0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You also mentioned .99c in the cyclotron.
I did not have the diagram. I was just mentioning where you said 0.99c during this thread.
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though
Hi David,I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message, so here it is again:
By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Even if a photon takes more time to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited.
By the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?
I am still struggling with the measurements of the mmx. Is it just the mirrors contracting? Does the space between the mirrors contract? Was the space between the mirrors already contracted when the measured distances between the mirrors took place? Is there a way to measure accurately enough with contracted length?
Was the measured distance in the MMX mirrors done with the contracted length?
Has the MMX been done that can rotate each distances for orientation without changing their physical distances (Other than suspected length contraction ) with the rotation?
How do you prove space Aether does not rotate with mass?
David;Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?
Below the origin, f'= sqrt[.072]=.27Above the origin, f'= sqrt[13.925]=3.73. In the second case f' is almost 4.If f'=4, solving for v gives 15/17= .8824.
Quote from: phyti on 14/06/2017 19:10:28David;Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?Have you found a fault with it? If so, you'll need to spell out what it is.
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.
Quote from: Le Repteux on 13/06/2017 17:02:28Hi David,I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message, so here it is again:I did see it and intended to reply to it, but every time I attempt to do so I run into the same problem - it just makes my mind go blank, probably because its trying to build upon a number of things that I haven't yet fully got my mind around, and I'm just not ready to go there. There's a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve things moving along in jumps, and I'd rather acquire a complete understanding of that first before abandoning it in favour of something that might turn out to be more correct but which adds a lot of additional complexity. However, illustrating it using diagrams like Иванов has done could make a considerable difference.
QuoteI'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Even if a photon takes more time to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited.I'm having trouble picturing when these photons set out relative to when which particles are moving, when they arrive, etc., and that's why it would help if it was accompanied by a series of diagrams to show the progress of how the system moves along.
QuoteBy the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?One account of the action claims that one observer is stationary throughout while the other moves away and then moves back, so the one that moved will have slowed clocks and will record less time as having passed. Another account of the action claims that one observer is stationary for part of the time and then moves much faster than the other in order to catch up with him while the other is moving at a constant speed throughout, so in this case the latter has clocks running slow throughout while the former has clocks running faster at first, but then his clocks are slowed much more severely when he travels really fast, and that leads to his clocks recording less time overall.
Quote from: phyti on 15/06/2017 15:48:54In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.
Quote from: David Cooper on 15/06/2017 19:05:59Quote from: phyti on 15/06/2017 15:48:54In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.The drawings correctly show 3.73 between signals when separating and .27 between signals when closing, for both A and B, when using the relativistic Doppler expressions.
On 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.
Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact.
Now latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements.
This would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.
This being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.
Here we go: (I sent you a PM with the diagram, please quote it in you answer)
OK! I got it this time! Sorry, I did not follow the complete reasoning the first times I read it. It works, and apart from braking the cause and effect law, it also works with SR, so I wonder why the physicists on other scientific forums refuse to use it to raise the Twins' paradox. As you say, a theory that contains a paradox is wrong by definition.
I saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased,
and I also saw that the original thread you refer to was erased too, so I'm forced to conclude like you that they need to hide something.
I'm still having a hard time to convince myself that time slows down though, I've been thinking the contrary for so long! I'm surprised that it took so little a time to change my mind though.
Did you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet?
I had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible.
Have you tried sciencechatforum.com yet? They treat miscreants like you nicely there too. :0)
P.S. Here is my conversion to time dilation and length contraction on sciencechatforum.comsciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270
Maybe you could get it to me via Facebook and I can then try attaching it to a post here. Once I've seen the diagram, I might then be able to follow the description.
QuoteI saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased,That was all in PMs (so it was never on view to the public) - it may still exist there for all I know - it certainly generated a lot of interest judging by all the people being invited to join in, and I was able to capture all the action and mugshots. It's a nice prize to have, and the time will come when they all wish they'd had the courage to call it differently instead of conforming to the required beliefs of what is actually a religion.
They erase within minutes anything that goes against the clergy, and they've banned a lot of professional physicists too. In doing so, they make a mockery of science, but that'll just make it all the more fun when the whole thing unravels for them after AGI takes over the show and starts to call all the shots. They will never be allowed to forget how much they have abused the people who have rightly objected to their disproven assertions.
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.
QuoteDid you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet?Most people who shift position from the SR side seem to move to the point where they sit on the fence rather than actually changing sides, but that's a step in the right direction.
QuoteI had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible.How recently did you register there? .... the forum's still up.
I'm not greatly keen to open up new fronts as it just eats a lot of time for no real gain - realistically, nothing's going to change until we have AGI systems running on all computers so that millions of AGI users can join every science forum and outgun the clergy there. AGI will soon be running on the clergy's own machines too, so they won't even be able to type any of their nonsense in any more without being firmly told that they're in direct conflict with reason whenever they make unacceptable assertions about the rightness of disproven theories. This would also help all the people questioning the science (or trying to get their head around it) if they could talk it through with AGI first instead of with a human so that they don't get misled by other humans who often don't understand the science that they imagine they're well placed to teach - most of the problems that keep coming up seem to result from people filling their heads with incorrect science which they then have enormous difficulty unlearning.
QuoteClocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact.Shouldn't they tick slower at the equator than the poles for the same altitude? Has that been tested?
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?
QuoteThis would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.I can't make sense of that either. "If light actually goes 90 degrees..." - I don't know what that's 90 degrees away from, but I can't see what you're getting at anyway. At any given moment with the MMX, the rotation of the Earth is too slow to have any relevance beyond merely adding to or subtracting a little from the straight-line speed of the apparatus through space, and the main thing of interest to us is how the MMX behaves six months apart in time.
QuoteNow latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements.I can't make sense of that.
QuoteThis being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.And again I can't make sense of that, but too many things have come out of experiments to show us that length-contraction should happen, so it wouldn't go away even if you could find some kind of ether-drag or aura voodoo to stop it affecting the MMX on Earth. We send space probes out to the planets and they don't show up any atomic clocks slowing or speeding up as they move from one bubble of ether-drag to another