21

New Theories / Re: The conductive grid of Space-time

« on: 04/09/2017 12:44:38 »

  The Michelson Morley experiment highly discounts the possibility of a stationary grid structure. I would have to agree with that assessment but that did not prove a grid made of points that spin in a complimentary fashion was disproven. We nave to account for energy to move the electrons. A spin grid of c complimentary points would satisfy that requirement and create relativity. Or continue on the path of magic rather than mechanical electron motion that is confounded with photon motion.

22

New Theories / Re: Would you accept the strange idea that Pi is not a fixed number?

« on: 04/09/2017 12:23:30 »

  We live in a 3d point universe. Points can get closer together but never become a true circle. A pure circle is impossible and irrational to the make up of the universe. That is why centrifugal force can be created. Dilation will give you a curved aspect to space but it is still point to point. Dilation is just localized expansion to point to point in the presence of mass.

23

New Theories / Re: Is visible light dependent on substance?

« on: 03/09/2017 14:29:38 »

I define darkness:   localised objects without illumination .

Absence of light waves is the absence of illumination and what the world calls dark. The world is not precise in language and will not bend to your understanding. Do you know the physical shape of the photon? If not what are you arguing about?

24

New Theories / Re: Relative simultaneous timing between two observers.

« on: 03/09/2017 14:04:15 »

  There is no absolute frame unless of course we are discussing c being total photon energy for distance as a constant. The rest is just timing which is different for different frames. When David claims time  as an absolute without regard to timing and reaction rate differences that is not within the realm of relativity. Thebox is correct at t=0 the distance between two objects is defined but cannot be measured accurately using light or any spectrum waves. We only have orthogonal measurements of a ping for two way and reflected light for one way when we look at an object.

There is a fractal change in perception. Your measuring stick increases while your clock decreases tick rate with speed. You measure a smaller universe with slower timing. So your clock measures the distance by time the same in all frames. This also auto corrects for the speed of light to be measured the same in a vacuum. Distance and timing are always confounded. Time itself is directly related to c. You cannot measure something that is part of what is being measured. Timing either by the electron or photon is based on c. So you cannot really measure c using c. So looking for an absolute frame is meaningless.

25

New Theories / Re: Is visible light dependent on substance?

« on: 03/09/2017 12:47:35 »

  Light is just a form of propagation wave. Either produced or reflected. The lack of wave form like deep in the mammoth caves of KY. will cause blindness if left without the propagated wave form for to long. Transparency is a condition of propagation. A cellar can be in a condition of lack of propagation and that six year old will own the world when he grows up. Or be president.

26

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 02/09/2017 17:01:52 »

I must correct your ill informed logic.  c is a constant speed 300,000 km/s

Yes and what causes the 300,000 km/s in a Vacuum?  If you limit your understanding to mass and not energy given to mass of course you will need to correct it to one dimension of mass. You maintain a blinds eye to the constant speed of the electron at sea level confounded with the constant speed of light at sea level in a vacuum.

You feel the need to limit your view to macro mass. That is a poor choice in my estimation. To much coincidence not to have a control  mechanism.

27

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 02/09/2017 12:56:31 »

  c is energy. Energy is of space. Space is of particles with different densities and the cause of red shift. The densities can be from SR or GR and have equivalence between them. The space particles have spin. That spin (c) is the cause of motion itself as in moving the electrons. Light and all spectrum waves are just that (waves). Since the particles of space propagates waves energy can be transferred. This is the wave and particle. All Electrons are moving at c in a helix (life is a clone of that helix as macro mass). The dual slit experiment is just a wave on the sea of particles. There is no linear particle going the speed of light. We shoot the representative wave of an electron same as the photon is a representative wave of the electron jump.

The timing associated with each (frame) is a relative ratio of c being used for kinetic energy and what energy is available to the maximum frame of c. There would be no physical laws without the sea of c because there would be no motion It's staring us right in the face but motion was always a part of us so we take it for granted. There are no strings in 3d only particles closer together. Pie proves that there is no such thing as a perfect circle thus no strings. The electrons travel through a triangular web of spin energy that is complimentary to motion as a helix. This would be similar to a string in theory. The distance between particles of c can never be equidistant but be somewhat uniform in structure. This allows the flex that forms the photons and all other waves.

Gravity is the dilation of mass to the center of mass being the most dilated space particles in the spin state. Al mass is attracted to the greatest dilated space by the inverse square of the distance. There is less friction with mass the more dilated the energy state causing gravity.

Natural magnets have an alignment of its spin state. Right hand going in and right hand going out the other side. So mirror images have opposing spin states while opposites continue the spin direction.

Motion is of space and c is absolute motion. The frame which controls all frames.

28

New Theories / Re: Testing simultaneity and measuring the speed of light.

« on: 01/09/2017 11:49:22 »

The relative physical laws are the same in every inertial frame but the conditions of the different inertial frames are not. The relative energy we measure as time is affected with an increase in velocity. So reaction times differ like your synapsis not firing as fast in greater inertial speed. In this way you do not recognize any difference in reaction rates. Timing changes with your synapsis so the conditions remain the same physical laws relative.

29

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 31/08/2017 11:57:27 »

The absolute frame is c. Without Energy c there would be no motion at all. Rather than a stationary frame of the Aether it's a spin particle Aether that move the electrons which allows motion to exist in the first place. Everyone seems to believe in motion for nothing and no reason, when it is staring them in the face. The spin Aether creates all of our physical parameters and why everything is the inverse square of the distance. Volume, sight for distance, gravity and magnetism. Or do you believe it is just a coincidence? E=mc^2 one c for space and one for moving the electron in a helix.

30

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 26/08/2017 12:28:32 »

David


   You are using circular logic all based on your model of contraction strictly based on clocks ticking at the same rate in any orientation. Yours is only one model that cannot be verified except through math. Math does not prove a theory is correct. Math only proves a theory is not correct.

   The ladder paradox is based on simultaneity of relativity showing the signal to get to the doors affect the synchronicity of the doors being closed at the same time. While it's useful to show simultaneity of relativity it does not prove contraction. The design of contraction eliminates a testable measurement. Your model passes the hurdle of math but math does not prove your model.

31

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 25/08/2017 14:50:43 »

On the Earth if you move East to West timing increases and so does reactions such as your cell rate of decline. You age faster in that direction because you are slowing down. If you go West to East reactions slow because you are moving faster. Definitely imperceptible.

32

New Theories / Re: Testing simultaneity and measuring the speed of light.

« on: 25/08/2017 13:31:04 »

Thebox

   Just like there is no preferred frame there is different values for the measurement's of Planck's length for a frame. Plank's length is related to Planck's time in every frame.

33

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 25/08/2017 00:02:50 »

Let's say there cable from NY to SF and you are sitting on the moon. There is a mirror on the SF side to return light. There is an event in NY an observer is able to view that moves to SF and the observer is able to watch the photon progress With his measuring stick on the moon. He measures the distance with his measuring stick. Taking the same position of termination and returned event the observer measures the returning light. His measurement is longer on the return trip. The cable did not change but the distance light traveled in each direction did.

34

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 24/08/2017 16:05:24 »

So what are you trying to say by bringing that into this discussion? If the coin is stationary and some observers see it as elliptical either because they're looking at it from an angle that makes it look elliptical or because they're moving past it at a high speed that makes it appear length-contracted, those observers are not seeing the true shape of the coin.

All views are equally valid by observed position. You try to diss relativity by using a strict interpretation of valid.

Movement of the sun and the galaxy will lead to changes in contraction at any point on the Earth's surface as the Earth rotates unless it's at the poles, but the sun isn't guaranteed to have moved unless we wait millions of years. We only have to wait a few weeks or months to guarantee that the Earth has moved though, which is why it's the Earth's orbit round the sun that's most important as it guarantees that the rate at which clocks at sea level cannot be ticking at the same rate as each other other than on average over a full rotation of the Earth.If a planet could rotate at such a speed that a point on its surface moved at 0.866c relative to the centre and if that planet could remain spherical, it would take twice as much cable to stretch round the equator than to make a loop round over the poles. If in addition to that the planet is moving along at 0.866c on the same plane as the equator, on one side of the planet the equatorial cable will be uncontracted while on the opposite side it will be contracted three and a half times as much as the average contraction on the loop (and the surface of the Earth will have the same contraction acting on it in the same places). A clock sitting at any point on the equatorial loop will likewise vary in its ticking rate, sometimes ticking twice as often as the average and at other times ticking three and a half times slower than average. But if you analyse it from the frame of reference in which the planet is stationary, you won't detect any of that variation at all.

Ok you either do not know the limits of relativity or you are stuck on 0.887. Since one direction of spin would allow ~1.7c lets look at the relativistic limit of spin and speed. At 0.5c speed through space and rotation of 0.5c the one direction would be c and the other direction at rest. So the forward spin the light would be relative to the spin and not move to an observer that could not observe anyway. The electron cycle using a physical clock likewise could not cycle. So no time would be recorded. In the opposite direction relative light is at rest and is moving relative 2c. c in one direction and c in the opposite direction relative is 2c. c being constant in any direction. So you have ticking in the opposite direction. Ok the physical object has zero length forward and a physical length backwards. I am not to keen on physical contraction. Explain your position on this.

35

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 23/08/2017 13:29:35 »

Combine the Earth's rotation with it's orbital movement and the clocks vary in their ticking rates. Then consider that the Earth may be moving faster through space at one point of its orbit than the opposite point and you have them all slowing down and speeding up throughout the year.

So I guess the solar system moving and the galaxy moving affects the tick rate by direction also? While I agree the total energy available by relativity is affected the tick rate at sea level not so much. You would have that fiber cable contracting and expanding by the Earth second.

If you mean on one side of the Earth versus the other, a difference will occur, but it cannot be measured independently of a frame of reference, and you'll get a different result depending on which frame you use. If you assert that the sun is stationary, you will not measure clocks ticking more slowly on one side of the Earth than the other, but if you assert that the sun is moving, you will.

You can by sending a signal from the north or south pole to register the same simultaneity of relativity. Same with an atomic clock in the airplane relativity experiments. 12 hours at a different rate going ~1000 mph is within our ability to measure a difference.

 

If you can show that contraction of object A must occur for frame B and that object B must contract for frame A, you know that either object A or B must be contracted. Not being able to tell which of them is contracted does not overturn the necessity for one of them to be contracted. That is why it is not a faith issue - to believe that neither is contracted is to believe in the impossible.

Depending on the direction of the light an object can appear contracted or elongated. Consider your 0.5c. If light is closing on the physical object when the first photon hits the front of the object it falls off the back of the object at 2/3rds of the distance of the objects true length. No photon can travel further down the object than 2/3rds way. Why? Because when the first photon hits the rear moves forward to intercept each photon at 2/3rds the objects distance. If you add physical contraction than it becomes one half of the objects length. Now lets look at the other direction for light. The photon hits the back of the object and co-travels with the object at 0.5c. The length would appear to be twice the objects physical length.

Can you have physical and visual contraction to have the math work?

The contraction of the cable round the Earth does not reduce the distance the light has to travel to complete a circuit.

Are you suggesting light travels at different speeds in a contracted and non contracted direction? I can understand the closing and chasing directions for the mirror but if you add a change in the SoL I am not going to be a fan of that model.

The contraction of the MMX arm does have an effect though on the time taken for light to get along it and back because it reduces the distance to the mirror (which is the only thing that can bounce the light back).

Time and distance is c. Dilated time slowing tick rate by increased distance between energy particles in GR is a fractal change. SR is not a fractal change (speed by distance acceleration gravity vs. stationary attraction gravity). SR is distance through space energy independent of the object producing the light wave.

That contraction is the only thing that can adjust the tick rate for that path to keep it in sync with the perpendicular one.

Yes that is the only thing for your model. You are unwilling to challenge that model. I understand.

Particle accelerators have already proved it through relativistic mass. Circular orbits must length contract on all scales.

You believe relativistic mass increases with speed while not really understanding the cause of gravity. You believe the increase in gravity is the increase in mass. While the truth is the increase in gravity is the decrease in energy available to the particle.

Consider a BH. A sun grows to the point where the attraction on the surface of the sun becomes the speed of light. Energy can no longer keep atoms apart. They coalesce to the center removing all energy from the interior. There is no gradient to the center as gravity. The entire BH is a gravity particle. So it is the evacuation of energy that causes attraction of mass. Same thing with dilation of energy to the center of mass causing gravity. Energy is more dilated  the center of mass. Decreases tick rate because of distance between energy particles increases. The photon is confounded by those distances to measure the same speed of light. That is the fractal arrangement in GR.

There is much more going on than the simplistic model you perceive.

36

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 22/08/2017 03:32:51 »

Move the planet through space, and then the contraction is determined by working out which direction each bit of cable is moving through space and which direction it's moving through space in

That would affect tick rate by direction and we established clocks tick at the same rate all over the globe independent of orbit around the sun. Clocks should tick slower with the orbit than against the orbit. This is not observed.

Contraction is a faith issue. You cannot measure the contraction because your measuring stick becomes contracted. I recognize that same issue in GR dilation but we can observe dilation.

So you must be saying the same thing I do when light in the East and West fiber cable circles the Earth one falls short and one falls long in the circumference. In the cable's contracted state light auto corrects to match the North to south rate.

And there is no way to prove the physical contraction model. No way to prove light slows down as a model. 

37

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 21/08/2017 01:36:14 »

Ok now the same situation North and south. A fiber cable at sea level. Are we going with the not contracted?

38

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 20/08/2017 15:31:50 »

But only one of them is right, and the claims of most frames once stripped of the conditionality clause are false.

Ok I can agree the physical view does not represent the physical object because there is no valid view.

I would like to know more about your belief in physical contraction. Explain it to me in terms of a fiber cable going around the Equator. Pick a point any point and allow light to travel around the globe in both directions. East to west will return before west to east in the same cable. You claim the cable is shorter in the east to west direction but it is the same cable.

But only one cable is right, and the claims of most contracted physical objects once stripped of the conditionality clause is false.

And using the same cable strips the claim of contracted physically as false. The cable cannot be contracted physically and not be contracted physically at the same time.

Unless of course the contracted physical cable and uncontracted physical cable are both valid.

39

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 19/08/2017 15:51:34 »

Quote from: GoC on Yesterday at 13:24:43The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.Light doesn't accelerate or decelerate - it goes at a constant speed.

Yes light is constant but kinetic energy used reduces the tick rate of a clock. It has been agreed that light and mechanical clocks tick at the same rate. A plane moving east to west proved the tick rate increases over west to east. This is an observed fact. A plane decelerates from the rotation of the earth in the east to west direction. The change in tick rate proves light is constant. There is a depth of understanding you are missing. Relativity is a machine and you are missing some parts in your understanding. Your first instinct is to deny there is anything missing in your understanding. This is a block to your depth. Reason deeper. Take in more facts to your opinion.

That sounds reasonable now that it's clear that you're talking about an electron cycling around something rather than just an electron floating about on its own.

Sorry I recognized electrons never float around on their own along time ago. The representative wave of an electron on the spectrum does. The dual slit experiment is a wave only. When they look at it the wave becomes polarized. No real challenge to understanding. The standard model creates its own challenge to understanding.

 

There's no deceleration. The light simply has less distance to travel through space to "complete" the westward circuit because it doesn't actually complete a circuit, whereas light doing the circuit eastward has to do more than a circuit

The airplane atomic clocks prove that to be incorrect. The rotation of the earth (speed) decelerates in the east to west direction while the speed of light remains constant. This is why a fiber cable around the equator sending light in both directions would be different times for their return. The speed of light is the same for both directions but the distance changes for both directions. Simultaneity of relativity is different. You understand something is wrong and of course you blame it on relativity. It is actually your view of relativity that needs a deeper understanding. A good start from your current position might be view it in energy rather than speed. You have a battery in space that mass connects to allow motion. That battery is c zero point energy. The battery is constant, Electrons all move at the same rate in a frame. Electrons always move at c. Electrons move in a helix through space. Increased Speed causes the electron to travel through more space per cycle reducing tick rate. The speed is the reduced energy available we describe as kinetic.Kinetic energy is a portion of the energy used of the total. East to west speed on the earth reduces the kinetic energy used and the tick rate of your clocks increase. There is no absolute frame because you can never measure your kinetic energy being used accurately.

An object on an intercept course does not shorten the distance - from the frame of reference in which it is at rest, it imagines that the distance has shortened, but from the frame of reference it's moving through, it shortens nothing other than itself

Now there is the voodoo. Light has no power to shorten a physical object and neither does mathematics. You never know your kinetic energy used relative to c. Measuring the speed of light in a vacuum in every frame as the same just proves this point. The energy available in a frame is what is being measured and its always c. Kinetic energy used cannot be measured by c. It can only be measured relative to another physical object. There is no absolute frame able to be measured. there may be a space where energy density is the greatest but measuring that point destroys the density of energy. And you would still only measure c.

The confusion is all yours, but the only way to show you that would be to write a program to demonstrate it. Given how long this conversation has gone on, it might be quickest just to do that rather than having every proven point rejected by you out of hand on the basis or irrelevant factors, misunderstood theory and miscellaneous voodoo.

Measurements using light to measure light is meaningless. That is the voodoo. You cannot measure a system if what you are measuring is part of the system.

That doesn't matter - the numbers only add up correctly with length contraction, so if you're ruling it out, you're going against mathematics.

No you are using mathematics without all of the information corrected for your model. The tick rate and distance for light both change on the Earth. They are confounded. Your model does not take that into account. No matter what clock you use your still measuring light with light in your clocks that is the meaning of confounded between the electron and photon. Your clock is not moving in your frame but the light is being measured by the clock. Your measurement of light in the clock is at a different relative speed and distance to the light. But you are measuring light with light and believing your measurements have precision which is correct but not accurate.

 

No it isn't - the tick rate can vary without you being able to measure that change. You're basing that on an assumption that the sun is stationary, and that's seriously unlikely to be correct.

This is why earlier I said available energy verses kinetic energy used. The total energy density for tick rate is dictated by the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy and universe. But the energy on the Earth is dictated more by gravity than by rotation as proven by clocks ticking at the same rate with and against the earths orbit. This creates a stationary position for light to return to in space on the Earth. So East and West changes its energy density for tick rate of a clock in motion relative to the Earth (proven by atomic clocks on airplanes). There is also a distance change for light because light is independent of the source. No physical contraction. You cannot follow the math if your model is incorrect and claim accuracy.

So long as there's length contraction, all accurate co-moving clocks will tick in sync regardless of orientation (unless a gravitational field messes with that - I don't know if a light clock arranged vertically is guaranteed to stay in sync with one arranged vertically, but I suspect it still would).

By observation they do stay in synchronization but that may be because of gravity creating a North South position of a fixed frame for light to return. The medium for light rotating with the Earth which causes gravity to go straight down also. The medium for light and gravity would be the same but different aspects of the spectrum. Increased Dilation of the spectrum energy would be the gravity and bend the light. Relativity is more than just following math you also have to follow the correct model. Math is a tool and a very good tool but it cannot prove a theory. it can only disprove a theory. Your contraction of mass and my decrease in distance because of independent of the source both follow math. I do not believe light can contract mass.

Within a frame of reference, c is constant and so is distance.

This is where your understanding of relativities independent of the source is a failure to understand distances correctly. Clocks ticking at the same rate on a planet creates a fixed position in latitude for light to return. This may be different in space for clocks orientation than on Earth when you follow the model. That is more likely than light forcing mass to contract.

The MMX is moving through the frame being used for the analysis and it has to contract for that frame (and if that frame is the absolute one, the contraction must be absolutely real).

There is no absolute frame that can be measured. That does not mean c is not the absolute frame. We just cannot measure it. We do our best to measure with it but it does not contract a physical object.

What you're trying to do is have an object's movement contract space not merely for itself, but for another frame, and that shows that you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity which is preventing you from making further progress.

That may be true of one or both of us. I do not believe SR can contract space although I believe GR can dilate space energy spectrum. SR light is independent of the source. That is all I am following.

No it isn't - the distance is always longer than that because you aren't allowed to change the speed of the apparatus between the two legs of the trip for the light

You are not changing the speed of light you are changing the distance light travels because light is independent of the source. You are confusing a frame's fixed physical distance with the distance light has to travel between in each direction. They are different because light is independent of the source and constant. That does not mean it is constant relative to the physical frame. The relative speed of light is different by direction.

"In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit" My statement

They should and doubtless do

But observation proves the orbit in retro grade tick at the same rate as with the orbit. You are just ignoring facts to maintain your belief system.

It is irrelevant because you're misapplying it, not understanding that it is only the case if the Earth is not moving along through space at all but is merely rotating

If clocks tick at the same rate at sea level all over the planet earth than the earth's affect on light is as if it is stationary and only rotating. Clocks and the photon are confounded so light returns to a stationary position in the MMX. The Null result.

40

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 18/08/2017 13:24:43 »

The timing reduces for that direction.

The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.

They travel through more space per cycle.

One of us is viewing this backwards. At rest vs. velocity of the electron the at rest atom of hydrogen's electron travels through less space per cycle. This increases the tick rate at rest vs. the slower tick rate with speed. Like the body counts every calorie the electron counts all distance traveled through space.

the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down.

The timing reduces for that direction.

The electrons travel through less space per cycle.

They travel through more space per cycle.


When?

When deceleration happens tick rate increases. You are decelerating east to west. Your intercept point has less distance not because anything physical contracts but because light is independent of the source being intercepted.

t does not matter how fast you are co-moving and creating light in the same direction light can only move at c. But an object on an intercept course will shorten the distance without the need for physical contraction. Light being independent of the source. It remains c but you have to add the speed of the intercepting object.

So east to west your tick rate increases and the distance measured by light is shorter. The shorter distance is matched by the increased tick rate to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in both directions.

Your confused because your not recognizing relativity properly. No wonder you are confused.

We're talking about light moving along - not electrons.

They are confounded in every frame. The use of the term confounded means they both adjust ( Light distance and tick rate) to measure the SOL the same in every frame. Well now I suspect that might be more relevant on a planet than in space because the tick rate is the same at sea level rotating with and against Earth rotation around the sun. Local measurement in gravity may be different than space lacking gravity. A planet Might create a situation with gravity that the north and south directions of light are not affected by rotation and travel in a straight line in those directions. So we have a point of origin that speed in space does not. So the mathematics for physical contraction might not be valid for a planet. If that is the case only the voyagers moved out of the solar systems gravity rotation and dilation. Would light clocks tick the same by orientation relative to mechanical clocks? Curios.

The light is constant through space (ignoring a slight slowing in all directions in a gravitational field). The distance it travels in the MMX arm does not magically contract to a shorter length than the length of the MMX arm. The arm has to contract for the distance to contract.

You might be confusing light being constant with distance being constant. Space dilates in GR and distance for light increases in SR with equivalence of speed and gravity for tick rate. The arm does not have to contract if the distance between two objects is decreasing.

If we're discussing reality and relativity (as opposed to than voodoo and pseudo-relativity), an uncontracted arm of the MMX would lead to longer ticks than on the perpendicular arm.

If we have an origin to get back to the longer distance is exactly offset by the shorter distance east and west. Clocks tick at the same rate suggests an origin and negates the voodoo physical contraction. Two directions in the same optical cable (with different phases still would have a difference in distance traveled and not return synchronous in the east west direction but would in the north south directions.

I understand it, and unlike you I understand that it's irrelevant.

Considering clocks tick at the same rate at sea level with and against Earth's orbit irrelevant? In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit. And you consider that irrelevant?