1

New Theories / Re: Can Gravity be considered an endless Super Electrostatic charge....?

« on: 13/09/2017 04:37:38 »

Can Gravity be considered an endless Super Electrostatic charge....?

No.
Electrostatic charges come in 2 flavours: + and -.
"Like charges repel, and different charges attract", as we were taught in high school.

Gravity only comes in 1 flavour, and it only attracts (as far as we know).

In our Solar system, consisting of the Sun, 8 planets, hundreds of moons and zillions of smaller bodies (including man-made satellites), they all attract each other. That's how NASA plays precision billiard balls with gravitational slingshot to get space probes to go where they want, when they want.

If gravity were electrostatic in nature, a space probe would be attracted to about half of the objects in the Solar system, and repelled from the others. This does not happen.

Gravity is not based on Electrostatic charges.

2

New Theories / Re: Epsilon is 1=∞

« on: 13/09/2017 04:22:10 »

"Epsilon" is the Greek letter ε (lower case) or Ε (upper case), and it usually makes a short "e" sound

Mathematicians and Physicists use ε for various purposes (including permittivity in physics and electrical engineering).
- In reality, it can mean whatever you define it to mean
- But if your definition is internally inconsistent, don't expect anyone to pay attention to your definition

So please provide your definition, or a link to where you saw it used.

PS: 1 = ∞ is already a contradiction, so don't hold your breath waiting for the accolades
PPS: Please phrase the title as a question, as per the site guidelines to which you agreed when you signed up...

3

New Theories / Re: Are gravitons really the leading theory on gravity?

« on: 10/08/2017 11:05:22 »

What are you admitting you don't know how they work either?

I'm not a theoretical physicist (or, in the case of the hypothetical Graviton, a hypothetical physicist). I've never done a course on tensors, and tensors are essential to understanding gravity in a quantitative sense.

So I have to be content with a qualitative understanding of the graviton; if I need a numeric result about gravitation, I usually use a weak-field example, where Newton's theory of gravitation is perfectly adequate, and you don't need tensors or quantum theory.

I find that Wikipedia provides a fairly accessible account of most subjects, provided you know the right search terms. If you want more details, the hyperlinks and references will allow you to delve as deeply as you feel justified.

Are gravitons really the leading theory on gravity?

No, I would say that Einsteins's General Theory of Relativity is the leading theory of gravity - it predicts the effects of gravity perfectly well to the resolution of our current measurements in and around the Solar System. It also gives a pretty good idea of what goes on around black holes - and that will be tested over the next year by the Event Horizon Telescope.

In practical terms, nobody particularly needs gravitons at the moment. Individually, Gravitons carry so little energy that we have no way to detect them with current technology - you may as well treat it as an analogue field.

We know that General Relativity has some problems when you look at the behavior of subatomic particles in the immediate vicinity of a black hole, but nobody has yet got close enough to a black hole to see how they really behave! (thankfully...)

I would start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

After you feel that you understand the (hypothetical) Graviton, then you would know that it is a massless spin-2 tensor boson. Any massless spin-2 particle would behave like the graviton.

It turns out that a massless spin-2 particle falls naturally out of string theory, and string theory has been able to emulate everything in General Relativity.

So if you are interested in a hypothetical explanation for the hypothetical Graviton, I would go here next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

4

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

« on: 09/08/2017 17:39:10 »

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.

5

New Theories / Re: Gravitational lens affect (sic) and apparent Doppler shifts

« on: 09/08/2017 11:59:07 »

Doppler shifts can be caused by gravitational forces

The Doppler effect was first documented in 1842. It relates to velocity of the observer and source.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

The fact that gravitation could cause a frequency shift was an implication of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, published in 1915. Christian Doppler could not have known about this*.

This type of frequency shift is often called Einstein shift, to emphasise its similarities (and differences) from Doppler Shift.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

If you have an observer traveling close to the speed of light, there is an additional frequency shift due to Einstein's Special Relativity. This is called Relativistic Doppler Shift, but it is really just a correction to Doppler shift that must be applied at very high speeds, and does not affect Doppler Shift at "normal" speeds (like for a supersonic fighter jet).

* The astronomer John Mitchell did predict black holes in the 1700s, well before General Relativity!

6

New Theories / Does true motion exist?

« on: 03/08/2017 09:00:49 »

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. 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.
There are several implications  I think are important.
 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.
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?

7

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

« on: 10/07/2017 17:44:47 »

David Cooper

The travelling rocket made its trip in two years while the Earth took four years to travel the same distance into the future, but it did so without its clocks running slow, and this means that the rocket has jumped two years ahead of the Earth into the future to be reunited with a future version of the Earth rather than the current version (which will still have to wait another two years before it experiences that same event of the rocket meeting up with it).

In the graphic, A moves 4 light sec at .4c, and B moves 8 lsec at .8c, which requires 10 Earth sec for both. The blue light speed profile, has a value of 1. The B path is modified with a reversal D to rejoin A at .8c. The green hyperbola represents a constant time for all clocks as a function of speed.  Since the inverse of gamma(Lorentz factor) is a circular arc, and arcs are easier to construct, the moving clock times are transformed to the ct axis using arcs. 
An arc from the Earth ct value (10) meets the x value for the endpoint of clock A (4), and translates horizontally to the ct axis (9.17). The same method applied to the B clock gives (6.00). Each clock traveled a different distance, at different speeds, and indicate different times. The observations by A and B are not contradictions, but expected differences resulting from different histories. They still meet at the same place, at the same time relative to the Earth reference. There are no time meshing problems. The time process for each A, B, and E, is independent of the others.

https://app.box.com/s/zmx7pv29wwhzyn1n5quxs1q1g9oqu0cy

8

New Theories / Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.

« on: 07/07/2017 17:53:50 »

Thebox

The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.

 

By definition, the 'second' is just over 9 billion wave lengths of light in the microwave freq. range, i.e. a distance. These can be counted and used as a measure of time.

If time is a continuous flow of instants, as you suggest, how do you measure time?
An instant is an interval of zero, and n x 0 = 0.

I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.

Your brain requires a few milliseconds to process an image.
If you are watching a strobe light, there are spaces between the intermittent signals.

Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.

Here you're defining motion. Position is distance and direction relative to a reference object M. Motion is changing position relative to M. Speed is rate of change of position relative to M.
It's logical that you can't get to a new position without leaving the previous position.
It's logical that you can't be in two positions at the same time.
So what's new?

If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck  ahead of them (p),

If  twin two  accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q

If twin2 rejects (statement for time line), then (if p then q) is false.
You can't select the ones in your favor and exclude the others.
How would you show the difference in velocities with your timeline graphic?

If c is constant time remains constant, time could only be a variate if c was a variant.

Light speed c is constant in space, but not within/relative to a moving light clock. That's why there is time dilation. If c was constant relative to a moving light clock, observers watching the clock go by would see light speed >c. The first has been experimentally observed, the second has not.

It was not a good idea though by Einsteins to say ignore true time and we will define time as the fingers on a clock.

In early history, the speed of light was thought to be instantaneous and time was universal. Experiment has shown that both ideas are incorrect.
Time is relative to a defined standard, like all measurements.

Time does not move, thus it has no speed. It's just an historical record keeping process, an ordering of events, a gage of activity. It is not a thing or party planner as you would have if taking a cruise.

After reading your ideas, I would suggest reading a book on special relativity, without any complicated math.

9

New Theories / Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained

« on: 15/06/2017 05:40:23 »

So there's no evidence even from gravitational waves of two singularities moving towards each other and merging into a single singularity, but only evidence of black holes moving together and their event horizons merging. That means they still no evidence for the existence of anything close to being a singularity.

Yes, exactly. Using Gauss' law mass uniformly spread inside the blackhole, existing in a singularity in the center, spread over the surface, or otherwise symmetrically placed would produce the exact same gravitational field. This is why the metric for a blackhole is used to model the Earth and Sun (except here r >> rs). Furthermore, according to General Relativity NO information leaves the event horizon including gravitational waves. Even the angular momentum of a blackhole manifests as frame dragging occurring outside the event horizon. From an outside observer's perspective using GR nothing crosses the event horizon and no structure exists to the outside observer. Why even discuss the inside? According to any physics we can do (if our theories are correct) the inside does not exist.

That's more convincing explanation - I can imagine that if a particle is really a wave of some kind that might lead to it moving continually within a zone of space, any horizontal oscillation of it (horizontal over a massive object like a planet) will turn into a curve which takes the particle lower and adds downward speed to it which it further builds on such that it accelerates.

Think about this: take f'/f = t'/t , kx'/kx = x'/x,  ky'ky = y'/y , kz'/kz = z'/z and input into GR and you get the same exact math as GR. For example replacing x for kx does nothing to how the math works (but then GR's equations make no sense inside the event horizon). Light is our ruler so a shift in kx corresponds to a shift in measured distance and a shift in f corresponds to a shift in time. I don't see gravity "curving space-time" but rather gravity distorting waves. The waves are distorted such that the fine structure constant remains... constant. This is required for the laws of physics to remain the same (locally) in all reference frames and this guides how GR forms it's solutions. I'm not sure what you mean by the horizontal and vertical.

If light is viewed as a constant locally then why can't we call "curvature of space-time" the "curvature" of wavenumber and frequency spectra? The principles would be the same. Noting c is a constant when measured by our rulers and clocks then stating space and time curves leads to the inescapable conclusion that wavenumber and frequency spectra must appear to curve (leading to an apparent change in c non-locally). Does the curvature of spacetime cause the apparent curvature of these wave properties or does the curvature of the wave properties cause the apparent curvature of spacetime? I think our current theory GR gets the cause and effect backwards.

I can't see a similar effect being possible for for any vertical oscillation of the particle, but I imagine that it will be oscillating in all directions and that most of those will involve curved paths which drag it down.

According to Quantum Field Theory "particles" are field excitations (waves). It's impossible by any method I've ever seen in Quantum Mechanics to explain particles without a wave nature. Wave particle duality is kind of a misnomer. 95% of what particles do can be fully explained as wave entities. The 5% is important and makes quantum mechanics hard to understand and a little bizarre. With interpretations like MWI or Bohmian Mechanics (or similar ideas) this last 5% may be explainable. However, "wave collapse" and the Plank Constant h doesn't change how the particles transform... as waves. Other particle like properties can be explained with the wavepacket concept.

Their clocks would stop completely if they reached the event horizon and no further ticks would be possible for them - the black hole will evaporate away as Hawking radiation in a cold, dark universe before another tick could occur for them and they would effectively evaporate away too as Hawking radiation before any further tick could happen.

Yes, this is definitely a possibility and to me makes the most sense. Perhaps the matter exists on the event horizon or it's distributed in the lowest state throughout the black hole. GR predicts that c goes to negative infinity from the outside observer's perspective at the singularity. Perhaps nature lower bounds this at 0 or very close to 0. What Einstein did makes sense as we have no experiments to input a lower bound into the math. Nearly all physicists agree something breaks but I think it's closer to the horizon than the singularity.

It's the idea of singularities or near-singularities and the near-certainty with which physicists appear to pin on them which has always led me to think the speed of light must be faster downwards than up - if the speed is actually the same up and down, then there's nothing remotely like a singularity in any black hole.

Well there could still be a thing like a singularity if c goes to negative infinity (where at any single point c is the same up, down (not left and right) but it is still decreasing towards negative infinity at the singularity from the outside observer's perspective; it changes slowly over a distance so up is c + dc and down is c - dc but it's not for example 0 upwards at the event horizon and 2c downwards). I'm not sure how people will say over and over that c is constant both directions when discussing Special Relativity when no experiment measures the one-way speed of light independent of two spatially separated clocks. We simply can't measure the one-way speed. These same people then go on to explain GR by stating c is larger downward into the black hole than it is outward (the event horizon traps light on the surface up but sucks it down in the other direction). Again... the one-way speed of light cannot be measured. The equivalence principle works equally well here. To measure it you're again relying on two spatially separated clocks. Two spatially separated clocks running at different rates is indistinguishable from acceleration. We can't tell if the clocks are in different environments and thus running at different rates or... the speed of light is truly anisotropic. This is why physicists have very weird things happening on the EH such as matter falling in but also plastering onto the event horizon (and entangling). This is a central reason they thought up the holographic principle.

I personally think changing to a different velocity is anisotropic but gravity is isotropic (gravity can be a mixture of both if the gravity well is changing velocities). I find that nature tends to use all options available to her.

Is your position on all this stuff part of a named camp with lots of people saying the same things as you or is it unique to you? You appear to be closer to the mark than anyone else I've ever encountered and I want to make sure I can continue to read up on this.

I don't like named camps. However, I've been looking into blackholes for more than 15 years and I'm no layperson. Many of the ideas in my explanation come from different physicists and some go all the way back to Lorentz. However, I don't know of anyone who pushes this wave interpretation of GR as much as I do.
 

10

New Theories / Re: A theory I came up in the bathtub.

« on: 10/06/2017 06:42:17 »

because (the galaxies) are ORBITING THE CENTRE OF MASS OF THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE "UNIVERSE".

It is true that galaxies in our "local cluster of galaxies" are orbiting the common center of mass of our local cluster.
- On a larger scale, astronomers have identified a "Great Attractor" which seems to have many galaxy superclusters orbiting it.

Finding the center of mass is not a new problem for astronomers:.
- Back in Kepler's day, they had to map the paths of planets which were orbiting the center of mass of the Solar System (which is 99% made up of the mass of the Sun).
- With the development of radio astronomy after WW2, astronomers studied the motion of dust clouds in our galaxy which are orbiting the center of mass of the galaxy.
- So the tools are already in place to identify the center of mass of our local galaxy cluster, and nearby superclusters.

With orbiting bodies, you measure very different relative velocities when looking in different directions and over different distances:
- If you look "outwards and behind" (or "inwards and ahead") of our direction of our motion, you see bodies moving away from us (red-shifted)
- If you look towards the center of mass (or directly away from it), other bodies are travelling across our line of sight, so there is no relative velocity.
- If you look "intwards and behind" (or "outwards and ahead") of our direction of our motion, you see bodies moving towards us (blue-shifted)
- This allowed astronomers to map out the structure of our Solar System and then our galaxy.

But this pattern is very different from what Hubble saw when he mapped the relative velocities of distant galaxies.
- Distant galaxies are all moving away from us
- This applies to galaxies in all directions
- The velocity away from us increases with distance away from us.
- This is a very different pattern than you see with orbital motions

if the universe is just a BOUNDLESS void, HOW CAN IT EXPAND?!

This is a very natural question; it has been asked before.
See, for example: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70195.0

11

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

« on: 05/06/2017 16:37:20 »

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

12

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

« on: 04/06/2017 00:08:29 »

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.

13

New Theories / Different View of Relativity

« on: 02/06/2017 04:44:05 »

Not at all saying the math of Relativity is wrong but below is a different viewpoint of SR via wave mechanics. Please note that I show where all the equations come from but it takes a bit to derive them all because Relativistic effects such as Length Contraction, Time Dilation, "simultaneity shifts," and Relativistic Aberration often occur together. Bare with the format as this isn't a proof read paper but it does contain quite a bit of math.

Classical Doppler Shift (Where v = va + vb):

fmo/f = (1 - v/c) ,    fms/f = 1/(1 + v/c), and fmso/f = (1 - va/c) / (1 - vb/c)                     

In general:    fmo ≠ fms ≠ fmso

kmo/k = (1 - v/c),  kms/k = 1/(1 + v/c), and kmso = (1 - va/c) / (1 - vb/c)                 

In  general:   kmo ≠ kms ≠ kmso

(Notice for later the wavenumber forms and frequency forms are the same). The above is the Classical Doppler Shift as found exactly in text books. I choose to use wavenumber with cycles/unit length because the wavenumber forms are symmetrical with the frequency forms with cycles/second.

Classically, the Doppler Shift gives away a preferred frame as something measurable because the moving source equation, moving observer equation, and both source/observer moving equations aren't the same. Frequency and wavenumber shifts leave the signature pointing towards the rest frame.

Set up a light clock perpendicular to the direction of travel. Light of a moving clock goes across at c’ where c² = (c’)² + v². This is just Pythagorean’s Theorem.

c’/c = f’/f = t’/t = (1 – (v/c)²)^½ = ɣ (when perpendicular. Relativistic effects mix at off angles; I can and will show these but it’s not as simple.)

If time slows down by ɣ then the moving source will emit a lower frequency by ɣ and the moving observer will observe a higher frequency by 1/ɣ . Using this idea, we have:

fms = f  ɣ / (1 + v/c)  = ((1 – v/c)/(1+v/c))^½    (source is moving)

fmo = f (1 – v/c) / ɣ   = ((1 – v/c)/(1+v/c))^½   (observer is moving)

fmo = fms  even though the mechanism behind them is different. In fact, fmso is also equal (source and observer are moving).

Relativistic Doppler Shift (Where v = (va + vb) / (1+ va vb/c²) I will derive the velocity equation also):

x’/x = k’/k = (1 – v/c)/ ɣ = ɣ /(1+v/c) = (1 – va/c)/(1 + vb/c) ɣb/ ɣa

Note kmo = kms = kmso   

t’/t  =  f’/f  = (1 – v/c)/ ɣ = ɣ /(1+v/c) = (1 – va/c)/(1 + vb/c) ɣb/ ɣa

Note fmo = fms = fmso

Where ɣ = (1 - (v/c)^2)^½ 
 
f/k = fms/kms = fmo/kmo = fmso/kmso = c  The speed of light is constant because of the symmetric treatment of wavenumber and frequency in the Doppler Shift and the relationship x’/x = k’/k and f’/f = t’/t. Notice in the Relativistic form all three k equations and f equations are mechanistically different but yield the same output and have the same input.

The fundamental idea behind all of this is:

1) There is a medium where all fields propagate at c relative to it.

2) ALL particles are excitations of fields and particles with mass (not moving linearly at c) can only occur if two or more fields are interacting causing an ensemble (wave packet) with a rest mass and a non-zero proper time (time passes). An example would be the Higgs Field interacting with excitations of other fields.

3) "Aether Drag" does not need to occur because all particles are excitations AKA waves propagating on the "aether" or fields (whatever you wish to call it). Waves don't need to drag their medium while propagating. A planet moving is not the same as a bowling ball pushing through water. It's more like a wave structure rippling through a super fluid.

4) the ratio of frequencies f'/f equals the ratio of time 't/t. If I transmit a video at 8GHz and someone else receives at 16GHz they will witness my time happening twice as fast. The ratio of cycles received equals the ratio of time observed. Likewise as shown with the Michelson-Morley Interferometer x'/x = k'/k. How I see their length depends on the entire Doppler Shift. In principle we can't break apart our observation and assign chunks to a "classical cause" and other chunks to a "relativistic cause." Instead we see the LT and the DS in their entirety.
 
Deriving the Lorentz Transform from the Relativistic Doppler Shift (pick one of the Doppler forms; it doesn't matter which one because they are all mathematically identical):

f’/f = t’/t = (1 – v/c)/ ɣ → t’= (t – t v/c)/ ɣ

Use the Einstein Clock Synchronization Convention (sync clocks/rulers with light) c t = x we have:

t’= (t – x v/c²)/ ɣ = Lorentz Time Transformation

x’/x = k’/k = (1 – v/c)/ ɣ => t’= (t – t v/c)/ ɣ

Use the Einstein Clock Synchronization Convention (sync clocks/rulers with light) c t = x we have:

x’= (x – v t)/ ɣ = Lorentz Distance Transformation

The Einstein Clock Synchronization Convention is arbitrary where we assume light is isotropic relative to our frame. I did this because the Lorentz Transform as written this way also makes this assumption. This is only one of an infinite number of possible synchronizations that could have been chosen. Notice the Simultaneity Term v x /c^2 isn't any more amazing here than the Classical v/c term. Creating Planes of Simultaneity to prove 4D spacetime doesn't do much of anything.

Derivation of the velocity addition formula (which can also be explained via wavelike nature):

(1 – v/c)/ ɣ or ɣ /(1+v/c) = (1 – va/c)/(1 + vb/c) ɣb/ ɣa

((1 - v) / (1 + v)).5 = (( 1 - va) / (1 + va))1/2  (( 1 - vb) / (1 + vb))1/2

(1 - v) / (1 + v) = (1 -va) / (1 + va)  (1 - vb) / (1+ va)

(1 + va) (1 + vb) (1 - v ) = (1 - va) (1 - vb) (1 + v)

(1 + va) (1 + vb) - v (1+va) (1+vb) =  (1 - va) (1 - vb) v + (1 - va) (1 - vb)

(1 + va) (1 + vb) - (1 - va) (1 - vb) =  (1 - va) (1 - vb) v + v (1+va) (1+vb)

1 + va + vb + va vb - 1 + va + vb - va vb = (1 -va - vb + va vb) v + (1 +va + vb + va vb) v

2 (va + vb) = (2 + 2 va vb) v

(va + vb) / (1 + va vb) = v   This is the Relativistic Velocity Addition Equation.

The full all angle forms (transverse) are:

fmo =  f (1 - v/c cos(θmo)) / gamma    =    fms = f gamma / (1 + v/c cos(θms))

kmo = k (1 - v/c cos(θmo)) / gamma   =    kms = k gamma / (1 + v/c cos(θms))

Where the angles are related (derived using the velocity addition equation already derived)

cos(θms) = (cos(θmo) - v/c) / (1 - v/c cos(θmo))

Length Contraction:

dx/dt = -v  →  dx = -v dt   →

dΦ/dt -v dΦ/dx =0  →  [d/dt -v d/dx][ d/dt +v d/dx] Φ= 0   →    d²Φ/dt² = v² d²Φ/dx²     

Classical Wave Equation:

0 = d²Φ/dt²- c² d²Φ/dx² - c² d²Φ/dy² - c² d²Φ/dz²

Substitute for the time dependent derivative:

0 = v² d²Φ/dx² - c²d²Φ/dx² - c² d²Φ/dy² - c² d²Φ/dz²

0 = ((v/c)2– 1) c² d²Φ/dx² - c² d²Φ/dy² - c² d²Φ/dz²

0 = ɣ² c² d²Φ/dx² + c² d²Φ/dy² + c² d²Φ/dz²

ɣ dy  =  dx

This only uses the Classical Wave Equation and an arbitrary shift v in the x direction. The result clearly shows the wave form contracting by ɣ in the x direction. If everything is wavelike in nature with the same fundamental propagation speed c, then Lorentz Contraction occurring on all waveforms (every particle and collection of bound particles) is expected. Classical wave structures also compress as v increases relative to the medium (example sonic booms). Nothing was forced or ad hoc about this result and no time as a fourth dimension was required. Experiments in physics have shown that Relativistic Symmetry naturally arises when the wave sources transform similar or identical to the waves they create. Think of the Couder Walking Drop Experiment and many superfluid experiments. The walking drop deforms in shape a bit (length contracts) when it moves linearly making the Doppler Form closer to Relativistic rather than Classical. Now the Relativistic nature of these mediums does breakdown but no such thing necessarily needs to occur in the "medium of the universe" because this medium could be many tens or thousands orders of magnitude more fine or perhaps it's infinitely fine.

When v is in the x direction. Michealson-Morley Interferometer math to find Lx compared to Ly.

c’ =  ɣ c

2Ly  / (c’) = Lx / (c - v) + Lx / (c + v)

2Ly  / (ɣ c) = Lx / (c - v) + Lx / (c + v)

2Ly  / (ɣ c) = Lx (c + v)/ (c² – v²)+ Lx (c - v)/ (c² – v²)

2Ly  / (ɣ c) = Lx 2c/ (c² – v²)

Ly  / (ɣ c) = Lx c²/ (c² – v²) 1/c

Ly  / (ɣ c) = Lx /( ɣ² c)

ɣ Ly = Lx   (as we would expect)

GR, SR, QM, and wave equation forms:

The Classical Wave equation below is very much like the equations below it:

0 = d²Φ/dt²- c² d²Φ/dx² - c² d²Φ/dy² - c² d²Φ/dz²  (classical wave equation)

0 = c² dt²- dx² - dy² - dz² - c² dtau²   (metric of flat spacetime, GR)

0 = d²Φ/dt²- c² d²Φ/dx² - c² d²Φ/dy² - c² d²Φ/dz² + (m c / ħ)² Φ   (Klein-Gordon equation, Relativistic QM. Note the trick to find Length Contraction also works here)

0 = guv dxu dxv – c² dtau² (generalized metric, GR [please note I put all terms on the right])

These are all very much similar in form. Local Lorentz Covariance (c = f/k where c is constant at least locally) is the most important law in GR (and SR). Even classically the forms for f and k in the Doppler Shift are identical that this holds true in SR and GR is not surprising. The symmetrical forms would preserve c and the identical Doppler forms for k and f also preserve c. If no backwards time travel is possible there is no need for time to be a true "fourth dimension" but it acts as such in much of the math because of the symmetrical treatment of f and k (f corresponds to measured t and k corresponds to measured x, y, and z). "Curvature of spacetime" would be symmetrical shifts in objects (their size, shape, and "rate through time" relative to other objects in another location).

Please let me know if you have any questions. I could go on for awhile with the formulas but this gets quite tedious to write. I don't think I made any math errors but please let me know if I did. Some math equations didn't copy superscripts/subscripts when I copied them form my notes.

Also from QM  E = h f   and  p = h k  so momentum and energy also have the same symmetry as f and k because h is a constant.

I personally find this method of deriving the Relativistic Formulas more intuitive, it bases off of the classical Doppler Shift which is a strong/well-tested concept, and it correctly assumes everything is wavelike. Sure it assumes a medium but Relativity assumes a certain synchronization (I assume none) and Relativity introduces time as a fourth dimension (I'd call that a more complex conclusion). Saying one idea is more "complicated" than another is often subjective. However, I'm glad that the shortcut exists.

14

New Theories / Re: One way speed of light

« on: 13/05/2017 23:45:05 »

Simple thought. How does a photon know whether it is coming or going? Obviously it can't know, so there can't be a difference between the propagation speeds.

15

New Theories / LET: gravity and magnetism explained

« on: 13/05/2017 19:36:11 »

I was thinking about gravity last night and it occurred to me that some of the things about it that seem magical needn't be so magical after all. The biggest problem is where the "potential energy" is stored when you lift an object. The answer's simple though - it's stored in the fabric of space.

For an object to exist in deep space, there is energy making up the material of that object, and there's also kinetic energy if the object's moving through space, but there's also some extra energy, and quite a lot of it too, which is stressing or distorting the fabric of space at that location. When two objects move closer to each other, the amount of energy stored in this way in the space fabric reduces, and it now appears as an increase in kinetic energy as the objects accelerate towards each other. That is what powers the acceleration. If they collide and stay together, the kinetic energy remains, but as movement of atoms, and we then call that movement heat. That energy can then be radiated off as infra-red light, and this energy that moves away from our objects is energy which was previously held as stress in the fabric of space.

When you lift an object, you are causing the fabric of space to accommodate it differently, and that involves putting energy into that fabric. This is like with bubbles in washing-up water which can accelerate towards each other as the surface tension rearranges the shape of the surface in order to minimise the amount of energy stored in it - that stored energy is turned into kinetic energy in the same way, and then it becomes heat. Once we understand where the potential energy is stored, it's all becomes obvious - all we have is a stressed fabric trying to get to a lower energy state.

We see the same thing in chemical bonds where high energy bonds are less stable than low energy ones - again it is the fabric of space in which that extra energy is held, and it's held as stress or distortion. Many fools laugh at the people who came up with the idea of phlogeston, and yet the idea wasn't far wrong at all - it was simply potential energy held in the fabric of space.

The same applies to magnets. A north or south pole stresses the space fabric, meaning that wherever there's a magnet there is extra energy accompanying it which is held in the space fabric. If you move a north pole close to a north pole (or a south pole close to a south pole), that adds to the stress and requires you to put more energy in. If you move a north pole next to a south pole, that reduces the stress on the space fabric and allows stored energy there to be released. With the magnets stuck together, they are in a lower energy state and you need to put more energy in to move them apart because moving them apart needs to distort/stress the space fabric more.

What seemed to me like magic yesterday no longer seems very magical at all because I can now see where the energy goes to and where it comes from - it doesn't just appear out of nothing. This also means that gravity and magnetism works without depending on force carriers moving backwards and forwards between different pieces of matter (although there may still be an equivalent to force carriers of some kind operating in the fabric to shift the pattern of stress/deformation as matter moves along through it). We have a rational mechanism for all forces, and it depends on a space fabric with properties able to accommodate them with different forces stressing it in different ways.

16

New Theories / On the speed of light as invariant:

« on: 26/04/2017 20:58:47 »

Physicists have often been amazed at the  invariance of the speed of light. This means that regardless of whether the source is moving or the destination is moving or even if both are moving, the speed of light remains constant at 3 x 10⁵ km/s approx.  What is so unusual about this? Unusual ! It goes absolutely against every practical experience known to mankind! In the normal world things obey what are known as Galilean transformations. Thus  take two fast cars 150 Kms apart and travelling towards each other. Car (a) going at 150 kmh and car(b) at 100 kmh. If they both start off at exactly the same time when will they meet ?  It might surprise you at first to learn that the time at which they will meet is governed by their combined speed or 100 kmh + 150 kmh = 250 kmh. They will therefore meet after  36 minutes during which time  car (a) would have covered 90 Km and car (b) would have covered 60 km. The same would apply if the cars were moving away from each other here, the speed of the two cars is again combined but this time they are moving away from each other, thus they are departing from each other at a relative speed of 100 km + 150 kmh = 250 kmh.  If both cars are moving in the same direction then the speed of car (a) relative to the speed of car (b) would be the difference in speed 150 kmh - 100 kmh = 50 kmh.  These cars are moving according to Galilean transformations.

Imagine then the surprise of scientists when they found that light does not obey these Galilean transformations. Take the following case. Suppose you have a light at a fixed source (A) shining towards a point (B) that is 100,000 Kms. away then we know that since the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec that it should take 0.33 secs for the light to travel from point A to Point B.  And this is how long it does take. (note: Actually according to relativity this is by no means certain) Now suppose you fit the light onto a superfast train travelling at 150,000 km/s then surely it should take the light whose combined speed is 300,000 km/s + 150,000 km/s = 450,000 km/s and it should now take the light only 0.222 s to reach point B! Wrong! Say the scientists it would still take the light 0.33 secs to cover the distance from (A) to (B)!
 


How could this be true? More important how could it be proved to be either true or false? I was thinking about this problem when it occurred to me that the speed of sound (because it is a wave)  is also invariant. Just like light the speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source or of the destination or even if both were moving together. How could this be. I was thinking about something else when the answer came to me and it is ridiculously simple.  Look at this problem. First you have a stationary sound at (A) travelling towards a point (b) which is 600 m distant.  Consider that sound travels at 1257.12 kmh therefore it will take approximately 1.72 secs to cover the distance to (B). Now imagine that the sound (Siren or whatever) is fitted onto a car travelling at 150 kmh , then the sound should now take 600/ (150 kmh  + 1257.12) = 1.53 sec to cover the distance to B, right ? Wrong say the physicists the sound will still take 1.72 sec to travel from point A to point B.  How could this be ?

It becomes very simple to understand when we take into account that the speed of the car depends on its mass, the force with which it can press onto the tarmac, the speed with which the wheel revolves, the force of gravity etc., While the speed of sound is solely dependent on the properties of the medium it is travelling through. The two velocities have nothing to do with each other. It is like comparing apples and oranges you can't do it!  So the sound will still take 1.72 secs to travel from point (A) to point (B) while the car would take 14.35 secs to cover the distance from (A) to (B).
 That's all there is to the invariance of the speed of light or of the speed of sound.  Apples and oranges.

17

New Theories / Re: Re: Aether Fields

« on: 26/04/2017 17:46:19 »

Science is evidence based so physbang is making a valid request. The aether has never been detected and so is equivalent to nothing.

Intelligent computer software is incapable of telling whether the computer it runs on exists other than by hypothesising its existence - it cannot detect the computer in any way. In the same way, our inability to detect the aether of any aether theory (including Spacetime) doesn't render them all equal to nothing - one of them must be something.

18

New Theories / Re: Are there flaws in the theory of special relativity?

« on: 25/04/2017 17:40:14 »

So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago.  Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
 

Does this argument (simple example) protect or resque the theory SR?

The human perceived that “the Earth is flat” and “the Sun turns around the Earth” for million years.

The theory has analyzed the light on a single direction and moreover according to a local object. This attitude is not normal in accordance with methodology. Yes, it is amazing; does anyone discover the flaw on opposite direction?  I did not encounter like this fault. And therefore, I wrote a book about this subject (Pseudo Science <Under the protection of mysticism>  2003 and 2008):

1-   Mysticism likes the brilliant ideas. Mysticism is an  archetypal quality of human.
2-   Human’s cognitive ability is linear and inadequate for universal subjects (especially light).
3-   The theory SR had neglected to analyze the other directions and the operation step of superpose.
4-   Already, when a person did not internalize the SR analysis of single direction by the method of active education, he cannot consider new/next steps.
5-   The theory SR is not a method of therapy or surgical operation that their defects are cropped up immediately. It is exempted from “life anvil”.
6-   The real reason of the illusion of space-time is to be limited/finited value of light’s velocity; not fix  and same value for everything. When the analysis is realized by the base of limited/finited velocity and on LCS; it will be possible without any troubles (I can analyze by this paradigm and I calculated the age of universe)
7-   General affirmation (due to the power of media) gives an excuse to the person who does not understand the theory. And the objections are underestimated by this present paradigm.
8-   There are the realization successes of the human on every subjects. In science history we can see the  concept of Ad-hoc.
9-   In science philosophy (that is my other interest), some requirements are not on agenda yet:
. The management of mental references
. Revising the local postulates according to universal scale by methodology and like a project.
10-    There is a different word for every nuance in English. But the word “relativity” is a single for the subject; whereas the types of relativity is mentioned by me (genuine relativity; nominal/supposed relativity; momentary/temporary relativity; etc). Probably this situation  may restricts  someone’s analysis.
11-   Currently we human remain our traditional habit (that to assign the local object as  reference role)
12-   The young scientists can understand my objections/clues/arguments. Some academician can find reasonable  objection for my football example by carrying the event to space (On the earth the ground became reference frame for the ball, not player; but on space the player can be reference frame for the relative motion of the ball by the reason of effection-reaction. But when he discovered a flaw of my argument; he supposed his answer as a flag and his mind was anchored like a ship. Whereas the concept of effection-reaction is not valid for the light/photon .
13-   First and new scientific approaches may have mistakes. Because human mind is linear and nature has complexity. Some wrong opinions may remain for hundred years in accordance with low requirement or utilization.
14-   The theory SR has other serious defects. For example, in formulas the parameters have units and we require to get provision for these units too. But Lorentz transformations give always 300 000 relativeKm/relativeSec and claims that results are equal to 300 000 referenceKm /referenceSec in numerical application. If the units are changeable, the numerical values never be equal for authentic distance.  We must also get active our attention for this point.
15-   The theory SR had been helpful to revise light kinematics by being a guide hypothesis.

Wow, that was an quite a bit of text to say absolutely nothing relevant to the validity of SR.

The bottom line is that Relativity is accepted because it works. It provides accurate predictions in real life situations.  If the day comes when Relativity fails to predict the correct results, or someone develops a theory that does a better job in predicting outcomes, then it will be replaced.   But it will take results from a real physical measurement or experiment to cause this.

19

New Theories / Re: Are there flaws in the theory of special relativity?

« on: 24/04/2017 20:44:30 »

Dear  Janus and Goc,

Your SR calculation is correct. I want to repeat for other viewers of this topic:

The ship’s speed is 60 % c and it travels toward + x. Two photons (toward +x and –x) is emitted at the moment To = 0  worldsec.

We seek the coordinates of these photons according to the ship at the moment Tı =10 worldsec.

]The results  acoording to the world:

(x’ ;  t’) world  ===> (3 000 000 worldkm; 10worldsec)

(x’’ ;  t’’) world ===> (-3 000 000worldkm; 10 worldsec)

The results according to the ship:

(x’ ; t’) ship  ===>   (1 500 000 shipkm ; 5 shipsec)

(x’’ ; t’’) ship  ===>  ( 6 000 000shipkm ; 20 shipsec)

I have never/any objection for these results. And nobody objects these result in accordance with SR mentality.

BUT; probably, you may distinguish a contradiction too:

How does the clock (in the ship) indicate either 5 shipsec or 20 shipsec simultaneously?

How does the  shipclock or abstract time of the ship work by two (innumerable  for angled positions) different tempos?

Is there time contraction in SR (20 shipsec represents time contraction instead of time dilation)

 The time moment is unique;  10 worldsec, 5 shipsec and  20 shipsec represent the same moment in accordance with the existence of photons.

The answer to your question of how S's clock can read 5 and 20 sec simultaneously is that it doesn't.


To illustrate, lets modify this set up slightly.  The A and S frame have measuring rods extending outward in each direction to a distance of 3,000,000 km as measured by their own frame. At the ends of these rods are clocks which are synchronized according to each frame (as far as the ship is concerned the clocks at the end of its rods read the same as the ship clock and as far as A is concerned the clocks at B and `B read the same as his clock.  The following set of images show events as far as A measures at three different times for A, 0 sec, 5 sec and 10 sec.
Since S and its rods are moving at 0.6c relative to A and its rods, the rods are length contracted and none of the clocks moving with S are in sync with each other, due to the relativity of simultaneity.

The top image is the start of the scenario.
The middle image is after 5 sec has passed for A B and B'. The light pulses are halfway to to B' and B, and the left going pulse has just reached the end of the left rod of S. Since all these clocks are time dilated, the Clock at this end has advanced 4 sec to now read 10 sec. This is just as it should be, as according to S, the light should also reach this end when the clock there reads 10 sec.  Also note that when the clock at A reads 5 sec, it is bit more than 7.5 marks on S's measuring stick from S.(this will be touched on again later).
The bottom image is when the time for A is 10 sec. The light has reached both B' and B, and the clocks at those points read 10 sec. The three clocks moving with S have all advanced 8 sec due to time dilation. Again note where A is relative to S's measuring stick. Also note that B is ten of S's measuring stick marks from S.

Now we'll look at the same events according to S. Here we will show 5 different points of time:
The starting point,
When the light reaches B
When A's clock reads 5 sec
When A's clock reads 10 sec
When the light reaches `B



Top image. Now it is A and its clocks and rods that have the relative motion(to the left), so they undergo length contraction and the clocks are offset from each other due to the relativity of simultaneity.
Next we have the light reaching B, this occurs when S and its clocks read 5 sec.  The Clock at B having started at 6 sec and advancing 4 sec reads 10 sec, just like it did for the last set of images. It is also ten mark away from S by S's measuring stick, which also agrees with above.
The other light pulse has yet to reach B'
Next is when A's clock reads 5 sec. The right light has passed B, but the left light has still not yet reached `B. Note when A's clock reads 5 it is next to the same point of S's measuring stick as it was in the last set of images.
Now we show when A's clock reads 10 sec. Again note that A is next to the same point of S's measuring stick as in the last set of images.
Lastly we show when the light finally reaches `B and the clock at `B reads 10 sec. At this point S's clock reads 20 sec.
So according to S, its clocks read 5 sec when the light reaches B and 20 sec when the light reaches `B.  But just because these two events are simultaneous according to A does not mean that A reads 5 sec and 20 sec simultaneously. (in fact, according to A, when the light reaches B and `B, the clock at S reads 8 sec.)  It just means that these events are simultaneous in one frame but not in the other. This is the whole gist of the relativity of simultaneity, that simultaneity is not absolute, but is frame dependent.  The fact that A measures these events as simultaneous has now priority over the fact that S measures them not to be.  S in turn measures the fact that the light reaches the end of its measuring rods simultaneously, while A says its does not.  Neither frame is more correct than the other.
Neither does this create a contradiction. Because both A and S will agree what happens when any two points of their frames pass each other.  If I were to put clocks at each of the tick marks on both sets of measuring rods, whenever two of those clocks passed each other both A and S would agree as to their respective clock readings.

So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago.  Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
 

20

New Theories / Re: What is the ''speed'' of ''time''?

« on: 07/04/2017 11:48:54 »

Time propagates to the future, never to repeat itself. Yet clocks, which we use to measure time, are cyclic, which is not how time propagates. The theory of reincarnation is how clock express time, allowing one to return to a rebirth at midnight, each day.

Science is using the wrong tool to measure time, thereby leading to conceptual confusion. The tool needs to reflect the nature of the phenomena and not reflect a different phenomena. Cycling, like clocks do, is closer to wave motion and energy; wavelength, d and frequency, t.  Clocks simulate express time and distance; oops!

The topic, the speed of time, is really about expressing time as a composite of distance and time, that has been conceptually biased by the tool choice of the traditions. Clocks were designed with human productivity in mind, allowing us to repeat out tasks in a coordinated way. But that is still not how time propagates except in an artificial way to maximize profits. 

Time is better expressed by a mono directional concept, like entropy, instead of a two directional concept like cyclic waves. The entropy of the universe always increases; 2nd law, meaning it propagates, like time, to the future and not also the past. Energy can go both ways as long as it is conserved.

A better clock that reflects the nature of time, would be the dead fish clock. We take a dead fish and measure time based on when it starts to stink. Like the nature of time, the dead fish can only go one way; decay. We can't reverse or un-stink the decaying fish and reuse it tomorrow. The stink does not cycle and repeat like a clock. Each day you will need a new fish, just as time is new each day.

Interestingly, the dead fish clock can be made to run slower, not only with relativity, but it can also be made to run slower via refrigeration. The dead fish clock, conceptually implies an equivalency between heat and relativity. Or relativity has a connection to an energy balance.

Relative reference does not use an energy balance, but is an artifact of the wrong tool; 2-D.