0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular.
You claim science believes time is a dimension.
That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.
QuoteYou said there is no time dimension, so how do you now have a time dimension that's a dimension of size?Aether Particles spin and Mass dilates the Aether particles so energy density decreases in the presents of mass. The measuring stick increases in size to measure a different mile than less dilated mass. You always measure the same speed of light in both GR dilation and SR visual increase in length. The hypotenuse of SR and the dilation of GR has equivalence in Euclidean space.
You said there is no time dimension, so how do you now have a time dimension that's a dimension of size?
2d complimentary spin on one sheet than a 90 degree at a 45 degree offset for the next sheet. Axils cannot be the same between sheets and this allows flex. The third sheet is the same as the first. The funny thing it would look like a string vibrating. The electron moves as a rotation around a half string. Energy pushes the electron along. One atom dilates space energy. The electron moves out of the proton at the rotation motion of the speed of light. Space becomes less dilated and the friction with energy curves the electron back to the proton where another electron moves out to cycle. There is one more negatron than positron in protons and neutrons are equal matter to antimatter electrons. Each spin state is complimentary when they pass for less resistance keeping the proton together. Gravity is mass attracted to the most dilated space of least resistance.
Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?
Your model and math was chosen for contraction. In my model there is no contraction physically in SR.
But there is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.
There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction.
The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.
Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light.
You aren't doing SR - you're doing something radically different, and it fails to describe the real universe. Any model that is meant to match up to the real universe has to be able to handle that contraction.
What the reference frame camera program shows is the positions of all objects at a single moment of time according to the clock of a selected frame of reference, but there's nothing wrong with that - it represents what must actually be happening in the real universe rather than giving a picture distorted by communication delays. A model that can handle objects contracting to half their rest length at 0.866c as they circle a ring such that twice as many can fit in the same space as the can at rest is a model that matches up to the real universe, whereas a model that can't handle that does not. The first thing that you should be trying to account for with your model is MMX. Look at the first two interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html again to see what happens if you don't length-contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it's only in the second version that you can get the null result that the real experiment generates.
If all the action is taking place on a plane that's set perpendicular to the direction you're looking in, the further away you are from that action, the closer your view gets to the "God view" (which is the view used in the interactive diagrams and simulations). Viewed from far enough away, the difference between what you see and the "God view" becomes so small as to become irrelevant, the Doppler effect being as good as removed from it. You don't have to go to such extremes though as you can take photographs of the action from close to with each pixel right up against whatever it's photographing, which is the idea that my reference frame camera is based on - you just have to synchronise all the pixel clocks for a specific frame of reference and you are taking "God view" pictures.
The Doppler effect is something that can be corrected for to provide the "God view", so it isn't the issue you imagine it to be - it merely complicates the calculations when you're trying to view things from unfavourable locations. It's a massive mistake to imagine that by viewing things from unfavourable positions you can avoid the need for length-contraction in a theory.
When you say perpendicular, do you actually mean parallel? What you're describing though sounds very similar to the interactive diagrams I've used for the MMX, so if you can't produce diagrams of your own, why not just refer to mine and switch the numbers around to match (I use a speed of 0.867c instead of 0.5c, leading to 60 degree angles where you have 30 and 30 where you have 60, and where I have length-contraction to 0.5, you should have it to 0.867).
The big issue for you to deal with first though is the length-contraction which you claim not to need,
so that means your model fits the first of the two interactive diagrams (which doesn't match up to the real universe) rather than the second interactive diagram (which SR and LET both match up to). What is your fix for this?
Do you deny the null result of MMX or do you want to maintain that the length-contraction is imaginary and that the Doppler effect has a role in producing the null result instead?
The Doppler effect can confuse things where one-way trips are involved, but the MMX uses light on round trips where they go from one mirror to another and back again, and if you don't length-contract an arm that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, it must take longer for light to complete the round trip on that path than it takes on the other arm, which means there shouldn't be a null result - the Doppler effect has no impact on the result of this experiment whatsoever.
But it is not physical contraction only visual because of the finite speed of light. We can never view an object where it resides in space. There is no perpendicular view only an angle different from perpendicular. It is the angle of view that causes contraction of view.
I am beginning to understand your subjective training in relativity.
Your belief in contraction as physical is not a Euclidean understanding. I can explain why its only visual using plane geometry. A physical contraction is impossible in relativity postulates. The postulate light being independent of the source contracts the view by angle. If there is also a physical contraction it would not follow observations.
There is a visual contraction by angle of view.
The God's view you are referring to is the real position of an object which in relativistic view of finite speed of light is impossible.
Your program cannot show a view other than position being the same as the view as perpendicular in the same frame. The same frame does not have a perpendicular view In my SR following the postulates properly.
No, God's view allows a perpendicular view the relativity postulates do not. This is a simple issue. What is the problem?
Half the speed of light is simple to understand the hypotenuse is the angle between parallel mirrors that light takes through space. ).866 causes a clock to tick at half the tick rate of an observer at rest.
Show you relativity postulates cause contraction of view and if you contracted them a second time physically they would no longer represent the world view.
The Doppler only sets the angle of view. What you believe to be perpendicular when you set the mirrors are self adjusting when you test the angle with light. Of course you get a null result. The two way distance for light with velocity in any direction will always be the same in Euclidean Space. It was main streams expectation of the experiment where light would be affected by direction that was incorrect. Its the same as clocks tick the same in any angle to velocity.
The Doppler has little affect in the clock. It is the angle of light with vector velocity that slows the clock using light as independent of the source. Why do you have a block there?
You have to unlearn your subjective interpretation to follow relativity and the finite speed of light by the angles created with velocity changing the angle of view.
We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed.
David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.
DavidThe subjective view of contraction being real has no real basis in main streams view of nothing in space for resistance to mass.
I can't correct your misunderstanding of relativity by breaking my understanding of it.
Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.
If you can't get this stuff now after all the help I've given you, then there's probably no hope for you - you will never get up to speed with relativity, but I can't tell how stuck in the mud you are - maybe, just maybe, you'll have sufficient intelligence to extract yourself from your predicament. In my experience, very few people ever do, but you might be an exception, so I wish you well. Good luck, but for pity's sake, please do the maths to test your beliefs properly.
Quote from: David Cooper on 06/05/2017 21:48:35Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.Quite clearly by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .For looking down on your railway track you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track length.
You ignored my example and made one of your own.
Here is one inconsistent with physical contraction of length. You cannot get around this observation with your belief in physical contraction. If you can find a way around it I will have to reconsider physical length contraction. I discarded physical contraction because of this observation.
All light clocks tick at the same rate independent of their orientation. Using the postulate light being independent of the source and light is constant lets look at orientation. When mirrors are aligned with the direction of travel and light being constant, length contraction would have a faster tick rate than when the mirrors are 90 degrees to vector speed.
My relativity uses Euclidean space, Euclidean time based on c with no physical contraction. All observations remain the same using relativity mathematics. E=c and E=mc^2 because c moves the electrons.
I will understand if you still maintain a physical contraction belief but will not understand your reasoning. I was taught physical contraction but could not resolve the light clock by orientation. If one observation fails the theory fails.
For me physical contraction failed while visual contraction is a natural result of the relativity postulates.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/05/2017 02:31:32Quote from: David Cooper on 06/05/2017 21:48:35Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.Quite clearly by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .For looking down on your railway track you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track length.Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Box,You are going off on a diversion. Clearly if the trains moved at 0.866c on a small tabletop our eyes would see a blur and not be able to make out anything as a train at all, but you are expected to have sufficient intelligence to separate out irrelevant issues from the ones that matter in the thought experiment so that you don't prevent yourself from understanding what's being illustrated. It's your job to fix all the small details for yourself, such as giving yourself better eyesight with a superior frame rate so that you can see the action properly, and this can be done by using a special camera which can record the action and play it back to you, thereby showing up the length-contraction on the trains. If you can't conceive of such advanced camera technology, you can go in a different direction by scaling up the experiment, perhaps using a table a light-minute long (apx. ten million miles). That is your job and not mine. It is also your job to design ways of developing trains capable of cornering at such a high speed without coming off the rails or vaporising them. Thought experiments require you do do some work in thinking your way round them - you are supposed to focus on relevant aspects of them and not waste your time trying to undermine them in ways that have no bearing on the principles being explored. Unless you approach them the right way, you are hampering your learning, which explains why there is still no evidence on show that you have ever managed to do any.
Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...
... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...
..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the thought.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/05/2017 19:22:15Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...QuoteWhere does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further. For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice . Quote... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...QuoteAnd how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''. This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like, Quote..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the thought.QuoteTo your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down. P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)
Where does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.
And how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.
To your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.