0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I understand that you attribute time to the distance light travels, as we do for the lightyear. This might be useful if that distance was constant, but your MMx simulation shows that it travels more distance one way than the other, so what would be the true time? Maybe you mean the distance traveled in aether, but then there would be no way to detect the true time, and if there is no way for us, my theory shows that there would be no way for atoms either, so this kind of time would be useless too. Besides, if we assimilate time to aging, to me, the fact that one of the twins gets younger means that his time has slowed down. Visibly, I do not understand yet what you exactly mean.
I registered six months ago. I can try to register you with your name and give you the password after if you wish.
We are not talking about altitude. We are referencing sea level on earth.
You can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.
Quote from: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 22:50:34Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?Einstein and relativity.
Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?
It does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.
I am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.
Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.
Yes, but a clock at sea level at the equator is moving through space more quickly on average than a clock at sea level at the north pole, so the former should tick more slowly unless there's some complication I don't know about which cancels out the difference, which is why I commented on that - if they do tick at the same rate as each other, there must be some factor that I haven't taken into account and I want to know more about it.
QuoteYou can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.That is not possible.
QuoteQuote from: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 22:50:34Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?Einstein and relativity.Incompetent. No method has been found to measure the speed of light in one direction with anything.
QuoteIt does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.That's gone too weird for me.
QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?
QuoteI am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.That wasn't what I called voodoo - it's the bit about an aura which I had an issue with because you're trying to do something that would be ruled out in the same way as aether drag. When space probes move from planet to planet they don't find boundaries between "auras".
I never actually stopped to work out what the values would be, but those sound right - if you add them together and half the answer, you get one beep every two seconds which is what both rockets should work out that they're hearing on average, tying in neatly with what they will expect to hear if they both assume themselves to be stationary while the other rocket moves past them.
But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass
Yes You are not taking into account the bulge at the equator and the indentation at the poles for where sea level resides. There is a SR GR equivalence sea level balances.
I would suggest you use the term not probable rather than not possible.
Atomic clocks can measure distance on the Earth to prove relativity. Atomic clocks measure rotation of the earths longitude vs. latitude using simultaneity of relativity very well. Atomic clocks accurately measure distances light travels. If c is constant than atomic clocks can measure distance. Einstein thought so. I'm going to side with his understanding.
They used atomic clocks in airplanes to prove relativity. The Canadians used a van with 7 atomic clocks to prove relativity driving from NY to SF and registered a 14 ns difference in line with the rotation of the Earth c-v.
Quote from: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 02:07:45QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?No, but of what is it a contraction?
I meant to say the forward and back /2 is the same. One way distance measured by light is not but the physical distance remains the same.
I use aura to describe dilation threshold of the inverse square of the distance. We view this in galaxies as lensing. Aura is not in the spiritual sense when used by me.
Anaut B leaves A at .866c, performs a more realistic reversal from Bt .5 to 1.5.. and returns at .866c. Inspection reveals units of time detected:A detects 1 in 3..37, then 1 in .63, an average of 2 in 4.B detects .63 in 1, then 3.37 in 1, an average of 4 in 2.The detection rates are reciprocal but not equal.
A clock is a process, like biology, or growth rings of a tree,...etc. Inside the light clock, the speed of light relative to the clock is < c and that is by definition 'time'..
If observer perception (a process) is altered by motion, like the clock, he is not aware of the slowing clock rate, just as his short ruler does not reveal a change in his short spaceship. If all processes slow by the same proportion, the rules of physical behavior remain constant, and apply anywhere for inertial motion. Perception is that of a common time, therefore a universal time is irrelevant.
If the one-way speed of light could be measured, we would be able to identify a preferred frame of reference
That is not a one-way measurement the speed of light - proving relativity merely proves that relativity works, but it doesn't mean that it has to be Einstein's relativity as LET makes the same predictions and does not require the speed of light to be the same in all directions relative to any object.
Quote from: David Cooper on Today at 02:07:45QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?No, but of what is it a contraction?If it's 14ft less in one direction, how can the light distances be the same?
I can't see how that gives you a mechanism to avoid length-contraction.
I think I succeeded to insert time dilation in my diagram: whenever contraction occurs, we can consider that time dilation occurs too, which is when acceleration occurs. While A is accelerated, its components are accelerated millions of times, and at each time, they undergo a small contraction and a small dilation, which are transferred to B progressively by means of its own components' accelerations, so at the end of the acceleration, when B's components make their last acceleration, the dilation A and B suffer is the same, and it thus has no effect on their future motion with regard to one another since we can't detect dilation if we are in the same frame as the source.
I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.
Quote from: puppypower on 21/06/2017 13:19:35I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid. The way I see it, intelligence would be due to randomness happening in our brains for us to be able to cope with changes happening in our environment, so if I am right, you're completely wrong: we are not relatively stupid, we are absolutely stupid! :0)
You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?