0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Halc on 17/04/2021 05:55:53No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my model
No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.
QuoteDid you respond to it? No … If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunkI've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection
Did you respond to it? No … If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk
In your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant c
If I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.
Ok, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motion
My model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:
And since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approach
Maybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frameSynchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformation
I don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shift
Quote from: HalcThe end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT.
The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.
I didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.
Anyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?
So they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise me
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 17/04/2021 07:23:15Quote from: Halc on 17/04/2021 05:55:53No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my modelYou didn’t bring it up in context of your model. You brought it up as evidence against STR, which, for the reason you agreed with, it is not.
QuoteQuoteDid you respond to it? No … If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunkI've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection And yet you still don’t respond to my demonstrations of self inconsistency in your assertions.
QuoteIn your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant cI said that one of your animations (the one labeled “3. T-cut”) depicts photons (green balls) moving at different speeds, which violates your premise that they do not. The animation does not depict STR physics. So your animation is inconsistent with both STR and your premises. The animation is thus fiction. Not sure why you posted the whole set if it doesn't correspond to anything either of our views.
QuoteIf I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.The one about the rings passing through each other or not, bottom of post 90. That was a direct consequence of the width-contraction that you assert, and violates the principle of relativity.
Your 'width contraction' suggestion isn't symmetrical. If I have two identical rings moving towards each other quickly along their mutual axis, in the frame of a given ring, the one ring will be stationary and the other ring will be contracted due to the high speed. The moving one will fit through that stationary one without hitting it. Relative to the frame of the second ring, the first ring will pass through the second. Relative to the frame of the center of mass of the system, the two rings are contracted identically and will collide. That's a different physical result in each of the three abstract reference frames, which violates the principle of relativity. Only one of these scenarios can actually happen, so the laws of physics are different in one frame than in another.
QuoteOk, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motionThe new scenario seems to have a set of ‘stationary’ objects and a pair of moving ones, with no acceleration involved. That’s fine. You show the same set of events relative to two different frames. It looks OK.
QuoteMy model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:The second set is your model, and it seems completely inconstent with the principle of relativity and with frame-invariant light speed. A light pulse emitted from the left red object at t=0 will be measured by the other red object at t=4 in the upper picture, but at t=2 in the lower picture. That’s a self inconsistency. It can in fact only be measured at one time by the other object.This is what I mean when I say you’ve not worked out the mathematics. There are inconsistencies that I spot immediately, but you don’t even try to look for them.
QuoteAnd since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approachThere’s no need to run the experiment since it contradicts itself, and an empirical falsification is unnecessary.
QuoteMaybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frameSynchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformationThis illustrates relativity of simultaneity, yes. Clocks synced relative to one frame may not be synced relative to another.QuoteI don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shiftThat’s fine, but I showed how width contraction violates the principle of relativity. It results in X is true and X is false, a self-contradiction. You never responded to that, bottom of post 90.
Concerning the rotating stick:QuoteQuote from: HalcThe end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT.Did I? No mention of gravity ever came up. This is straight special relativity.
QuoteI didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.The circumference doesn’t contract since it isn’t an object moving, but rather a path through space taken by the moving object. The radius remains the same, therefore so does the circumference.
QuoteAnyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?No, the angular rate is the same for any part of the object relative to any frame, so no spiral. So relative to the inertial frame of the axis, the entire thing spins at 100 rads/sec, and relative to the accelerating frame of somebody at the end of the thing, it the entire thing might spin at 300 rads/sec, but nobody sees one part spinning faster than another.QuoteSo they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise meThat has nothing to do with SRT.The ground and I seem to spin around each other once per day. This is evidenced by the fact that half the time I’m on the side facing the sun, and the other half the ground is between me and the sun, blocking the light. You might choose to interpret this as the sun going around Earth as they did before Copernicus came along, but we’ve since learned that it is due to the Earth spinning. Copernicus knew nothing about STR, but are you reverting science back that far now?
So you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directionsvt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same directionAnd if you want to know all the details here they are:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 03:11:18So you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directionsvt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same directionAnd if you want to know all the details here they are:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformationI didn't ask for the Galilean transforms, I asked for your transforms.
I just can't see any way for sensical transforms to by written for your relativity.
I will show you one of my issues with your relativity by using the Einstein light clock.The light clock consist of a photon or light pulse bouncing between 2 mirrors on the vertical axis. The clock ticks off 1 second each time a light pulse moves from a lower mirror to the upper mirror and back down to the lower mirror. If light clock is moving then the light pulse will trace out a saw tooth pattern to an observer in a frame at rest. Here is a graphic showing this:Let's look at 3 relatvities1. Galilean relativity2. Special relativity3. Your relativity1. Galilean transforms allow the direct addition of velocities between reference frames. The passage of time in the light clocks frame (t') moving frame is the same as the passage of time in the rest frame (t). In other words t' = t. So in the light clocks frame it takes 1 second for the light to travel 3 x 10^8 m. In the rest frame the light pulse traces out a longer path but the light pulse must still only take 1 second to return to the bottom mirror since t' = t. The transforms show that it takes 1 second in each frame for the light pulse to move from the lower mirror to the upper and back to the lower because the speed of light in the rest frame is measured as >3 x 10^8 m/s.2. In special relativity the speed of light is invariant so in every inertial frame the speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/sec. That means that in the rest frame, since the path of the light is longer than in the clocks frame, the light pulse will not reach the bottom mirror. That's a problem because how can the light pulse in one frame reach the bottom mirror but in the other frame it doesn't? The solution is that t' does not equal t. The transforms for switching between reference frames for time is 3. In your relativity the speed of light is invariant and t' = t. This means that after 1 second in the moving clocks frame the light pulse will have reached the bottom mirror and it the rest frame the the light pulse will not have reached the bottom mirror. How can the frames disagree on the distance traveled but agree that 1 second has passed? What are the transforms that make that possible? There are lots of other issues with you idea. A hypothesis can not be proven but it can be falsified. In other words evidence and experiments can support your idea but not prove it, on the other hand an experiment can falsify your idea if the experimental results are counter to your idea.Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however experimentation shows that time dilation is a real effect. This means your hypotheses has been falsified.
I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else.
Galilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.
I can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...
And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 18/04/2021 23:20:13I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else. Then the speed of light isn't invariant in your relativity, the Galilean transforms say so.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 18/04/2021 23:20:13Galilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.Galilean relativity is easy to work with and it makes intuitive sense, unfortunately it is wrong. Galilean relativity postulates that t' = t. This has been experimentally shown to be false. Galilean relativity is not correct.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 18/04/2021 23:20:13I can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...I don't know what motion blur on a photograph has to do with the discussion.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 18/04/2021 23:20:13And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion. Experimentation disagrees with what you imagine. Look, you have to go with the data, not what you want to be true.
It doesn't predict time dilation due to relative velocity - and this is why I consider it as a valid model of relative motion...And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/687.LightClock.htmlhttp://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/3/3/2/index.htmlhttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01097004v3/documenthttps://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/uh-ithpii-2003-1.pdfhttps://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdfhttps://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtmlhttp://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijtmp.20190903.03.htmlhttps://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einsteinI can give you much more.
Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified.
Maybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.
Soon I will probably make a second thread, to discuss the details of my model of gravity (or rather "gravitomagnetohydrodynamics").
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 19/04/2021 05:14:29Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified.That's absurd. Special relativity is taught in every college in the world and has been for almost 100 years. So wen you say it is 'generally accepted' and 'doesn't make it fully verified', that smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
This is a science forum, so let me state yet again a basic tenet of science. A hypothesis cannot be proven, experimentation can support a hypothesis but not prove it. However a hypothesis can falsified if the experimentation result are counter to the hypothesis. Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however time dilation has been experimentally verified over and over. This means your hypothesis has been falsified.
QuoteMaybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.I strongly suggest that it was not hatred of you or your hypothesis, it was just frustration with your bad faith arguments and your willful ignorance.
Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculation
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 19/04/2021 19:48:54Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculationExperimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.
Quote from: Origin on 19/04/2021 22:41:39Quote from: CrazyScientist on 19/04/2021 19:48:54Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculationExperimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.Not really:The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneityhttps://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 20/04/2021 21:09:27Quote from: Origin on 19/04/2021 22:41:39Quote from: CrazyScientist on 19/04/2021 19:48:54Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculationExperimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.Not really:The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneityhttps://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."Sorry, but an arm waving crank talking about about 'absolute simultaneity' is not good evidence for your idea. You do realize that time dilation was to be taken into account in the timing for the GPS system, don't you? Every time you use something like Google maps for driving directions you are demonstrating support for time dilation and refuting your relativity.This is from the paper you cited, "Since it is well established experimentally that the rate of clocks vary with their state of motion", in other words time dilation. Even this crank paper accepts time dilation, which refutes your hypothesis.Denying time dilation requires you to pretend the experimental evidence supporting time dilation doesn't exist.