0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 23:01:23in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frameQuote from: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 23:01:23in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frameIn the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.I'm not sure what the points A1 and A2 are.It looks this way to me.The scenario is there is a point on the x axis we will call A. There is a observer at rest with point A. A space ship flys by at .5 c along the axis. Just as he passes point A, a pulse of light is put out.From the frame of the observer at rest with point A, 1 second after the ship passes point A and the light flashed, the light will have traveled 1 light-second from point A. The front of the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship.From the frame of the ship, 1 second after point A passes the ship and the light flashes the light will have traveled 1 light-second in front of the ship and point A will have moved .5 light-seconds behind the ship.So from the ship's frame after 1 second the light pulse in front of the ship will be 1.5 light-seconds from point A. For the observer at rest after 1 second the light front will be 1 light-second in from point A.
in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame
in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frameIn the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.
tunately a lot of this thread is ending up being little more than hand waving. I think the problem is your hypotheses has not been formalized enough to make it clear what is going on.Space diagrams can be made for Galilean relativity and for Special relativity based on the associated transforms. You have taken Galilean relativity and added to it that the speed of light is constant. What that means is the Galilean transforms are no longer applicable. So there must be a new set of transforms that we could use to make a new space time diagram that reflects your modified relativity.
There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense.
Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation:
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 23:32:38There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense. Are you seriously trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to say they are at rest and the other frame is moving?
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 23:57:29Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation:I specifically wasn't looking for an explanation, I was looking for some mathematics to show how to draw the space diagram for you version of relativity.
You still need to explain how in the ship's frame the light pulse travels 1.5 light-seconds from point A and in the rest frame the light pulse travels 1 light-second from point A.
No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocity
In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 02:22:19No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocityI don't know what that means.If there was something wrong with my analysis please specifically point it out.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 02:22:19In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)So I assume you don't have math for the transforms.
I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guy
Truth is, that you can probably provide just as many (if not more) sources, that will be in a complete disagreement with my sources.
What matters here at most, is for me the fact that in the case of QM and relativity big part of the general theory is still based on speculation and interpretation.
I don't know why, but often my controversial claims are taken very personally, only because they don't fit in someone's stable and secure worldview.
in most of cases I'm capable of supporting my claims with peer-reviewed sources - and this makes me a very dangerous individual.
Hard to count, how many times my threads turned into a total war: my person VS all others, only to be in the end closed by a moderator
And when it comes to Einstein's relativity things get even worse - every statement, that stands in contradiction to SRT is treated as the worst kind of blasphemy.
98% of people from many different forums treat SRT as somekind of ultimate and undeniable solution to all the problems of modern physics (and there are coulple of them).
Any attempt to question or (God forbid) disagree with some of it's predictions marks you as "the enemy", that requires a correction of mind or elimination from scientific society.
And in reality SRT still needs an empirical validation of around 50% of it's theory. Where's DIRECT experimental evidence of length contraction or relative simultaneity?
There's none - while all other avaliable "in-direct evidences" can be interpreted in at least 6 different ways.
I won't even mention about all the unsolvable paradoxes and logical inconsistencies, that still remain unsolved to this day.
You have to be a genius, to base a theory on mechanics, that are theoretically impossible to test.
Sure - let's just state: "time stops for you to flow at the speed of light"
I want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneity
Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?
Maybe for you as a physicist (if you call yourselve as such)
I require a direct epmpirial evidence
I want to see, if the distance between protons REALLY will become shorter for the pair in motion.
There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously
Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:And if you want to know all the details here they are:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 03:11:18Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:And if you want to know all the details here they are:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformationGalilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.I must commend you on the degree of thinking you've put into this, but as others have pointed out there are inconsistencies which are nothing to do with SRT.Have a look at emission theory which should turn up in any search. It has some of the ideas you are chasing and you can see why it was rejected.It's important to remember that Einstein started his theory due to anomalies in the behaviour of moving electric and magnetic fields. You theory has to also explain these anomalies, some of which rely on length contraction in the wire. See https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Modern_Physics/Book%3A_Spiral_Modern_Physics_(D%27Alessandris)/1%3A_The_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_-_Kinematics/1.8%3A_Length_Contraction_and_the_Magnetic_Force__(Project)Keep thinking
In 1910 Daniel Frost Comstock and in 1913 Willem de Sitter wrote that for the case of a double-star system seen edge-on, light from the approaching star might be expected to travel faster than light from its receding companion, and overtake it. If the distance was great enough for an approaching star's "fast" signal to catch up with and overtake the "slow" light that it had emitted earlier when it was receding, then the image of the star system should appear completely scrambled.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on Yesterday at 23:11:18I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guyMy concern is that you are taking the same two premises as SRT and yet concluding something different. Since all of the conclusions of SRT logically follow from the premises, it means that either you (an admitted unscientific person working only from a ‘humble opinion’) or Einstein did the mathematics or logic incorrectly. Given that you’ve not done any mathemtatics, the case you make for your opinion is pretty weak.
On the other hand, the pictures are top notch. I’m jealous.
What's the point in spending couple days to manually calculate all the Lorentz transformations from my scenarios, if I can use an interactive Minkovski diagram tool from this site: http://ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html and get the same results in form of a fancy graphic?
Here's my attempt of implementing gravity in my model of relativity...:
Scenario: 3 frames in relative motion - 1 stationary, 1 moving at 0,25c and 1 moving at 0,5c. Each frame contains identical copy of a light clock oriented perpendiculary to the motion of frame
My solution: let's add the mising dimension Y for perpendicular motion of photon in the light clock: 3. T-cut
Most of your sources were not wrong, they just were not talking about Quantum Theory, but rather a counterfactual interpretation like Bohmian mechanics which does very much posit faster than light interaction between entangled particles, but any such interpretation also requires effect to precede cause in some cases, and not just a little bit. Bohmian mechanics (like any valid interpretation of QM) makes no predictions, and thus does not qualify as a scientific theory. I was talking about quantum theory, which is empirical physics and thus does make predictions and not unverifiable assertions.
Incorrect. The respective interpretations are not part of the theory. They’re added metaphysical speculations and rightfully are kept separate from the actual theory. If you take a QM class in grad school, they might touch on the various interpretations one day, but the class is not about them and only the theory part is taught and included in the tests. The interpretations are for pop articles which have massive appetites for such things. So do I, which is why I’m on forums instead of doing actual physics work.
They’re rejected for being self inconsistent, not for being controversial. New ideas are a good thing, but not inconsistent ideas.vv
If your theory is really different, peer reviewed sources will not support it since it is a new idea. It will make empirical predictions that differ from the competing theory, and that would suggest a falsification test eliminating one theory or the other. Your idea doesn’t even get that far because it isn’t self-consistent. If it involves X is true and X is also not true, then nobody is going to bother testing it. You perhaps don’t see the inconsistency due to your refusal to do the mathematics.
Some forums have rules about posters that will not see inconsistencies when spelled out clearly by other members. This forum seems more open to letting them carry on so long as it isn’t in the sections reserved for discussion of accepted science.
Why does everyone want to attack that theory? It is simple, and follows logically from the simplest premises which are easily verified by experiment. Pick something less established if you want to stand a chance.How about an argument that the universe is but 6000 years old? There's real money to be made if you can do that convincingly.
Not an enemy at all, but I think you’d not be employable as a physicist. They need people capable of working out the implications of new ideas.
In the frame in which a muon is stationary in Earth’s upper atmosphere, it is going to decay in about 1.5 usec, enough time for something to move at most 450 meters. The atmosphere is much thicker than that, but in the frame of the muon, it contracts to well under 450 meters enabling Earth (moving at nearly light speed) to reach it before it decays. That’s direct evidence of length contraction. RoS is strictly an abstract relation since it is a coordinate effect.You are speaking the language of a denier zealot. You’re quoting their (fallacious) arguments. Your ideas seem to be those of your peers rather than your own. You seem more interested in denial than in science. Your credibility falls as you bring up such arguments rather than defending/analyzing your idea.
That they can. LET for instance adds a premise of a preferred foliation, but it still maintains real length contraction for a moving thing. In asserting the preferred frame, it at least does away with RoS (and shows that RoS cannot be directly demonstrated). But it has its faults since there is no coordinate system that foliates all of spacetime, and thus no candidate frame exists for the preferred one. That’s a real problem that has to be solved by an interpretation that asserts the existence of such a thing.
That’s good, since it relieves me of having to show why the ‘paradox’ isn’t actually one. The Sagnac one is always a favorite of the deniers, despite the fact that SR predicts its behavior exactly.
All theories are impossible to prove. But they’re easy to disprove, and the lack of anybody doing so in a century should tell you something, but it’s apparently something you don’t want to know.
That would violate principle of relativity. Time cannot stop for you at any speed since that would define a frame in which the laws of physics were different, and would falsify the first premise. So if you can manage to get time to stop for you, you’ve got your proof.
QuoteI want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneityQuoteWhat do those words mean???
What do those words mean???
Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?QuoteYou want to take a pair of protons that are distance D apart and apply identical proper acceleration to both of them? They’ll stay D apart at any speed relative to the lab frame. Maybe you’re trying to describe something else.
You want to take a pair of protons that are distance D apart and apply identical proper acceleration to both of them? They’ll stay D apart at any speed relative to the lab frame. Maybe you’re trying to describe something else.
I’m a software engineer who has never taken a class in quantum mechanics or relativity. But I can read.The only thing that Einstein could do that other could not was to drop his biases when they became questionable. Lorentz could not do it and thus did not publish before Einstein, despite his head start on the same work. The SR work was not particularly a work of genius, and he said that the state of science was ripe for it. Without him, somebody else would have come up with it within a year or so. The GR work was the masterpiece, and even there he asked for and received help with the mathematics in places.
No you don’t. The fact that you’re putting out your OP without a scrape of empirical evidence backing it means that this is of no importance to you. You’re lying to yourself now.
The the protons bonded in a helium atom or something? If not, I see no reason why the distance between them would change after identical acceleration.
This makes no sense. In something like Minkowski spaceitme, all objects exist in all frames. They just have different coordinates in one frame than in another. I’m not so sure you have any idea what a frame of reference is.
And bandicam to capture the animations.By using such a program, you’re essentially utilizing the conclusions of special relativity, so I’m not so sure how you think the tool would be helpful in demonstrating your own model that differs from it, but then you seem to use a different tool to express your own proposal further down.
One cannot use a Minkowski simulation program to demonstrate gravity. Minkowski spacetime by definition does not involve gravity.You seemingly depict gravity as something that radiates away from an object, at light speed which is wrong. Gravity is expressed with the stress energy tensor which is covariant under frame transformations.
Not sure what you’re trying to depict. The green ball seems to be the light clock, but it moves at different speeds for the 3 balls. The blue ball especially has waves propagating from it at faster than light speed, which makes little sense. Not sure what you’re trying to depict. You need a lot more description with each picture to describe what each of the things (waves, different colored balls) is.Red and blue balls seem to move at the same speed but opposite directions, which contradicts your description. The yellow balls track the expanding circles, so I assume that’s light speed, but some of the black balls outrun the yellow ones, which doesn’t make sense.
Therefore, the components of angular momentum along the direction of motion do not change, while the components perpendicular do change. By contrast to the transformations of space and time, time and the spatial coordinates change along the direction of motion, while those perpendicular do not.
QM explains HOW observed processes take place, but it doesn't try to explain WHY they take place
In most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetements
Actually my theory makes couple strictly numerical predictions that can be tested in a laboratory - like the "width contraction", which I've explained in my previous post.
It's becuse I see too many logical inconsitencies in the SRT
Sorry for not being specific enough. What I had in mind, is a scenario with two identical pairs of protons with one pair being accelerated and where each proton in a moving pair is passing next to a proton from stationary pair simultaneously.
According to SRT simultaneity will be lost since distance between protons will get shorter - am I right?
That's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light.
I have an idea for a contest between my model and the SRT. Let's see how both models deal with angular velocity and the hypothetical ftl motion that comes from it. What in SRT makes the difference between those 3 relative velocities from the image below?Let's discuss a scenario in which we use a veeeeeryy long stick to accelerate an object mounted to one end of that stick to the speed of c and beyond
using the property of angular motion (velocity grows together with the distance to center of rotation).
If I'm correct SRT will try to deal with this problem using the lenght contraction on angular motion to prevent the frame on the end of stick to reach the speed of light or exceed it - is this true?
If so, we'll end up with a serious problem - number of full rotations around the central point won't be the same for the object at the far end of stick as for someone who's placed much closer to the center of rotation. How SRT deals with that problem?
In shortcut, my conclusion is, that according to SRT, multiple observers placed in a line along the radius of a rotating disk, will experience different rates of time flow, with the fastest rate of aging process for observer in the center of rotation and with the slowest rate for observer located on the edge of rotating disc
all of this, while appearing as stationary in relation to each other.
No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.
In most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetementsI showed several.Quote Did you respond to it? No, you ignored it, and just charged ahead with further assertions. If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk.
Did you respond to it? No, you ignored it, and just charged ahead with further assertions. If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk
"Galilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.
Very hard to parse that. I understand a pair of particles (do they need to be protons? Can they be marbles?) that are stationary relative to each other but moving relative to the laboratory. Relative to the lab frame, they’re separated by say a meter. In the frame of the objects, the distance between them will be larger, not shorter. That would be their proper separation which is always greatest in the frame in which they are at rest.There seems to be no acceleration involved in your scenario. If there is, you need to be precise about where it fits in, how things are accelerated, and when.
OK, the scenario changes now. Relative to the lab frame, all four (not two) objects are at rest. Two of them are simultaneously accelerated with identical proper acceleration. They will remain a meter apart then in the lab frame, but will grow further apart in the new frame relative to which they eventually come to rest. If the acceleration starts at different times (relative to the lab) or one has more proper acceleration than the other, then their separation will not be as I described it.Why, does your model predict something else?
SRT has no concept of ‘simultaneity being lost’. Both objects represent worldlines and for every event on one worldline, there is an event on the other worldline that is simultaneous with it. This is true in any frame. So no, you are not right. You seem to have only a minimal understanding of SRT.
QuoteThat's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light.So the speed of light isn’t actually the speed of light?? Light clocks use special photons different from normal ones?
Not happening. The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.
Again, you are incorrect. The length of the stick will not contract because it isn’t moving in that direction. The thickness will contract, but that doesn’t effect the length of the stick or the speed at which the end is going.
Relative to say the inertial frame of the axis, the stick is always straight and thus moving everywhere at the same angular rate (rads/sec).The rod will be curved relative to inertial frames in which the axis is moving. There are web sites showing this.
No, the others will appear to be going around you. They’ll only appear stationary relative to the rotating frame of the spinning thing, but not relative to any inertial frame.