[Le Repteux]

The problem is that many people have difficulty understanding what time is, and Einstein messed badly with their minds.

To me, time is related to constant frequencies. If there wouldn't be constant frequencies to observe, or if frequencies would vary too rapidly, we couldn't measure time. I also think time exists because phenomenon rely on timing to exist: it is so for small my steps for example.

Indeed - the exchange seems identical to them, but it isn't and it happens more slowly.

Time is related to frequencies, not to the time it takes for those frequencies to reach an observer. I can't figure out how the frequency of a light clock could dilate just because it took more time for light to reach the mirrors. Your simulation with the laser helped me to understand the beaming and the contraction effect, you wouldn't have one to explain the time dilation by chance? If the tics of a light clock would depend on the frequency of light, there couldn't be less tics each second since that second would actually be made of those tics, and if we assume that the phenomenon would come from the light exchanged between the particles of that clock, we are caught in the same circular trap but at a smaller scale. It might take more time for a sole pulse of light to travel between two moving mirrors, but we must send them continuously and at constant frequency to be able to register the tics, and the frequency of those tics would be the same whatever the speed since there would never be any doppler effect. If we can't run a simulation out of an idea that is simple enough to get simulated, then I think this idea has good chances to be wrong.

[David Cooper]

Yes I have agreed your clocks tick at different speeds but you seem to miss the point that this does not mean anything other than it takes light  more time to travel more distance or less time to travel less distance.  Why do you keep insisting it means something else?

Look at my interactive MMX diagrams again and study them properly - it's all there and has been from the start, so I don't know why you don't just trust your eyes. The horizontal and vertical paths on the stationary MMX on the left are directly equivalent to a pair of light clocks ticking in sync with each other (a tick being the time it takes for the pulse of light to go from the angled mirror to the ends of the arms and back), and the horizontal and vertical paths on the moving apparatus on the right show you that they don't tick in sync with each other unless the horizontal arm is length-contracted (as in the second version of the diagram). The version with length-contraction shows what happens with the MMX in the real universe, while the first version shows what would happen without length-contraction, and that wouldn't produce a null result.

[David Cooper]

Time is related to frequencies, not to the time it takes for those frequencies to reach an observer. I can't figure out how the frequency of a light clock could dilate just because it took more time for light to reach the mirrors.

The laser light should technically be of a lower frequency on my moving MMX diagrams than it is on the stationary ones because that light's produced by a slowed mechanism in the laser - with the apparatus moving at 0.866c, the frequency will be halved, so what's shown as a pulse of red light on the moving apparatus should be somewhere into the infra-red. The detector will also have its mechanism slowed though, so it will still detect the light as being the usual frequency, just as the laser thinks it's putting out the usual frequency of light.

Your simulation with the laser helped me to understand the beaming and the contraction effect, you wouldn't have one to explain the time dilation by chance?

The time dilation is already shown if you look at the counter under the diagram. It starts at a negative value and reaches zero when the light gets split at the semi-silvered mirror. That moment would represent a tick of a clock if you were to imagine the MMX apparatus to be a pair of light clocks. The next tick occurs when the light returns to the same mirror, and you could imagine that another pulse could be sent out from the laser and timed to split at the mirror at the same time as the previous pulse returns to it, thereby generating an ongoing series of equally-spaced ticks. On the stationary apparatus, a cycle (between two ticks) takes place in 250 counts of the counter, while on the moving apparatus a cycle takes 500 ticks. (The counter's time is based on a stationary clock.) We can see the cycle taking twice as long on the moving apparatus and that is the time dilation shown visually.

If the tics of a light clock would depend on the frequency of light, there couldn't be less tics each second since that second would actually be made of those tics, and if we assume that the phenomenon would come from the light exchanged between the particles of that clock, we are caught in the same circular trap but at a smaller scale. It might take more time for a sole pulse of light to travel between two moving mirrors, but we must send them continuously and at constant frequency to be able to register the tics, and the frequency of those tics would be the same whatever the speed since there would never be any doppler effect. If we can't run a simulation out of an idea that is simple enough to get simulated, then I think this idea has good chances to be wrong.

If you're co-moving with the moving apparatus, your entire functionality is slowed to half speed - all your cells and atoms are like clocks, doing things in cycles which take twice as long to run through because of the doubled communication distances. A laser, or anything else that produces light, will be cycling something as it generates a photon (hence the sine-wave shape) and that cycling will be running at half the normal rate, thereby "writing" photons into the aether with a lower frequency.

[GoC (OP)]

Mass contains kinetic energy while space has an energy limit of c. There is a ratio of energy used vs. energy available shown as a reaction rate increase and decrease. You can decrease available energy by increasing mass GR or by increasing the speed of mass SR. There is an equivalence between GR and SR relative to reaction rate. With an increase in mass GR the dilation of mass is physical so the cell length to measure a frequency increases to maintain the calibration of wavelength between frames. The reaction rate of course is based on the constant speed of light that has to go further in a dilated cell for GR. This happens all the way up to mass gravity acceleration at the speed of light where energy can no longer keep atoms apart and a BH is formed. There is no relativity within a BH. There is no energy within a BH and it becomes entirely kinetic.


thebox

  We have to recognize observations that the orientation of a clock does not affect the tick rate while the graphing of the physical paths would if it were not for some intervention. Physical contraction of length is one option that would align math to what is observed. The Doppler in space suggests a medium that speed pushes against to change the angle of light. Its interesting to know the electron path to the proton ratio is a marble to a football field. Speed should have no affect on orbit or create the Doppler affect without a medium. Motion would not be possible without an energy source. We recognize an energy limit of c while not recognizing where energy itself resides. Energy is c and the pattern on c (radiation) propagated at c shows energy of space is spin of dark mass. Relativity would not work if space moved by a direction as Einstein suggested. But spin of dark mass particles would satisfy relativity. Another option would be the spin state of energy rotates with planets, solar system, galaxies and the universe. In that case all of our measurements would be from a stationary frame for measurement locally relative to energy available as a ratio between kinetic used and c total. We have to understand energy before we can really understand our measurements.

[guest39538]

Quite clearly I am going to have to up my game even further to get people to understand.


Let me use your own confusions to produce a ''parlour trick'' to show you how easy it is to manipulate the imagination.


An observer from above the train carriage observes light in the carriage travels slower than the light in the light clock.

 
for idiots.jpg (30.52 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 3774 times)

Proving the speed of light is not constant.

[GoC (OP)]

While your eyes can be fooled math cannot

[guest39538]

While your eyes can be fooled math cannot

The point being Gog , when you look at the carriage from the side view and observe the angled paths of light travelling left to right or vice versus, your eyes are being fooled into creating foolish maths that means nothing.
You are being fooled, the light is directional to your eyes and not travelling left to right .   

light1.jpg (29.72 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 3740 times)

Einstein wrongly uses the photon in his setup, the photon we can not  even observe.

[guest4091]

A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

[David Cooper]

A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

I think you might be allowed to post working links very soon. I'd like to follow both of those, so please give it another couple of goes.

[guest4091]

This system is confusing. I can't upload graphics, but can post links.
I test the links to be sure they work.
??

[guest39538]

A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.

[David Cooper]

This system is confusing. I can't upload graphics, but can post links.
I test the links to be sure they work.
??

I'm confused by it too now - your links are actually working despite the "no follow" written after them which usually disables links by breaking them.

The SR solution to the MM experiment based on the 1905 paper. Length contraction was based on a method of measurement using the simultaneity convention. It was not a physical change of an object.

That bit could cause some confusion - in SR there is no physical change in the object, but the object will still fit into a smaller space when measured in other frames of reference, so the contraction is real for those frames. This becomes manifestly clear when you can fit more objects of a given length into a limited space around the edge of a circle when they're rotating round it than when they're just sitting still beside it, so it's important that people understand that it is not merely a visual contraction - it is a physical contraction for those frames, but that those frames don't provide a true picture of the underlying geometry of SR within which those objects maintain their full uncontracted lengths.

[Le Repteux]

How about my animation David, can you see it now?

[David Cooper]

How about my animation David, can you see it now?

Still no luck there. I'll see if it works better from my quotation of it...

...same problem, but the link may not be broken in itself - it looks as if it's an issue with the site being linked to:-

"This site can’t provide a secure connection

www . hostingpics . net uses an unsupported protocol.
ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH"

[Le Repteux]

I guess you're right, my browser says the same thing when I connect to the host. But I think it still takes around a hundred messages before we can put links. That parameter is supposed to block spamming, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.

[David Cooper]

I guess you're right, my browser says the same thing when I connect to the host. But I think it still takes around a hundred messages before we can put links. That parameter is supposed to block spamming, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.

Having seen something of the scale of the spam attacks in the past, I can see why it's done - it helps to put them off bothering because they quickly learn that they can't get near to posting any viable links before they're banned.

[Le Repteux]

I tried to attach the file and it seems to work. I can see the animation and there is no [nofollow] besides it. I had to click on the image to make it move though. I'm still working on my answer to your last post.

[David Cooper]

I tried to attach the file and it seems to work. I can see the animation and there is no [nofollow] besides it. I had to click on the image to make it move though.

I have managed to view it, and the two black circles move along in jumps.

[Le Repteux]

That's it! The black circles represent bonded particles. Now you have to imagine that a photon escapes from the left particle during its step, that it is blueshifted in the direction of the right particle since the step is made in that direction, and that it produces the step from that right particle because it has to get away from the left one for its own escaping photon to stay on sync with the incoming photon, thus with the step from the left particle. It works when the photon is traveling to the right, but when a photon escapes from the step of the right particle, it takes less time to reach the left particle than it took for the light from the left one to reach the right one, because that left particle has gotten closer during its step,  and I can't figure out what would happen. Since the steps looked natural on the paper, I thought they would be physically possible, but I now have a hard time to figure how they would.

[GoC (OP)]

Quote from: David



Quote

I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?


The rocket has clocks which all record two years' worth of ticks, and the Earth has clocks which all record four years' worth of ticks in the same length of time. The twin in the rocket has been around for just as long as the twin on the Earth, but has spent four years running in slow motion and has aged two years less due to slowed functionality; all of that slowing being caused by doubled communication distances between atoms/etc. and within atoms. The idea of shortcuts into the future doesn't actually add up in any Spacetime model, either because it introduces contradictions or because it still needs a Newtonian time to be added to the model if it is to function rationally, at which point the shortcuts are seen as fake, merely being things running in slow motion against Newtonian time while covering a reduced distance through a superfluous time dimension.

From Repteux
Then why do you say that «Clocks are slowed by movement, but more importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all»? If you mean that clocks would not slow down for all observers at rest in aether, maybe you should say it this way, because since I did not believe that time could really slow down, I understood that time would not really slow down even for clocks in motion. I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether. We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do? You said that the walls of your moving box would get the same quantity of energy, so how would the atoms be able to measure a difference at their scale? We can't measure the speed of light one way, so how would the atoms be able to do so? With no difference in the speed of the information to measure, no difference in the frequency of light, and no difference in its intensity, it seems to me that a moving light clock, or two moving atoms exchanging energy, would have nothing more to register than if they were at rest.

Its all in our definition of time. Energy c is always constant as an amount of energy available. Motion deducts from the cycling of the electron in an atom. Consider energy c of and from space rather than from the electron. So it moves the electron and propagates the photon wave. A photon being a wave of LET Lorentz Ether Theory. You have to siphon some of the orbital speed in order to move the atom through space. The electron is the motor at constant revolutions with energy c. Having to move through more space with velocity than at relative rest naturally the cycle time is reduced proportionally with the relative propagation of the photon wave for tick rate. The longer orbit of the electron would also produce a greater wavelength.

There is an Aether grid pattern with particle spin that would produce Relativity. Its just to fantastic to even consider. Unless electrons move themselves and photons move themselves independent of a source. Then the relationship between GR and SR is just a coincidence.