0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Distance and time are more like reference variables. I cannot throw distance or time at you and make it hurt.
Colin,Saying that reciprocity/symmetry is not a problem without backing it up is not very useful,Jano
If you're working with theories that can't handle time correctly, throw them in the bin where they belong.
Anything that has time run at different rates for different objects breaks by generating event-meshing failures and immediately disqualifies itself from science.
QuoteIf there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it?Not being able to get past it doesn't mean there are no events further in.
If there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it?
Your whole view of what goes on in a black hole is dictated by the predictions of a broken model in which the event horizon can be crossed.
In GTR, if you're suspended by the event horizon, you don't see your old home because "time" stops for you but for someone else falling across the event horizon, it isn't, so they can see out.
Again that's just nonsense generated by a broken model.
I got it by analyzing the experiment: not by taking anything from quack sites.
It's a mathematical proof. All observers get the same timing difference. All observers measure the length of the material to be the same in both directions. All competent mathematicians (and high-school maths teachers too) can confirm its validity.
I'll edit a link in here in a few minutes once I've uploaded the program that compares simulations and show GTR generating event-meshing failures alongside the fake version of GTR used in all the simulations that purport to be of GTR but which cheat by smuggling in absolute time...
]Einstein’s GR handles black holes just fine since it has no requirement for an absolute ordering of all events. LET does, and since there cannot be such an ordering, it can’t work, so it is forced to deny the existence of these unmappable events.
GR is fine then because it doesn’t posit time ‘running’ at all. Neither does LET, but nLET does, and you seem to be pushing a variant of the nLET view. I’m attacking the preferred foliation premise, not the running-time premise.
QuoteQuoteIf there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it?Not being able to get past it doesn't mean there are no events further in.If you deny that those events will ever happen, then it is self-contradictory to assert that there are events further in.
I’m inside the event horizon relative to some distant Euclidean space, so my existence now is hard evidence that the distant Euclidean space is an invalid choice for the absolute frame.
Similarly, his existence invalidates my Euclidean space, so now you have to posit geocentrism and deny the existence of this distant place because we’re special.
QuoteYour whole view of what goes on in a black hole is dictated by the predictions of a broken model in which the event horizon can be crossed.I explained how an abstract singularity can be crossed since it isn’t physical. This is another strawman assertion. The ‘stuff accumulating on the event horizon’ model was essentially put to rest back in the 60’s. It has contradictions and doesn’t work. I brought up the Rindler thing just to demonstrate the non-physical nature of a mathematical singularity.
QuoteIn GTR, if you're suspended by the event horizon, you don't see your old home because "time" stops for you but for someone else falling across the event horizon, it isn't, so they can see out.You apparently don’t know GTR at all, but I already knew that. You very much can see out since time does not stop for any observer.
OK, it stops at the physical singularity, since it is not a location in space but literally a physical end to time. Until that time, an observer can see his old home.
I have a link to a stack exchange discussion asking this very question, because some are under the impression that the guy falling in will, due to infinite time dilation, witness the end of the universe, which is shown to be false. There are events on the outside that can never have a causal effect on our guy inside the black hole because they will not reach him before time ends for him. It is events after this point that cannot be objectively ordered with events inside.
QuoteAgain that's just nonsense generated by a broken model.This is all SR, and in flat Euclidean (Minkowski actually) spacetime. Right, you declare ‘broken’ a model you want to be wrong. This is what I mean be ‘sorry to have wasted your time’.
QuoteI got it by analyzing the experiment: not by taking anything from quack sites.I seriously doubt you have the capability to do that. All your post show invalid strawman rules about how relativity works. No wonder you came to the conclusion that it is some kind of proof. No, I was looking for something more peer reviewed.
Most mathematicians and high school teachers don't know relativity theory.
I want a physicist who knows how to apply the theory correctly, and not just somebody checking things for arithmetic errors.The arithmetic seems trivial in your simulation.
For instance, the analysis of the light ring (Sagnac) on the crank sites always involves cutting the ring up into little local straight pieces and then adding them up as if they were in a straight line. To do it correctly, either one frame must be chosen (makes it easy), or one must rotate the coordinates each time the next segment is added in, which is intense calculus I never see being done because they hope the audience doesn't spot the error.
The program presumes a sort of personal presentism, essentially a real-time moving spotlight for humans only view, with the addition of your assumption of the erasure of any material human that isn't at its own present. I notice the gravity source doesn't have a 'present' (a colored dot), but the observers do. It is a gross misrepresentation of GTR which only talks about worldlines without the moving dot.
This is what I mean by strawman arguments. You fallaciously introduce presentism to 'disprove' a theory that doesn't posit it. There's no concept of a 'meshing error' in a non-presentist view.
But they do understand the basic rules of maths which the physicists are breaking.
It is indeed trivial, and yet the physicists get the wrong answer from it because they impose what they want to be true on the experiment and reject what it actually tells them.
You're using a model which generates contradictions
If you have no running time, you have no causation
I haven't explored the predictions of the broken theory far enough to know what would result in terms of how long (in real time rather than proper time) it would take for him to reach the singularity.
I'm not doing anything strawman
I don't know what you mean by the "assumption of the erasure of any material human that isn't at its own present": the trace left behind is the retention of them.
I have presentism and eternalism both shown at the same time.
If you want presentism, focus on the dots. If you want eternalism, focus on the trails.
What rules are being broken?
Sounds like you are saying that there was an experiment that produced results at odds with relativity. When was that experiment performed? By who? What about the results falsified relativity?
Your simulation seems to be using a model which generates contradictions, which I will call General Relativity with David’s Additions, or GRwDA for short.
You’re the one who decided to drag the second premise of a preferred moment in time.
QuoteIf you have no running time, you have no causationThere you go. That’s a good foot to start on. Demonstrate that statement without a begging definition of causation. You can’t do that because you seem incapable of letting go of your biases long enough to consider an alternate view on its own terms. That’s your handicap. Most of the rest of the physics world has no trouble setting your premises aside, even if they personally believe in them. They can consider an alternate theory on its own grounds and critique it without introducing their beliefs. You on the other hand seem incapable of that, so you probably shouldn’t be in the business of disproving views that you don’t hold.
The theory that you find broken does not posit any concept of ‘real time’. That’s one of your additions, and the one that I’m finding to be self-contradictory for the reasons stated.
QuoteI'm not doing anything strawmanI was quite explicit when point out how you’re doing it.
Your biases seem to run so deep that you are perhaps incapable of seeing them even when they’re explicitly pointed out to you. As I said, that’s your problem, not a problem with a theory that doesn’t assume those premises.
...but if the blue guy waits far enough to the left, he’ll suddenly see the red person pop into existence, and simultaneously the red person will see the blue person momentarily ‘defossilize’ and then blink out, which is sort of ‘human erasure’ if you ask me.
That doesn’t invoke GR at all. It is just SRwDA.
QuoteI have presentism and eternalism both shown at the same time.Both sides have moving dots, so both sides are presentist. Somehow you don’t see even that much. Amazing.
The only difference then (without the dots) is that right side has a preferred foliation (shown in red, and undetectable by any observer) and the left side does not. That’s the only actual difference between GTR and LET.
Your second addition of the moving dots to both sides makes it GRwDA and nLET respectively,
but it is the red numbers that I’m finding contradictory, not the second addition of the dots. If the red numbers are not contradictory, then neither are the dots that require the red numbers. I have no explicit argument against the dots.
...I don’t see much point in you going over old ground with the SR scenarios, which have been done to death. The bigger question is whether you can take the electrodynamics paper and propose a rigorous alternative which allows accurate transforms and aligns with observations that the laws of electromagnetism are not frame dependent. The big outcome from the electrodynamics paper was the proposal that electric and magnetic fields are not separate, but are different aspects of a single electromagnetic field, can you preserve this or do you have a different proposal. I’m not aware David has got this far, but then I haven’t read his latest material, something I must make time to do.
Quote from: Colin2B on 08/08/2020 08:54:34...I don’t see much point in you going over old ground with the SR scenarios, which have been done to death. The bigger question is whether you can take the electrodynamics paper and propose a rigorous alternative which allows accurate transforms and aligns with observations that the laws of electromagnetism are not frame dependent. The big outcome from the electrodynamics paper was the proposal that electric and magnetic fields are not separate, but are different aspects of a single electromagnetic field, can you preserve this or do you have a different proposal. I’m not aware David has got this far, but then I haven’t read his latest material, something I must make time to do.A light clock roundtrip is one of the best proper time clocks.A light clock roundtrip in an inertial frame will appear time-dilated in any other moving inertial frame.Is this statement OK?Does it leave the SR contradictory regarding the determination of the proper time?Is the twin paradox still an paradox?What experiment proves the twin paradox not being a logical contradiction?
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 10/08/2020 12:08:11Quote from: Colin2B on 08/08/2020 08:54:34...I don’t see much point in you going over old ground with the SR scenarios, which have been done to death. The bigger question is whether you can take the electrodynamics paper and propose a rigorous alternative which allows accurate transforms and aligns with observations that the laws of electromagnetism are not frame dependent. The big outcome from the electrodynamics paper was the proposal that electric and magnetic fields are not separate, but are different aspects of a single electromagnetic field, can you preserve this or do you have a different proposal. I’m not aware David has got this far, but then I haven’t read his latest material, something I must make time to do.A light clock roundtrip is one of the best proper time clocks.A light clock roundtrip in an inertial frame will appear time-dilated in any other moving inertial frame.Is this statement OK?Does it leave the SR contradictory regarding the determination of the proper time?Is the twin paradox still an paradox?What experiment proves the twin paradox not being a logical contradiction?I don’t see how this answers my question about Einstein’s electrodynamics paper. You’ve obviously read it, but until you explain your problem with Maxwell’s equations, the asymmetry of magnetic and electric fields, and Einstein’s resolution of the problem I don’t see we have a common starting point.What are your proposals for resolving the problem?
It's honestly difficult to understand what you are asking. Based on what you were saying in the other thread, I'm guessing that you are trying to say that the light beam will look like it's traveling at a different speed in a frame that is moving relative to the car than in the frame of the car itself. That's not the case. The speed of light is the same in both frames. The consequence of this is that the light beam is seen to hit the far side of the cart at different times in each frame. In the frame where the light beam has to travel further, it takes longer to traverse the distance and thus will take longer to reach its target. That's relativity of simultaneity.
In their first meeting astronout A will say to B "Your clock has been lost 2 hours". Also Astronout B will answer: "Your clock has been lost 2 hours too". In their second meeting A will say " your clock has been lost 4 hours" B will answer the same,....against causality.
I wonder why no one address this problem? Has anyone encountered similar problem anywhere else?
In their first meeting astronout A will say to B "Your clock has been lost 2 hours". Also Astronout B will answer: "Your clock has been lost 2 hours too".
... against causality.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2020 11:44:08I wonder why no one address this problem? Has anyone encountered similar problem anywhere else?There's no problem except for a poorly expressed problem and even more poorly expressed comments below. That's probably why.Quote from: xersanozgen on 07/08/2020 11:06:21Unclear what is depicted. It shows a pair of elliptical paths that do not intersect, so it isn't really clear how they're going to meet each other. Presumably the paths are larger and the gap between them is far smaller than depicted.The picture indicates that Va=Vb suggesting that the two ships always have the same velocity in which case they cannot ever depart from each other's presence. This contradicts the picture which has the paths diverging, and the ships pointing in opposite directions.It does not seem that the scenario was taken from any legit physics site. As long as I'm making fun of the errors in the picture, I might as well point out that it assumes the naive Star-Wars rule that ships in space fly like airplanes, pointing in their direction of motion and banking through the turns (and making noise as they go by). In real physics, space ships point in the direction of acceleration, which implies that they should be pointed up and down respectively, not right and left as depicted.QuoteIn their first meeting astronout A will say to B "Your clock has been lost 2 hours". Also Astronout B will answer: "Your clock has been lost 2 hours too". I don't know how either astronaut can determine how long the other guy's clock has been lost, but as long as they find it before they meet, does it really matter?The paths appear symmetrical, so if the clocks were in sync at the first meeting, they'll still be in sync at each meeting. There's not even the appearance of a paradox to resolve.Quote ... against causality.What does this even mean?? How did causality suddenly appear in a discussion otherwise devoid of it? What caused each astronaut to lose his clock for hours? Who can tell?
Colin,Let me reach for a book, Hertz did it long time ago,Jano
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 10/08/2020 22:18:54Colin,Let me reach for a book, Hertz did it long time ago,JanoAh, I had hoped you might come up with your own idea.I am familiar with Thomas Phipps papers, somewhere I have some correspondence with him, but I must have archived it when changing system.If Galilean invariance was the only problem then Phipps could be correct, but we have to understand the history of these competing theories.Remember, at this time Lorentz had not yet formulated his ideas on electrons so experiments were performed, for example, with charged spheres and so there appeared to be similarities between electrostatics, magnetism and gravity - all viewed as action at a distance. Not only at a distance, but according to Newton, instantaneous action at a distance, Faraday thought this illogical and today we know he was right, but at the time the consensus was instantaneous at a distance. Riemann and Ludwig Lorenz showed, it was possible to modify action at a distance theories to yield finitely propagating electric waves analogous to light waves, and in constructing their theories both Helmholtz and Hertz followed this path.Maxwell’s theory wasn’t unique and Helmholtz was trying to determine which of the contending theories was correct. When Hertz was in Karlsruhe he took on Helmholtz’ role and showed that a theoretical decision could be made on the basis of predictions for closed currents; and he proved that Maxwell’s equations were compatible with the physical assumptions shared by all electrodynamic theories and that the equations of the contending theories (including his own) were not. He concluded that if the choice lay solely between Maxwell’s equations and the equations of the other type of theory, then Maxwell’s were clearly preferable (but he still didn’t endorse Maxwell’s physical interpretation of his equations, in particular Maxwell’s denial of action at-a-distance). It was not until after Hertz had turned to the production of electric waves in air, after he had published his first experiments on waves, that he at last dropped Helmholtz’s action at a distance viewpoint and in 1889 he announced that he could describe his results better from Maxwell’s contiguous action viewpoint.This move away from instantaneous action at a distance is really important and gives us insight into the effect of a charge moving inertially vs an accelerated charge, see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77171.msg577138#msg577138
I don’t see how this answers my question about Einstein’s electrodynamics paper. You’ve obviously read it, but until you explain your problem with Maxwell’s equations, the asymmetry of magnetic and electric fields, and Einstein’s resolution of the problem I don’t see we have a common starting point.What are your proposals for resolving the problem?