41

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

« on: 17/08/2017 15:26:49 »

the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down. The electrons travel through less space per cycle. Light and the electron are always confounded. Light travels through less space also. This is why they are confounded. It is the cycle time of the electron that controls timing while c is the available time. The electron at c would have no cycle timing.

I've just shown you (for the n'th time) that the speed of light through the MMX arm aligned with the cable going round the Earth must on average be faster in one direction than the other

No the light is constant. The distance traveled is not if you are discussing relativity.

and for the "ticks" of that arm to remain in sync with the "ticks" of the perpendicular arm, it has to contract

No the ticks by distance is more and less by direction to complete the rotation. If we are discussing relativity.

More importantly though, the main impact on the relative speed of light to the apparatus in opposite directions comes from the Earth's movement round the sun rather than from its rotation

Then you do not understand clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.

and no amount of voodoo can overcome that either by imagining that the rules out in space don't also apply down on the Earth

Do you consider gravity voodoo?

anything that adjusts to equalise the speeds would lead to measurable distortions, absolutely trashing GPS system measurements.

SOL is constant. Measurable distortions create the need for GPS systems.

42

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

« on: 16/08/2017 13:29:57 »

If you lay a cable round the Earth, it will go down in ready-contracted form wherever the ground is likewise contracted (and the ground is - you can fit a tiny amount more of it in than pi suggests due to the Earth's rotation). There is no shrinking of any cable for a westward direction that doesn't also apply eastward, just as the arm of the MMX contracts for both directions of travel of the light moving along it. Your understanding of all this is such a mess that I doubt you'll ever manage to untangle it all.

We can change the phase in one cable going around the equator say ten times. We can send one phase to the east and one phase to the west simultaneously. I think we agree the westward direction completes a lap before the eastward direction in the same cable. So each lap the difference increases. Not because the physical cable keeps contracting more each time because the phases are in the same cable. So the difference is in the travel distances themselves. In one direction you are chasing the origin and the other direction you are closing the gap. The speed of light being the same in both directions. So its a distance issue for light and not a physical contraction of the cable.

Normally in space the speed of light forward is longer between mirrors with the direction of speed than side ways I will concede that mathematically because it does not come back to origin in open space. I understand this point mathematically. But the Earth does have an origin that light returns in the MMX. All clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Light is confounded with the electron in every frame. So we are dealing with an energy level back and forth to origin unlike being in space. Its like the Earth is stationary in space for the two way direction of light.

We've been through all that many times in this thread - if it's longer one way and shorter the other, the extra length one way isn't cancelled out exactly by the shorter length the other way. Any difference in the time taken for light to do one leg of the trip vs. the other leads to a longer total time than if the two legs are equal.

Yes in space away from mass where tick rate has little to do with GR.

43

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

« on: 15/08/2017 12:33:41 »

Light moves more quickly (on average) westwards relative to the material of the surface of the Earth that it is passing than it does eastwards. We know that because it takes it longer to complete a circuit eastwards. That means there is no magical equalisation of speed in the two directions relative to the arm of the MMX alligned east-west, and that means it can only produce a null result if that arm contracts.

There is a consequence to clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level you definitely do not understand. The energy level at sea level is the same all over the planet. Your belief is the Earth is a frame where the distance for light is the same for a fixed position of objects. The physical object does not contract to make the Null result. Lets circle the Earth at the equator eight times with fiber optic cable. Your idea suggests the optic wire shrinks in the westward direction. Ok lets explore that idea we have the shrunken optic cable. We have a second optic cable attached right next to it. A double optic cable if you will. So if one shrinks so does the other. We send light in opposite directions. There is still a difference in timing with the two opposite directions. Wrap it 10000 times and the difference accumulates. That is not a Null result and the physical object does not contract more and more with each cycle.

The energy used in eastern direction is less available then in the western direction because of the rotation direction. Either the speed of light changes or the relative speed of light changes. Since light is constant the relative speed changes consistent with the postulate light is independent of the source.

Really? How does that work? the arm of the MMX can be directly next to a fibre optic cable going right round the world in which we see the signal taking longer to complete a circuit one way than the other and you say that the light in the MMX isn't bound by the same speeds? You have light in the MMX overtaking light in the cable in one direction and being overtaken by it in the opposite direction, and that just won't work.

Yes really. The MMX was two way where one direction exactly adjusts for the opposite direction by distance traveled extra in the eastward direction longer and the distance traveled in the westward direction shorter. Its as simple as that and you introduce magical contraction of a physical object.

44

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

« on: 14/08/2017 13:41:59 »

I'm not confusing anything - you're failing to factor in the difference between an Earth rotating round a stationary centre and rotating round a moving centre - the former case will have all clocks at sea level ticking in sync while the latter case cannot do so (except on average over multiples of 23 hours 56 minutes).

The spectrum Energy moves with mass. North and south directions move light equally in those directions. The distances are the same in either direction. East and West the distances change because you have light chasing and closing on an object. That is not contraction of a physical object!

 

Voodoo. Light completes a trip round the Earth faster westwards than eastwards, so there is no weird effect equalising it to make an uncontracted MMX arm produce a null result.

Of course!!! But you are not doing that in the MMX. You are returning the light counteracting the difference for the Null result. It auto corrects the difference in any angle. There is no physical contraction. The spectrum energy moves with the Earth.

 

I understand that your disproven nonsense doesn't work.

The Null result of the MMX begs to differ.

That would lead to light overtaking light if the sources move at different speeds relative to each other.

The objects are moving the same speed. If an object contracted the distance light traveled to the mirrors would affect the MMX null result mathematically. There is no different speeds that would cause the non null results.

45

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

« on: 13/08/2017 21:05:14 »

While all clocks at sea level tick at the same rate in the frame of reference in which the centre of the Earth is stationary (which it cannot always be), they will vary for all other frames, so the rotation does affect tick rate

Your confusing GR with SR. The SR affect is clocks ticking at the same rate along with the GR rotating the energy stationary to your position.

Auto corrected how? It isn't. Light takes longer to complete the trip one way than the other, so we know that on average, light moves faster through that arm of the MMX in one direction than the other, and that would lengthen the total time taken for it to complete the round trip if that arm didn't contract in length.

Its not faster because energy is stationary with the position on the Earth. Its like the Earth is stationary in the North South direction. The proof is the rotation around the sun with the Earth's direction and against the Earth's direction does not affect the tick rate. You have not fully comprehended the affects this creates with light. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame. Light does not go faster or slower only the distances are changed. All directions are stationary to the point of origin. The MMX had to be a null result. The direction East and west auto correct for distance back to origin.

The only difference with doing the experiment on the Earth as opposed to in space is that gravity slows light down for both arms, but it slows them both equally and therefore doesn't affect the result.

You do not understand the energy issue rotating with the planet.

46

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

« on: 12/08/2017 12:54:07 »

David,

   Lets explore the clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level and the MMX results. North and south would be the same distance traveled for light because energy rotates with the Earth. The proof is the rotation with the Earth's path and against the Earth's path around the sun does not affect tick rate. Now we determine East and West. The distance because light is independent of the source changes in the East and West directions by the rotation of the Earth. So the extra distance west to east is exactly auto corrected for east to west. Planets are a specific case of c+v and c-v. The speed of light being constant but the source moving away and moving towards the return point. The energy rotating with the Earth creates a fixed point in space for light to return. This would work for any angle you rotate the MMX experiment. All because clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on the earth locally. You cannot find a fixed point in space. Results would be different.

47

New Theories / Re: What if dark matter is space time fabric?

« on: 12/08/2017 12:28:04 »

The state of displacement of the sea of massive dark photons is the quantization of gravity.

Consider dilation of mass rather than displacement. Moving the points further away from each other. This creates longer frequencies in the presence of mass for the electron to jump creating a wave.

48

New Theories / Re: What if dark matter is space time fabric?

« on: 11/08/2017 12:36:05 »

I previously posted this in the Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology forum without realizing that it was more appropriate to submit to this forum.  I apologize for that oversight.

I have considered this myself for quite some time, but I also consider myself a simple man of simple mind and this solution that dark matter can be considered as a physical fabric or super-fluid, if one takes the time to afford it due consideration, is quite elegant in its simplicity.

I would argue that if the fabric of space-time is a physical substance (which I believe it to be), then as a galaxy placed within that fabric rotates, the fabric would be drawn in upon itself similar to objects placed on/in any other spinning fabric.  Spin a washcloth in a bath tub and watch what happens.  It's pulled in on itself.  The rotating fabric drawing those objects inward could then account for the perceived gravitational effects of "dark matter" while the curving of the fabric caused by the objects in the galaxies account for their local orbital behavior.  Light would still follow the path of the curve in the fabric of space-time caused by the gravitational mass of the object in the field.

This also makes sense if we choose to abandon the idea that "dark energy" exists to make up the other 70+% of the universe, accept a previously proposed "tired light" theory and reconsider the existence of the ether which was "proven wrong" by the Michelson-Morely experiment.  The problem I have with this experiment is they were looking for differences in the speed at which light propagates through a vacuum due to the Earth's motion relative to the ether prior to the revolutionary discovery by Einstein that the speed of light measures the same value regardless of the motion of the source or observer.  They were essentially looking for a result which Physics only later revealed could not have occurred.  However, I have worked out a mathematical result that indicates a linear relationship between the amount of red shift which would occur for light with a wavelength of 400 nm to near infrared based on the distance of the light source which agrees with observed data and that amount of shift occurs at a distance of 13.7 BLY from the Earth.  "Dark energy" is simply the loss of energy of a light source over astronomical distances because light must continue to travel the speed of light and now "dark matter" can make up 100% of the universe with a varied distribution not because it does exist some places but not others but rather because the amount of curvature space-time experiences varies with the presence of mass.  You'll observe more dark matter near galaxies because the have greater mass.

Obviously this goes against the currently most accepted paradigms of science.  I deliberately say "most accepted" rather than "correct" because we have seen on many occasions where brilliant minds were often wrong.  Unfortunately, I don't believe this model of the universe will ever be a provable theory because, as was stated in an earlier post, dark matter appears to be measurable where as the fabric of space-time cannot be.  It would be like asking a fish to measure that it's wet and the only way to do so is take the fish out of the water.  Because we cannot (presently) "get out of" the fabric of space time, we will never be able to take an external measurement of it.  It is not some abstract mathematical construct which allows us to explain the behavior of the universe.  It is a physical fabric which affects the observed behavior of physical objects.

Pretty good but you are avoiding the energy issue of what moves the electrons. The fabric has to be made up of points in a 3d universe. Those points are what the MMX was looking for as static. They ignored the energy issue also. The points if they were spinning would be a cause of electron motion and be beyond the critics of the MMX non matrix of any type. The MMX did not negate that type of Aether. The spinning points at c would create relativity and the observations. It would even act like strings. I have a pattern that moves electrons as a helix and uses dilation of points and resistance in less dilated space to show the affects of gravity.

To change the mind of the collective is a herculean feat at best. Emotion trumps logic as the US president proves every day.

49

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

« on: 10/08/2017 12:36:53 »

I do not subscribe to the BB. There are BH way to large for the mere 13.6 billion light years to have been produced. The mechanics of relativity allow both GR and SR red shifts while main stream only uses SR in determining distance. They even chose the Cepheid's to match our galaxy's Cepheid's brightness. That nullifies the variation in expansion. GR red shift is a part of the galaxies lensing and not an expansion of SR. From our position in our galaxy 75% out from the center of course we would view all galaxies as red shifted but by GR and not necessarily SR. 75% of the light from a galaxy is in the most dilated center.

Our sun would compress down to 1.6 miles as a BH and there are some BH;s with a billion solar masses. 13.6 billion light years for the universe to exist becomes a joke. Our suns aging process will take 10 billion light years to complete. Follow the math.

50

New Theories / Re: On Dark Energy being a Centrifugal Force Phenomenon from Rotation

« on: 09/08/2017 12:22:15 »

Thanked 50+ times I wonder by who. It did not take me long to see how far your crackpottery goes

I thanked him once. This statement would suggest you know all. What causes the electron to move? If you do not know the answer to that you are not qualified to determine how far a persons crackpottery goes. You have an abusive nature that does not belong in science. Trump could probably use another spokesperson of your nature.

51

New Theories / Re: Is the state of displacement of the superfluid sea the same as curved spacetime?

« on: 09/08/2017 03:07:17 »

The reason for the question is to relate dark matter to curved spacetime. Not that the dark matter and ordinary matter cause spacetime curvature, that the ordinary matter displaces the superfluid dark matter and the state of displacement of the superfluid dark matter is curved spacetime.

Of course it is. What makes it a superfluid? Energy!

 

The state of displacement of the superfluid dark matter is the physical manifestation of the curvature of geometrical spacetime fabric.

It is the dilation of energy that you call curved spcetime.

52

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

« on: 09/08/2017 02:52:34 »

You can take a picture of the night sky with all the galaxies but they are not where we view them. So in what way is the  picture of our universe a valid representation of positions?

53

New Theories / Re: Is the state of displacement of the superfluid sea the same as curved spacetime?

« on: 08/08/2017 18:39:47 »

Dark matter may be the energy of the universe in particle spin c

54

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

« on: 08/08/2017 12:27:48 »

You really need to warn people whenever you tell them what SR says, is and does that you are giving them a 3D variant of it which has an absolute frame and which is really a mangled understanding of LET.

I consider main streams understanding as mangled. Their view is no absolute frame. Einstein claimed the possibility of c as an absolute frame. I am just agreeing with Einstein. If your understanding is better than his I might not have your ability.

You have an infinite number of such "frames" all moving relative to each other, so it's not a frame

c would be the absolute frame which all others are tied into. Constant energy in space.

God views are simply representations showing things with the communication delays in seeing the action removed. They can even be taken as photos using referrence-frame cameras. They provide clear views of the action and make it much easier to calculate how relativity relates to everything.

My understanding of a Gods view is of the present which is impossible for mere mortals. We can only view relativity.

Of course it is. You're not doing relativity but are mistaking communication delay rubbish for it instead!

Simultaneity of Relativity? Rubbish?

There really isn't any point in discussing relativity with you any further if you still haven't worked out what it is!

Not if you believe Simultaneity of Relativity is Rubbish.

It's irrelevant.

If you believe the cause of motion of the electron is irrelevant than so is your understanding.

I've never read it - heard a few chunks narrated long ago but it wasn't interesting. I shouldn't really ask, but in for a penny, in for a pound: what has fractal got to do with relativity?

Its the basis for all frames measuring the same speed of light in a vacuum. Our view is distorted fractally in every frame. Expand your understanding you are fairly bright.

 

Hardly - relativity can be understood from the God view (as in standard representations of frames of reference), and communication delays are just a layer of obfuscation on the top which you need to understand how to calculate around. Your understanding of relativity is completely ****ed because you've mistaken something else entirely for it

We all view with an eye to falsify. Try the eye of understanding.

There is a God view of the present for the frame of your choice which shows predictions of the current state of that frame. It can be photographed by a reference-frame camera, so it's a real view.

And no view is valid because of simultaneity of relativity.

55

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

« on: 07/08/2017 12:38:52 »

Normally, in this case, means the qualified people who tell everyone what SR is and who would ban you from physics forums if you told them they are wrong about what SR is and what Einstein said it is. You do not represent the mainstream on SR, but you don't represent Einstein either. He attached some very specific dogma to it which excludes the existence of an absolute frame

In the past the qualified people believed if you sailed to far you would fall off the Earth. The qualified people do not understand the reason for gravity and magnetism. I believe I represent Einstein's SR.

You are misusing the word frame by calling c a frame.

Frames are distinguished by the clocks tick rate. At c there is no tick rate. That is the absolute frame just not what you were expecting.

Did he call it a frame? Why are you calling it a frame when it is not a frame?

Consider it the absolute frame.

You clearly still don't understand how the diagrams work and what they represent - they show the God view and remove all the distortions that come from communication delays.

God's eye is not relativity.

You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations

That is not relativity.

We're talking about relativity and not about what moves an electron. It doesn't matter how you move an electron - it makes no difference to the event coordination issues.

It doesn't matter why the electron moves? You fail to include all in your understanding. That is why you misunderstand SR.

What do you mean by fractal? I can't see any connection with the subject

There is a base of understanding you are missing if you do not understand fractal. Gulliver's travels is based on fractal views.

and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption

Or you on false understanding. If you do not understand the fractal aspect of the view in a frame than you do not understand relativity.

This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that.

Which is the basis of relativity.

That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.

Hardly, no view is of the present.

56

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

« on: 06/08/2017 15:18:33 »

You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.

Normally meant is a very big distinction. Many believe they understand Relativity while its only the math that is understood.

c is not a frame or reference and it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it is, so why do you keep making such a claim? If you mean the frame of a photon, which frame is frame c if you have two photons moving in opposite directions? If you mean a frame half way in between those two photons' frames, then you're merely talking about an absolute frame, the frame in which light travels at c relative to it in all directions, and that frame is not called c

I understand your confusion. You were never taught c was a absolute frame of energy. Constant and can go no faster. The postulate of c actually creates the absolute frame. Your understanding only allows a absolute non moving no energy frame. The problem is all other frames are a subset of frame c.

Really. What did he call it?

A medium that transferred information.

What a descriptive mess!

Yes of course if understanding relativity was easy everyone would understand.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

You keep making a straw man argument. What we view with light does not represent a valid interpretation of events. The math from your frame is as close as you can get visually. To believe events happen in the order you view them is a belief in a infinite speed of light. If light were infinite we could not distinguish objects at all. Beyond 13.6 billion light years by our frame light is a homogenous mixture that does not allow for images.

 

If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c

What moves the electron? You do not have a clue to that let alone fractal views of relative c for a frame of mass.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

What you view by observed position is equally true. Your fractal view is your measurement to relative c frame. All frames measure the same relative SOL. The funny thing is that has to be if you measure light speed with light. You cannot measure something if what you are measuring is part of the measurement. This takes a depth of understanding.

Hardly! I'm the only one who's being fully logical about this.

Yes you are being logical to your understanding. Fully logical might be beyond anyone's understanding.

That is weird

phyti set a scenario and asked if you agreed with his opinion. Yes I agree with his opinion. Do you consider it weird to agree with someone's opinion? That might be telling.

 

No they aren't, but it's good that you're trying to move in the direction of LET because it shows that deep down you do understand that SR is broken.

The math's are the same. Main stream might be prejudice about an absolute frame but SR does not discriminate and neither did Einstein in his 1920 papers. Main stream ignored him after that. Your beef is with main stream not SR per say.

Both claims are conditionally true, which means they're governed by an IF clause which says, if this frame is the absolute frame, then this account is true. The two IF clauses (one for each account) cannot both be true, so whichever one is false, the account tied to it which is conditionally true is actually false because the condition is false.

 Lets take two observers 180 degrees apart. There are two objects between them that are separated. The two observers are A and B. The two objects are C and D. Event one C flashes and reflects off of D. A observer sees C flash than D reflect. So observer A views C than D. Observer B views C and D simultaneous by position. The reason is because when C event reaches D both the flash event and the reflection travel at the same rate to observer B.

Nothing is un-happening because of your observed position. They are two different positions. No view with light is God's eye valid. You can never view the present. Only the God's eye position is the present. I believe in Relativity and not in the God's eye view.

The universe is running the show and it is not putting on a different show for each player in which the same events play out with a different frame of reference being used for each player such that event M happens in one version of the universe before event N while in another version of the universe event N happens before event M. Even if it was doing something so extravagantly bizarre though, you also have the problem of different players changing the frame they're using as they accelerate, which means if the version of the universe they're in changes frame to keep up with their wishes, it will have to unhappen some distant events while changing frame.

No view is valid

If a million different players of a game are playing it independently offline, they will have a million instantiations of the game all running independently to generate the virtual universe containing the action, and the action will quickly diverge until they're all doing different things. If the million players are instead playing a game together online, they will have one single version of the game in a data centre which keeps telling every remote copy of the game what's happening at the central version so that they all remain fully compatible with the events there. The universe is like that - a single version which does things once and doesn't then unhappen and

Each are different a million different frames not the same as a single universe.

57

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

« on: 05/08/2017 12:59:13 »

So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

That is correct. We cannot travel to the past and we cannot live in tomorrow. Time travel is just science fiction.

No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

I will have to disagree. SR does not exclude an absolute frame. It just says you cannot measure based on a preferred frame. Einstein in one of his papers even mentioned except possibly c. c is the absolute frame which all measurements are created. It is motion itself. A concept you are not able to recognize as a possibility.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

Einstein recognized c as a possible absolute frame. Actually it probably could be described as Newtonian time c the absolute frame. Then you recognize you cannot measure from that frame accurately because you cannot use a measuring devise that includes what you are measuring. You cannot measure light using light.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

Once you understand correctly it is the only thing that makes sense.

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

You appear not to want to understand the measurement is only relative to the frame being measured.

The adverts in the forum make my machine freeze repeatedly, so I need to minimise page loads to reduce that. As a result, this post is a reply to three posts.

No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.

So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

I have only departed from your understanding of SR.

No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.
A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.
Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.
B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.
Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.
E has occured for B but not for A.
What is your opinion?

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree.

Eh! You agree with a question?

I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.

What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.

He is checking you ability to see logic. You failed.

Eh! You agree with a question?

Yes I agree with his opinion set as a question.

What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.

LET and SR are compatible.

58

New Theories / Re: Does true motion exist?

« on: 04/08/2017 15:47:38 »

I'm not sure how much my opinion differs from mainstream on fundamental motion. QFT also seems to be about (quantum) fields and waves. There are two issues.

You recognize there are two issues. Main stream lacks the tools to recognize a wave packet for what it really propagates. You are willing to be curious.

I don't know how QFT explains why electron waves at lower frequency propagate slower

Its rather simple really. More dilation in GR expands the atom and the proportion at c becomes longer in distance. The same thing in SR with velocity. The distance of the electron jump has to take into account the speed of the electron relative to c. This increases the path length. Like calories for the body counts all calories space counts every motion through space for the length.

59

New Theories / Re: Does true motion exist?

« on: 04/08/2017 12:39:12 »

We know light and massive particles behave like waves. Like all waves, the amplitudes don't travel along the motion axis but they are propagated. This property is specific to all waves whether mechanical or electromagnetic.The variation electromagnetic field amplitudes creates a wave that advances forward, but there is nothing really moving from one place to another. These waves can also transfer energy to massive particles. The energy is transmitted in fixed amounts by waves packets that apparently are superposition of waves of different frequencies. But these wave packets still propagate

You are thinking for yourself and that is good. Maybe they are not packets but actual waves on a separate micro medium of energy.

In QFT there are fields associated with all particles. These field work similarly to the electromagnetic and the same thing happens to these particles. They don't move as rigid object motion is defined, but propagate as waves.

A different aspect of micro mass energy is dilation of energy fixed to a resistance to the energy sea by the inverse square of the distance. Main stream does not allow the tools needed from space to adequately describe fundamental cause of motion itself.

 

For a rigid body motion, the object preserves its identity. When travelling from point A to B it is the same object whereas waves can maintain their wave pattern, frequency spectrum, polarization similarly but it's not the same thing.

Absolutely correct!

For a rigid body motion, the object preserves its identity. When travelling from point A to B it is the same object whereas waves can maintain their wave pattern, frequency spectrum, polarization similarly but it's not the same thing.A rigid body has inertia and maintains its velocity if isolated(no forces acting on it). For EM waves the propagation velocity doesn't depend on amplitudes and it is always constant. I don't know how QFT explains a lower velocity propagation for other particles, but for constant propagation velocity waves, according to my hypothesis you can only have velocity variations for wavefronts where local momentum vector of the waves don't point to the direction of motion but at an angle as in OAM beams.

Good!

Another problem is relativity. If the world consists of these waves, we only have relative velocities between wave packets. I don't think we can apply relativity if there is no true motion. Relativity works is because the mathematical model matches our observations, but what is the meaning of it in this context?

The meaning is fundamental motion is c in a energy c that actually move the electrons not the other way around. Main stream denies the tool it needs for understanding. In a voice of unity we reject the tool of understanding. The universe could care less about our understanding. Its working just fine.

60

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

« on: 04/08/2017 12:12:26 »

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree. I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.