0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For a starting topic, I would like to suggest that XYZt or better known as space time, is a single reference time frame whole and all things are timed relative to this frame and within the single reference frame of time and space.
Hi TheBox,In my opinion you're an independent researcher and that could be very annoying to the outside world. I suffer from the same attitude towards my own experimental investigations. I have even been labeled a schizophreniac for believing in the risks of geoengineering for human health and the environment. I believe you're also incredibly smart and that intelligence for abstract concepts like time dilation is problematic for some of us?As a suggestion, I think you should attempt to identify the reasons your posts are ignored. Perhaps you need to learn to make simpler abstractions of your theories ?I hope this helps.
QuoteFor a starting topic, I would like to suggest that XYZt or better known as space time, is a single reference time frame whole and all things are timed relative to this frame and within the single reference frame of time and space. This is not a clear description from my POV from which Is hard to tell what you actually mean and if you write several phrases like this it becomes even harder."Spacetime as a single reference frame"- Do you mean a block universe ? That would be the whole space plus the hole history present and future as a single 4d space. "things are timed relative to this frame" Do you mean there is an absolute reference frame? In that case I also think it is possible to define an absolute flat frame of reference that is in fact the frame where the electromagnetic medium is at rest. All "objects" move relative to this medium. More precisely objects are waves that propagate(don't move) relative to this medium. (see Ether drift ) The medium doesn't have a definite state of motion though.I have the same problem like you. One of the reasons I get this problem is I think the terminology used. When you describe things try to use the already defined terminology.However it is more important not to use the terminology when you describe something different.For example I used "object" or "particle" to describe a wave structure, but particle and wave are opposite and the statement becomes confusing.
Do you mean a block universe ? That would be the whole space plus the hole history present and future as a single 4d space.
"things are timed relative to this frame" Do you mean there is an absolute reference frame?
In that case I also think it is possible to define an absolute flat frame of reference that is in fact the frame where the electromagnetic medium is at rest. All "objects" move relative to this medium. More precisely objects are waves that propagate(don't move) relative to this medium. (see Ether drift ) The medium doesn't have a definite state of motion though.
the boxHave you considered you might be incorrect? Relativity is like following Alice down the rabbit hole. We can use math to follow the observations but we do not know why we observe them. You want to ignore the observations. The real question is why we view the observations? It takes allot of investigation to understand relativity. Not believing relativity is a clue you haven't put in the time and that is why you are ignored. Your ideas violate relativity. New ideas that violate relativity have a very good chance of being incorrect. So consider learning relativistic math before trying to teach the world your ideas for the cause. Relativity is a beautiful description of what we observe. The mechanical reason is the big unknown. You haven't put in the time to understand the frame work if you believe it to be incorrect. That is the frustration you are up against.
In that case I also think it is possible to define an absolute flat frame of reference that is in fact the frame where the electromagnetic medium is at rest. All "objects" move relative to this medium. More precisely objects are waves that propagate(don't move) relative to this medium. (see Ether drift ) The medium doesn't have a definite state of motion thoughI am not sure what you mean by flat?To me flat is like a pancake, ''has flat as a pancake.'' Could you expand on i ''absolute flat frame of reference ''please?.
Time dilation is incorrect? What do you say about the results of these tests?http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilationExperiments.htmhttp://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae433.cfm
the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?
Quote In that case I also think it is possible to define an absolute flat frame of reference that is in fact the frame where the electromagnetic medium is at rest. All "objects" move relative to this medium. More precisely objects are waves that propagate(don't move) relative to this medium. (see Ether drift ) The medium doesn't have a definite state of motion thoughI am not sure what you mean by flat?To me flat is like a pancake, ''has flat as a pancake.'' Could you expand on i ''absolute flat frame of reference ''please?.No, flat space is a concept that says something else. A flat space is homogenous. Basically there is not time dilation nor space contraction in this space. To explain the relativistic effects, the only option I see is that the objects themselves change and not time and space.I think it is possible to define an absolute frame and the curved spacetime concept is not a correct way to describe the reality.SR uses non flat spacetime which is Minkowski spacetime. SR can define a reference frame FObj where an object is at rest and another frame where the object is moving FBase and says in the FBase the object will appear contracted because the space FObj will appear in FB with axes dilated. To explain the effect geometrically SR presents the axes of FObj when viewd from FBase as tilted. The axes dilate by Lorentz factor so an object will appear to contract. In FBase you can draw 1m long markings on x axis. When you draw the FObj frame superimposed on FBase, the markings will be multiplied by Lorents (Gamma) factor. When you think of these as a 4d block that includes time, you will see how spacetime curves. Gravity can curve this spacetime.
Box is quite correct in pointing out that nobody really "listens" to anything posted here.The reason for this is simple. People post here, because they like seeing their posts displayed. It massages their ego. They're not in the least bit interested in replies.Isn't that true?
Quote from: pittsburghjoe on 12/01/2017 20:47:36Time dilation is incorrect? What do you say about the results of these tests?http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilationExperiments.htmhttp://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae433.cfmTime dilation is correct only if time is defined as the Caesium atom rate, otherwise it is completely imaginary when comparing to the existence of real time which is obviously not the Caesium rate. Because there can be no argument that the Caesium atom and it's rate exist in time and are not time.
There is also a thought experiment with a clock made of a light beam that demonstrates how "time" dilation occurs. More precisely, how the clocks tick rates are reduced if traveling faster.
Authors: Calin VasilescuThe starting point for the concept is the idea that what we use as clocks don't measure the true time. Based on this idea, we can define time as absolute and think that clocks don't measure the absolute time, but they have a tick rate that depends on the speed relative to the flat absolute space. The idea is what I think is a natural interpretation of what happens in the very popular thought experiment of Einstein's relativistic train. If the light beam is a light clock, it becomes clear that the trajectory of the light beam is the only thing that makes the tick rate change. The idea is that the same thing happens with all the clocks we use. Following this idea we can construct a whole theory closely following the empirical evidence we already have. This model suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry, instead complex particles inner geometry changes what we call time and space. This concept is only intended to be a starting point for a proper theory of space. It only contains few principles that are intended to give a better and more natural explanation how the universe works.