving clock changed its time rate due to its motion, but the stay at home did not.

I simply do not see the difference between say gravitational time dilation, where we all accept redshift in one direction and blueshift in the other, and inertial time dilation.

Now I know the mainstream says one is reciprocal and the other is not, but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.

I am more than willing to accept an overriding argument, but so far, I haven't heard one.

To me, time dilation is time dilation and it doesn't matter how it is created. I believe the relative effects must be the same for the same phenomena "viewed" from the same perspectives.

What I mean is, if you look outwards from a large mass, say the Earth, we observe blueshift, simply because we are looking out into a region with a faster clock. Why should we think of inertial time dilation any differently?

I understand the mainstream, I just do not agree with it. (We are in New Theories after all).

I guess the key is my idea that Time Dilation is the reality and everything else is either a man made creation, or an illusion.

After all, we cannot detect a gravitational field, but only infer its existence from the acceleration of entities within it. We cannot find the graviton. We now know the gravitational force is unreal. We cannot prove the distortion of a vacuum in GR is a reality even though it gives us the right answers. Einstein never gave us the cause and effect of gravitation but only suggested that mass somehow "distorts" space and time. Don't forget Newton gave us the right answers but his gravitational law does not reflect reality, it is more a convenient, behavioural rule but it does not contain the cause and effect.

HOWEVER, we CAN detect the time rate field and this is the ONLY thing we can actually detect.

GR does state that "Newtonian gravitation can be regarded as the curvature of time" and you can develop a formula that describes the cause and effect relationship between time and "g". THIS is the fundamental law of gravitation, but it involves only the time curvature and nothing else.

Einstein has brilliantly conceived a geometrical way to model space itself in order to explain and quantify relative effects due to gravitational fields, or in my mind, time dilation fields.

Obviously. the mainstream may dismiss such ideas as "hand waving" until a mathematical proof is forthcoming, but ask yourself how did science get to where it is now without developing new ideas first and then the math?

Although we can make deductions from mathematical formulae and science can improve its understanding with this method, I do not believe Einstein, for instance, did the math first and then inetrpreted the meaning from it.

10

Simplified,

Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?

If so, then I agree.

The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.

Are we beginning to think the same?

Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?

If so, then I agree.

The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.

Are we beginning to think the same?

11

Yor_on,

I have not ignored your valued comments, but I can only handle one thread at a time. In response to your earlier post. I am not of the school that believes motion is anything other than just relative. We are aligned in this regard. Motion is purely relative and does not require an "Aether" type field to measure against.

However, I do see a contradiction in SR between this idea and the idea of time being at a slower rate in the moving frame.

By "moving frame", I do not mean one is moving and the other is not. I mean that if two entities start off in the same frame, then one, and only one of them moves, then it is the one that moves who's clock is slow relative to the other and this was proved in 1971.

There is a real difference in time rates and this difference is one way only, no matter how we interpret observations between frames during motion.

I am seeking either an explanation or an acceptance that SR has an issue

I have not ignored your valued comments, but I can only handle one thread at a time. In response to your earlier post. I am not of the school that believes motion is anything other than just relative. We are aligned in this regard. Motion is purely relative and does not require an "Aether" type field to measure against.

However, I do see a contradiction in SR between this idea and the idea of time being at a slower rate in the moving frame.

By "moving frame", I do not mean one is moving and the other is not. I mean that if two entities start off in the same frame, then one, and only one of them moves, then it is the one that moves who's clock is slow relative to the other and this was proved in 1971.

There is a real difference in time rates and this difference is one way only, no matter how we interpret observations between frames during motion.

I am seeking either an explanation or an acceptance that SR has an issue

12

Imatfaal,

Thankyou very much for taking the time and trouble to post a very detailed and correct explanation of the "Twin Paradox" observations. I appreciate that.

On reflection, and on everyone's comments to date, I find myself aligning with "Geezer".

He implied he wasn't so concerned with the observation side of things, but that he was hanging on to the simple fact that one twin became older than the other.

I think this abdication of interest was a feint. He was, I believe, making the point that however you explain the observations throughought the procedure, the indisputable fact remains that one frame's time spent was shorter than the other's and from this we can say;-

For different inertial frames, there is always a net redshift/blueshift relation at any stage of the proceedings.

Which means, I still have the same understanding as I had at the beginning of the discussion.

I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.

Simultaneity doesn't seem to resolve the issue and neither does an understanding of transverse Doppler effects.

Is there anyone with a different slant on things that might resolve the issue or show hwy there is no issue?

Thankyou very much for taking the time and trouble to post a very detailed and correct explanation of the "Twin Paradox" observations. I appreciate that.

On reflection, and on everyone's comments to date, I find myself aligning with "Geezer".

He implied he wasn't so concerned with the observation side of things, but that he was hanging on to the simple fact that one twin became older than the other.

I think this abdication of interest was a feint. He was, I believe, making the point that however you explain the observations throughought the procedure, the indisputable fact remains that one frame's time spent was shorter than the other's and from this we can say;-

For different inertial frames, there is always a net redshift/blueshift relation at any stage of the proceedings.

Which means, I still have the same understanding as I had at the beginning of the discussion.

I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.

Simultaneity doesn't seem to resolve the issue and neither does an understanding of transverse Doppler effects.

Is there anyone with a different slant on things that might resolve the issue or show hwy there is no issue?

13

Imatfaal,

You left the "S" off GIYFS.

Let's get gravity out of the situation, it's confusing people.

Let's say the two clocks are both on ships, having taken off from Earth. Eventually they pass each other in opposite directions, but one is going much faster than the other (it has put much more energy into its acceleration).

I guess what this all boils down to is this question;-

**If SR states that slow clocks are observed from both moving frames then how can the real differential time dilation shown by the clocks after the journey, be reconciled with this observation?**

This is all I'm trying to get an answer to. Please can you help?

You left the "S" off GIYFS.

Let's get gravity out of the situation, it's confusing people.

Let's say the two clocks are both on ships, having taken off from Earth. Eventually they pass each other in opposite directions, but one is going much faster than the other (it has put much more energy into its acceleration).

I guess what this all boils down to is this question;-

This is all I'm trying to get an answer to. Please can you help?

14

Imatfaal,

Of course you don't agree. I didn't expect you to.

Of course you will maintain that every good mathematician is "his own man". Maybe that's a problem sometimes. It is very rare to find a person who has a full grasp of physics, who has original ideas and the courage to challenge the mainstream view, especially these days. Superimpose upon that the requirement for full competency in higher maths and you're almost asking the impossible.

Even Einstein had mathematical help did he not? Newton did it all and he was indeed a rare man.

If a mathematician is contracted to a theorist and given a brief which described the basis of and limits within which he must work, he will b---y well do as he's told or lose his job. He can naturally discuss the merits, or otherwise of changing the basis. He can resign if he thinks his position is impossible.

That's the world of Engineering.

The point I am making is that the real theorist must oversee and guide the mathematician, even if it's the same person, and NOT the other way around. If the theorist tells him that you can bend a vacuum then he will simply produce equations that allow it. If he's told he can't and must produce equations on that basis, he must try and do so.

I never was a fan of Einstein's marble slab and the mysterious cosmic blow torch. His math and theory though are almost miraculous.

"Any science without math is hand waving" I need not comment.

I'll explain my set up more then;-

Two clocks, synchronised on Earth. They are in the same frame and will "tick" at the same rate.

Put one in a very very fast space vehicle and blast off into the "Aether".

The ship travels a way away, it does not matter in what direction, or for how long, or if the velocity has been uniform throughout, but eventually the ship returns to pass the Earth closely and at very great speed.

Observations are made from the Earth as it passes directly overhead.

Simultaneously, observations are made of the Earth, from the ship, at the same instant.

The reason I have set this up this way is so that, at the instant of observation, there is no Doppler shift, at least within the limits of simultaneity.

There is, however, a measurable dilation of time for the ship's frame due to its motion, given by 1- ROOT 1-v^{2}/c^{2}

So, the ship's clock (frame of reference) is ticking at a slower rate than the Earth clock as it passes overhead.

What will be the relative observations between frames?

I am saying the Earth observer will observe redshift of the ship's frame, and,

The ship's observer will observe blueshift of the Earth's frame.

Please explain to me and for the benefit of others, in detail, and in the English language, where I have got this wrong.

Of course you don't agree. I didn't expect you to.

Of course you will maintain that every good mathematician is "his own man". Maybe that's a problem sometimes. It is very rare to find a person who has a full grasp of physics, who has original ideas and the courage to challenge the mainstream view, especially these days. Superimpose upon that the requirement for full competency in higher maths and you're almost asking the impossible.

Even Einstein had mathematical help did he not? Newton did it all and he was indeed a rare man.

If a mathematician is contracted to a theorist and given a brief which described the basis of and limits within which he must work, he will b---y well do as he's told or lose his job. He can naturally discuss the merits, or otherwise of changing the basis. He can resign if he thinks his position is impossible.

That's the world of Engineering.

The point I am making is that the real theorist must oversee and guide the mathematician, even if it's the same person, and NOT the other way around. If the theorist tells him that you can bend a vacuum then he will simply produce equations that allow it. If he's told he can't and must produce equations on that basis, he must try and do so.

I never was a fan of Einstein's marble slab and the mysterious cosmic blow torch. His math and theory though are almost miraculous.

"Any science without math is hand waving" I need not comment.

I'll explain my set up more then;-

Two clocks, synchronised on Earth. They are in the same frame and will "tick" at the same rate.

Put one in a very very fast space vehicle and blast off into the "Aether".

The ship travels a way away, it does not matter in what direction, or for how long, or if the velocity has been uniform throughout, but eventually the ship returns to pass the Earth closely and at very great speed.

Observations are made from the Earth as it passes directly overhead.

Simultaneously, observations are made of the Earth, from the ship, at the same instant.

The reason I have set this up this way is so that, at the instant of observation, there is no Doppler shift, at least within the limits of simultaneity.

There is, however, a measurable dilation of time for the ship's frame due to its motion, given by 1- ROOT 1-v

So, the ship's clock (frame of reference) is ticking at a slower rate than the Earth clock as it passes overhead.

What will be the relative observations between frames?

I am saying the Earth observer will observe redshift of the ship's frame, and,

The ship's observer will observe blueshift of the Earth's frame.

Please explain to me and for the benefit of others, in detail, and in the English language, where I have got this wrong.

15

Imatfaal,

Your example seemed as though it might be contradicting the preceding quotation, but since you have reinforced this, everything is clear now. Thankyou.

Yes, I am aware of the physics of observations that you describe. That is why I picked an example with no motion either away from, or towards, the observers. In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. I still predict the red and blue shifts. It matters not HOW the passing ship achieved this situation, but only that the time rates are different at the moment of observation. Your explanation of observations, although traditional, is therefore not applicable in this case.

Of course "we definitely need GR and SR"................ until something better comes along.

I will take up your challenge regarding the math, but I am slightly perterbed by the thinly veiled contempt for ideas without math. Modern mainstream science is perhaps too dismissive of new and challenging ideas without mathematical "proofs".

Read my previous message with quotation from Tom Van Flandern.

Anyone know a good mathematician who does as he's told?

Your example seemed as though it might be contradicting the preceding quotation, but since you have reinforced this, everything is clear now. Thankyou.

Yes, I am aware of the physics of observations that you describe. That is why I picked an example with no motion either away from, or towards, the observers. In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. I still predict the red and blue shifts. It matters not HOW the passing ship achieved this situation, but only that the time rates are different at the moment of observation. Your explanation of observations, although traditional, is therefore not applicable in this case.

Of course "we definitely need GR and SR"................ until something better comes along.

I will take up your challenge regarding the math, but I am slightly perterbed by the thinly veiled contempt for ideas without math. Modern mainstream science is perhaps too dismissive of new and challenging ideas without mathematical "proofs".

Read my previous message with quotation from Tom Van Flandern.

Anyone know a good mathematician who does as he's told?

16

Imatfaal,

I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear

I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear

17

Yor_on,

Length contraction is not the only thing that can make sense of SR. SR needs EITHER length contraction OR increased velocity to make sense. I am indeed arguing that length contraction is an illusion, whereas time dilation is real. Time dilation has been proven to be real.

As an example, if our space ship approaches the speed of light, lengths of everything we can see out of the porthole become contracted in the direction of motion, but only because we travel in that direction at a speed which is now approaching infinite speed. If we consider the impractical limit, then as we reach lightspeed, our ship might be considered to be stuck in a completely flattened universe, like a dart in a dart board. This is not real. If it was, we would all be compressed flat if ever a massive body were to pass us close by at near lightspeed and we don't believe we will be, do we? What this image tells us is that we get anywhere in the direction of motion in no time at all, since the lengths in the direction of motion can be considered zero. But it is only AS IF they are zero, due to our infinite speed. The reality is that time has slowed to a halt (relative to the rest of the universe) and so we can consider distances in the direction of motion as if they are zero length but only because we reach them in no time. Does anyone agree?

If you do the simple moving clock exercise to prove time dilation in SR, you get to a point in the argument when you have to decide whether to hold velocity constant across both frames and this is what SR indeed does and the result is length contraction. SR says that each observer must see the same velocity. I am saying you cannot hold velocity constant between frames in relative motion since the clock has slowed in one of them, so the speed in that frame is faster than the stationary frame, but only as viewed from the moving one. The result is not length contraction now, but is increased velocity via Lorentz. Lorentz comes out just the same, geometrically from this, but it shows an infinite v in the moving frame as velocity as observed from the stationary frame approaches "c". It works. Try it out.

The only other way I can put it is to point out that SR does predict the slowing of time, to zero at "c". The mainstream agrees. WE ALL AGREE! SR has therefore shot itself in the foot because if your clock stops relative to the universe, then any speed you have relative to the universe MUST be INFINITE, simply because velocity is distance moved over corresponding time taken. If the time taken becomes zero, then velocity becomes infinite. It's as simple as that, and MikeS has been trying to put this over for a while now. He's right! I'm right! The mainstream really is WRONG!

I've thought of another way:- Someone said earlier that we cannot assess the "experience" of light, but I say we can. SR says time is slowed and comes to a halt at "c". This must apply to energy just as it applies to mass. (Mass = energy). Also, relative velocity is independent of the nature of the moving entity. So, the clock stops for a light beam. If we consider an image in the beam, emitted at a certain time by our clock, then that image experiences no time in getting to us since it travels at "c" over, say 4 light years. We measure 4 years from time of emission to when we see the image, but the light thinks it got here instantaneously. This is demonstrated by the fact that the image we see is exactly the same image as was emitted 4 years ago by our clock. It has not changed, because it experienced no time to allow it to change, (even if there were a cause and effect).

Next point;- Jor_on, You grasp for some datum from which to measure a change in velocity and you make the point from mainstream SR that since all speed is relative, then it doesn't matter which frame you consider is moving, the effects between them must be symmetrical.

Why do I disagree? Because it's not just the geometric relativity that matters, there's more to it because of the nature of time. It matters what frame each of the relatively moving ships were in initially and which one moved away from it.

Let's take the following simple case;-

Situation 1. Two synchronised clocks at the Earth's surface. They share the same frame of reference with the same time rate and there is no red or blue shift to be measured between them.

Situation 2. One clock has been placed aboard a rocket and blasted of into space to a great distance. The ship has then done a u-turn and accelerated toward the Earth at great speed. The speed is great enough so that the time dilation due to its speed far outweighs any increase in time rate due to gravitational effects.

Situation 3. The ship with its clock, speeds by the Earth and observations are taken from both the ship and from the Earth.

What do you think will be observed from each position? I'll let you answer.

Next question. I am NOT saying that the results of experiments will be different. The principle of relativity still stands. It's just that things happen slower in the time dilated frame relative to the stationary frame. Realities within each frame remain unchanged, eg frequencies. Relatively though the time rates are different, just like the light ray slowing down near the Sun.

The reason you think I am mixing up SR with GR is that I am only considering relative time rates and you may as well consider relative times rates caused by inertial effects as by gravitational effects. It doesn't matter HOW the time was dilated, only that it is different between frames.

Generally, I am saying that relativity, currently being split into SR and GR, can be unified by taking time as the only real entity in the vacuum. That is why I jump from one to the other as if they are the same theory. If you simply look at the time dilation then the two theories merge. In fact you could argue that we only need SR with a modification and some more math based on temporal effects. The theory would then better reflect reality.

Length contraction is not the only thing that can make sense of SR. SR needs EITHER length contraction OR increased velocity to make sense. I am indeed arguing that length contraction is an illusion, whereas time dilation is real. Time dilation has been proven to be real.

As an example, if our space ship approaches the speed of light, lengths of everything we can see out of the porthole become contracted in the direction of motion, but only because we travel in that direction at a speed which is now approaching infinite speed. If we consider the impractical limit, then as we reach lightspeed, our ship might be considered to be stuck in a completely flattened universe, like a dart in a dart board. This is not real. If it was, we would all be compressed flat if ever a massive body were to pass us close by at near lightspeed and we don't believe we will be, do we? What this image tells us is that we get anywhere in the direction of motion in no time at all, since the lengths in the direction of motion can be considered zero. But it is only AS IF they are zero, due to our infinite speed. The reality is that time has slowed to a halt (relative to the rest of the universe) and so we can consider distances in the direction of motion as if they are zero length but only because we reach them in no time. Does anyone agree?

If you do the simple moving clock exercise to prove time dilation in SR, you get to a point in the argument when you have to decide whether to hold velocity constant across both frames and this is what SR indeed does and the result is length contraction. SR says that each observer must see the same velocity. I am saying you cannot hold velocity constant between frames in relative motion since the clock has slowed in one of them, so the speed in that frame is faster than the stationary frame, but only as viewed from the moving one. The result is not length contraction now, but is increased velocity via Lorentz. Lorentz comes out just the same, geometrically from this, but it shows an infinite v in the moving frame as velocity as observed from the stationary frame approaches "c". It works. Try it out.

The only other way I can put it is to point out that SR does predict the slowing of time, to zero at "c". The mainstream agrees. WE ALL AGREE! SR has therefore shot itself in the foot because if your clock stops relative to the universe, then any speed you have relative to the universe MUST be INFINITE, simply because velocity is distance moved over corresponding time taken. If the time taken becomes zero, then velocity becomes infinite. It's as simple as that, and MikeS has been trying to put this over for a while now. He's right! I'm right! The mainstream really is WRONG!

I've thought of another way:- Someone said earlier that we cannot assess the "experience" of light, but I say we can. SR says time is slowed and comes to a halt at "c". This must apply to energy just as it applies to mass. (Mass = energy). Also, relative velocity is independent of the nature of the moving entity. So, the clock stops for a light beam. If we consider an image in the beam, emitted at a certain time by our clock, then that image experiences no time in getting to us since it travels at "c" over, say 4 light years. We measure 4 years from time of emission to when we see the image, but the light thinks it got here instantaneously. This is demonstrated by the fact that the image we see is exactly the same image as was emitted 4 years ago by our clock. It has not changed, because it experienced no time to allow it to change, (even if there were a cause and effect).

Next point;- Jor_on, You grasp for some datum from which to measure a change in velocity and you make the point from mainstream SR that since all speed is relative, then it doesn't matter which frame you consider is moving, the effects between them must be symmetrical.

Why do I disagree? Because it's not just the geometric relativity that matters, there's more to it because of the nature of time. It matters what frame each of the relatively moving ships were in initially and which one moved away from it.

Let's take the following simple case;-

Situation 1. Two synchronised clocks at the Earth's surface. They share the same frame of reference with the same time rate and there is no red or blue shift to be measured between them.

Situation 2. One clock has been placed aboard a rocket and blasted of into space to a great distance. The ship has then done a u-turn and accelerated toward the Earth at great speed. The speed is great enough so that the time dilation due to its speed far outweighs any increase in time rate due to gravitational effects.

Situation 3. The ship with its clock, speeds by the Earth and observations are taken from both the ship and from the Earth.

What do you think will be observed from each position? I'll let you answer.

Next question. I am NOT saying that the results of experiments will be different. The principle of relativity still stands. It's just that things happen slower in the time dilated frame relative to the stationary frame. Realities within each frame remain unchanged, eg frequencies. Relatively though the time rates are different, just like the light ray slowing down near the Sun.

The reason you think I am mixing up SR with GR is that I am only considering relative time rates and you may as well consider relative times rates caused by inertial effects as by gravitational effects. It doesn't matter HOW the time was dilated, only that it is different between frames.

Generally, I am saying that relativity, currently being split into SR and GR, can be unified by taking time as the only real entity in the vacuum. That is why I jump from one to the other as if they are the same theory. If you simply look at the time dilation then the two theories merge. In fact you could argue that we only need SR with a modification and some more math based on temporal effects. The theory would then better reflect reality.

18

Hi Guys,

Yor_on, your response is a little complicated to answer, so I'll respond to Geezer first.

Geezer, You and I are of like mind. We agree that we should observe blueshift from the moving frame when looking at the stationary frame. BUT, SR definitely claims that because the motion is relative and it doesn't matter which one is considered stationary, or moving, then the observations must be the same from both frames.

I am disagreeing with this and so it seems, are you. Yor_on is sticking with mainstream SR.

By the way, the twin paradox is just one of the contradictions from SR that show something is wrong. I agree with you, if he ages slower, then his whole existence/frame of reference has passed slower relative the twin left behind. The Earth twin's frame has passed at a faster rate than the travelling twin and so was blue shifted relatively during the period of the journey. There's definitely something amiss and I believe I know what it is. I will try again to clarify in my response to Yor_on. I am pressed for time at the moment.

Yor_on, your response is a little complicated to answer, so I'll respond to Geezer first.

Geezer, You and I are of like mind. We agree that we should observe blueshift from the moving frame when looking at the stationary frame. BUT, SR definitely claims that because the motion is relative and it doesn't matter which one is considered stationary, or moving, then the observations must be the same from both frames.

I am disagreeing with this and so it seems, are you. Yor_on is sticking with mainstream SR.

By the way, the twin paradox is just one of the contradictions from SR that show something is wrong. I agree with you, if he ages slower, then his whole existence/frame of reference has passed slower relative the twin left behind. The Earth twin's frame has passed at a faster rate than the travelling twin and so was blue shifted relatively during the period of the journey. There's definitely something amiss and I believe I know what it is. I will try again to clarify in my response to Yor_on. I am pressed for time at the moment.

19

Hi Geezer,

SR predicts the observation of a slow clock in the moving frame when viewed from the stationary frame. (I agree)

SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame. (I disagree, if both clocks were synchronised before one of them moved)

This is what is termed reciprocal. ie the observations are the same from either frame.

The justification for this is that relative motion is just that, relative, and it doesn't matter which frame is moving since the relative motion is the same whichever one moves.

I am saying there is a problem with this deduction. It supposes that all effects are reciprocal and therefore that a geometric analysis will render a correct prediction but this is not so.

Physical dimensions are symetrical, or bi-directional, whereas the time dimension is asymetrical or uni-directional and a geometric analysis can never take this difference into account since it is merely a symetrical, spacial analysis, not a temporal one.

If you remember the results from Hafele & Keating in 1971. No observations were ever made between frames at any stage of the journey and the time dilation was demonstrated only by the difference in times between the stationary clock and the moving clock when the journey was over. This proved that the moving clock had been operating at a slower rate than the stationary clock during the period of the motion, thus proving the time dilation of motion from SR is real.

However, if one clock really does run slower, then how can you observe a slower clock from this perspective when the other clock you're looking at really is faster.

There are various justifications for this from supporters of mainstream SR, but frankly, none of them stack up. They don't take account of the fact that initially, both clocks were synchronised but that only one of them moved.

The one that moved has the slow clock and the one that didn't move still has the same time rate as before.

The reality is the differential time rate which is asymetrical. ie, slow when looking at the moving clock but fast when looking at the stationary clock. This leads me to predict a BLUE SHIFT when looking out from the moving frame toward the stationary frame and this is counter to the prediction from SR

The symetrical result from SR only ever happens for the special case where both clocks move at the same speed away from the synchronised position. Then and only then, is the time dilation the same for both clocks.

What do you think?

SR predicts the observation of a slow clock in the moving frame when viewed from the stationary frame. (I agree)

SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame. (I disagree, if both clocks were synchronised before one of them moved)

This is what is termed reciprocal. ie the observations are the same from either frame.

The justification for this is that relative motion is just that, relative, and it doesn't matter which frame is moving since the relative motion is the same whichever one moves.

I am saying there is a problem with this deduction. It supposes that all effects are reciprocal and therefore that a geometric analysis will render a correct prediction but this is not so.

Physical dimensions are symetrical, or bi-directional, whereas the time dimension is asymetrical or uni-directional and a geometric analysis can never take this difference into account since it is merely a symetrical, spacial analysis, not a temporal one.

If you remember the results from Hafele & Keating in 1971. No observations were ever made between frames at any stage of the journey and the time dilation was demonstrated only by the difference in times between the stationary clock and the moving clock when the journey was over. This proved that the moving clock had been operating at a slower rate than the stationary clock during the period of the motion, thus proving the time dilation of motion from SR is real.

However, if one clock really does run slower, then how can you observe a slower clock from this perspective when the other clock you're looking at really is faster.

There are various justifications for this from supporters of mainstream SR, but frankly, none of them stack up. They don't take account of the fact that initially, both clocks were synchronised but that only one of them moved.

The one that moved has the slow clock and the one that didn't move still has the same time rate as before.

The reality is the differential time rate which is asymetrical. ie, slow when looking at the moving clock but fast when looking at the stationary clock. This leads me to predict a BLUE SHIFT when looking out from the moving frame toward the stationary frame and this is counter to the prediction from SR

The symetrical result from SR only ever happens for the special case where both clocks move at the same speed away from the synchronised position. Then and only then, is the time dilation the same for both clocks.

What do you think?

20

Hi Geezer,

My understanding is that the GPS satellites are verifying the different time rates at different elevations in the time rate field and also the time dilation of motion (redshift) of the satellites relative to/as viewed from Earth.

I do not think this verifies the reciprocal view of Earth clocks being redshifted as viewed from the satellites. I am saying the Earth clocks will appear blueshifted from the satellite frames.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would appreciate some detail as to how and what is being measured from where, if you can. Anyone ?

My understanding is that the GPS satellites are verifying the different time rates at different elevations in the time rate field and also the time dilation of motion (redshift) of the satellites relative to/as viewed from Earth.

I do not think this verifies the reciprocal view of Earth clocks being redshifted as viewed from the satellites. I am saying the Earth clocks will appear blueshifted from the satellite frames.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would appreciate some detail as to how and what is being measured from where, if you can. Anyone ?