Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: GoC on 12/11/2016 15:54:11
-
Which do you understand and why?
-
This is not a trivial question. The answer has significant implications. Time dilation is a definite physical effect and has been confirmed experimentally. It may not be possible to confirm Lorentz contraction in the same way. It is then only via close examination of the mathematics of relativity that an insight can be gained.
-
This is not a trivial question. The answer has significant implications. Time dilation is a definite physical effect and has been confirmed experimentally. It may not be possible to confirm Lorentz contraction in the same way. It is then only via close examination of the mathematics of relativity that an insight can be gained.
Exactly! While there is no mechanical reason for contraction there is mathematics that show image contraction.
-
An observer is moving with the center of a circle in the x direction.
The first figure shows light arriving earlier from the perpendicular directions than from the x direction of motion, relative to the plane of simultaneity (red).
The second figure is the same except the circle is length contracted in the x direction. The light arrives simultaneously in the plane of simultaneity. Thus the reflection will be a mirror image of the radial emission. The observer sees a simultaneous reflection, even though the reflection occurs over an interval of space and time.
-
This is not a trivial question. The answer has significant implications. Time dilation is a definite physical effect and has been confirmed experimentally. It may not be possible to confirm Lorentz contraction in the same way. It is then only via close examination of the mathematics of relativity that an insight can be gained.
Exactly! While there is no mechanical reason for contraction there is mathematics that show image contraction.
Except that there is mechanical reason for contraction and there is evidence for contraction, i.e., if there was no contraction, one could not have time dilation, since one could not have a consistent theory.
-
This is not a trivial question. The answer has significant implications. Time dilation is a definite physical effect and has been confirmed experimentally. It may not be possible to confirm Lorentz contraction in the same way. It is then only via close examination of the mathematics of relativity that an insight can be gained.
Exactly! While there is no mechanical reason for contraction there is mathematics that show image contraction.
Except that there is mechanical reason for contraction and there is evidence for contraction, i.e., if there was no contraction, one could not have time dilation, since one could not have a consistent theory.
I have to ask. Contraction of what? It's not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you. It is important to determine exactly what is contracting.
-
J S Bell produced a very nice derivation of length contraction given movement relying on Maxwell's electromagnetism.
Harvey Brown wrote a nice paper about the derivation and its pros and cons. http://cds.cern.ch/record/396878/files/9908048.pdf
-
Except that there is mechanical reason for contraction and there is evidence for contraction,
There is no mechanical reason for contraction in SR. Visual image contraction is actually necessary with the finite speed of light and relativistic speeds. The competition of physical vector motion and the speed of light for image length changes in favor of the physical object moving through reflection as less able to reflect. For proof just change the speed of light in the Lorentz contraction and you will recognize its not a physical contraction. Its just a relativistic relationship to the speed of light.
if there was no contraction, one could not have time dilation,
The clock does not contract. With vector speed there is a geometry distance in space That affects the distance light moves relative to c. This distance slows the tick rate of a clock not contraction.
since one could not have a consistent theory.
Consistency comes from c as a constant. Motion removes a percentage of available c as equivalence to GR dilation in clocks. Both increase the distance light has to travel between ticks.
Rulers and clocks mutually change physically in dilation of GR. That is why Relativity works. if a clock contracted it would tick faster. We have to follow logic in our relativity equations.
-
Which do you understand and why?
A good question which has a variation of answers to an extensive subject. One could understand the Lorentz contraction to have several meanings in it's intent which could lead to ambiguity of thought.
If we were to perceive an object such as a train contracting in physical length when in motion that would be of fallacious thinking. However if we was to look at the distance differences of light relative to the angle(s) of vision of the moving object then the ''length'' of light is stretched or contracted between observer and the observed.
All objects seen are relative to deception, 3d objects becoming visual 2 dimensional to the observer , the greater the distance the object is viewed away.
Vision is pretty ''flat'' unless the object is in close proximity.
However in saying the above, there still exists volume contraction and volumes tend to have a length.
-
However in saying the above, there still exists volume contraction and volumes tend to have a length.
How do we measure volume as relativistic? With the use of light. Now if we understand relativity correctly in SR light is independent of the source. So the reflection and the object are in two different special positions when the image is received by an observer.
Two parallel trains at relative rest view each other as perpendicular. Each conductor views the other 90 degrees from the forward vector. There is a unbendable bar between the trains. From the at rest position each train is physically parallel and now traveling half the speed of light. As they approached the half speed of light each conductor viewed the other train as falling behind. The unbendable bar appears to bend towards the trailing train. Why? Because light is independent of the source. The vector of the image between them is no longer 90 degrees from the forward position. It is now 120 degrees from the forward position or 30 degrees behind parallel. The image beyond the train is traveling between the trains. So each conductor views what is behind the opposite train while they are physically parallel.
The Doppler effect does the same thing to light images for the perpendicular observer at relative rest. The observer at rest views the object at half the speed of light at a 120 degree angle rather than a 90 degree angle by the time the image reaches him. So the angle of light as the perpendicular position becomes a 30,60,90 geometry triangle. Cos 30 is 0.866025 contracted view. The Lorentz contraction at half the speed of light is 0.866025 which many consider physical contraction just because the image is contracted. Smoke and mirrors can fool most of us. The visual image is just smoke and mirrors.
-
If SR is only a visual effect then GR is the same. All you have to do is examine how things work under acceleration then apply the equivalence principle.
-
If SR is only a visual effect then GR is the same.
Unlikely, Relativity would not work as it does if rods and clocks did not change with dimensional dilation in GR.
All you have to do is examine how things work under acceleration then apply the equivalence principle.
Equivalence in GR to SR is at a specific point of dilation. You can have 9.8 m/s/s as you approach the speed of light your tick rate continues to slow. But dilation in GR at 9.8 m/s/s has a fixed clock tick rate by dilation of space time specific energy density. Dilation changes the length of rods and clocks as special changes in GR. Geometry shows the image changes in SR with competition between vector mass and light speed. Change the light speed in the Lorentz contraction and the ratio of contraction changes in SR. It is speed of light dependent for contraction Mathematically.
-
If SR is only a visual effect then GR is the same.
Unlikely, Relativity would not work as it does if rods and clocks did not change with dimensional dilation in GR.
All you have to do is examine how things work under acceleration then apply the equivalence principle.
Equivalence in GR to SR is at a specific point of dilation. You can have 9.8 m/s/s as you approach the speed of light your tick rate continues to slow. But dilation in GR at 9.8 m/s/s has a fixed clock tick rate by dilation of space time specific energy density. Dilation changes the length of rods and clocks as special changes in GR. Geometry shows the image changes in SR with competition between vector mass and light speed. Change the light speed in the Lorentz contraction and the ratio of contraction changes in SR. It is speed of light dependent for contraction Mathematically.
You just said it :"relativity wouldn't work...". That means it is not a visual effectz, it is real.
Time changes between points of different gravitational potential in a gravitational fileld. To have an increase of difference between clocks you need to increase distance between the two objects by free fall at acceleration g.
Under acceleration the same thing happens. Time dilation occurs as seen from a stationary object. The distance between them is increasing by the same acceleration g. If both clocks are in the same ship, the clocks at the bottom will not reduce its frequency over time but it will tick at a fixed frequency lowey that that at the top.
Change the speed of light is GR and rates of contration will change as well.
This looks very weird.
To have the same effect in gravity as in acceletation you need to do the same things.
In a gravity field if there is a fixed distance between two objects the clocks rates difference will remain constant because the object further away is accelerating at the same rate g. (Considering constant gravitational field. You don't need a gravitational field gradient at all). That is the key.
All of these mean if aether existed, an object with mass would pull in aether at an accelerated rate not at a constant rate. Perhaps it does.
-
You just said it :"relativity wouldn't work...". That means it is not a visual effectz, it is real.
Not necessarily. You regard relativity as physically real. In GR this is true with dilation. We seem to agree on this point GR changes in rods and clocks is physical. But we probably disagree about the meaning of dilation. An Ether would have to have particles further apart for a clock to slow down. Most scientists would believe more particles will slow light speed. This is because of SR contraction of the visual object.
With geometry we can see a change in the length of rods and clocks. What is interesting, for clocks the distance of added space to fundamental c slows the tick rate of a clock physically. The geometry of vector speed changes the length of your measuring stick as a reflection which becomes longer with added speed. The equivalence is the measuring stick changes your length of the meter exactly the amount to compensate for the clocks tick rate. Because of this the speed of light in a vacuum is always measured to be the same in every frame. The point becomes the measurement of the speed of light which is confounded to be the same relative to tick rate.
In GR dilation the physical size increases and the tick rate decreases. The distance of your meter stick increases and your clock allows more time for light to travel the extra distance. They are confounded also. That is the equivalence between SR and GR. I can show you the math in SR. We can view dilation in galaxies as lensing.
Einstein had trouble because of his belief in rigid mass relative to spacetime. That is the part he could not explain clearly. His gravity curve is 2 dimension description of a 3 dimensional affect.
also c is of space not mass. Electrons do not move themselves. Light is the electron friction to c during a jump to a higher orbit.
Navigating relativity mechanically is the only way to understand it properly.
-
I think there is a better way to explain this, and you are right, in a way. SR, is pure geometry and only involves time, length and speed and acceleration. GR says gravity is equivalent to acceleration but it is still geometry. All if these explain in fact the reality but at a basic level eve though they are geometric. Then Einstein introduced his equation with tensors still part of GR. These explain things at a level very close to fundamental.
So, yes you can say SR is a visual/geometric explanation of reality and so is GR up to the Einstein field equations.
-
I think there is a better way to explain this, and you are right, in a way. SR, is pure geometry and only involves time, length and speed and acceleration. GR says gravity is equivalent to acceleration but it is still geometry. All if these explain in fact the reality but at a basic level eve though they are geometric. Then Einstein introduced his equation with tensors still part of GR. These explain things at a level very close to fundamental.
So, yes you can say SR is a visual/geometric explanation of reality and so is GR up to the Einstein field equations.
Special relativity definitely does not include acceleration. That is the whole point of general relativity.
-
However in saying the above, there still exists volume contraction and volumes tend to have a length.
How do we measure volume as relativistic? With the use of light. Now if we understand relativity correctly in SR light is independent of the source. So the reflection and the object are in two different special positions when the image is received by an observer.
Two parallel trains at relative rest view each other as perpendicular. Each conductor views the other 90 degrees from the forward vector. There is a unbendable bar between the trains. From the at rest position each train is physically parallel and now traveling half the speed of light. As they approached the half speed of light each conductor viewed the other train as falling behind. The unbendable bar appears to bend towards the trailing train. Why? Because light is independent of the source. The vector of the image between them is no longer 90 degrees from the forward position. It is now 120 degrees from the forward position or 30 degrees behind parallel. The image beyond the train is traveling between the trains. So each conductor views what is behind the opposite train while they are physically parallel.
The Doppler effect does the same thing to light images for the perpendicular observer at relative rest. The observer at rest views the object at half the speed of light at a 120 degree angle rather than a 90 degree angle by the time the image reaches him. So the angle of light as the perpendicular position becomes a 30,60,90 geometry triangle. Cos 30 is 0.866025 contracted view. The Lorentz contraction at half the speed of light is 0.866025 which many consider physical contraction just because the image is contracted. Smoke and mirrors can fool most of us. The visual image is just smoke and mirrors.
how can light possibly be independent of the source as evidently I turn off the source , I turn off the light , I consider that the light is dependent of the source made by the source?
-
I think there is a better way to explain this, and you are right, in a way. SR, is pure geometry and only involves time, length and speed and acceleration. GR says gravity is equivalent to acceleration but it is still geometry. All if these explain in fact the reality but at a basic level eve though they are geometric. Then Einstein introduced his equation with tensors still part of GR. These explain things at a level very close to fundamental.
So, yes you can say SR is a visual/geometric explanation of reality and so is GR up to the Einstein field equations.
Special relativity definitely does not include acceleration. That is the whole point of general relativity.
I don't agree. SR can handle accelerations perfectly fine. Equivalence principle is the point, and then filed equations.
-
Except that there is mechanical reason for contraction and there is evidence for contraction,
There is no mechanical reason for contraction in SR.
I know that this fantasy is important to you. However, it is still a fantasy.
For proof just change the speed of light in the Lorentz contraction and you will recognize its not a physical contraction. Its just a relativistic relationship to the speed of light.
That doesn't sound like a proof to me. Change the speed of sound and you will find that sonic booms are not a physical sound, they are just a sonic relationship to the speed of sound.
if there was no contraction, one could not have time dilation,
The clock does not contract. With vector speed there is a geometry distance in space That affects the distance light moves relative to c. This distance slows the tick rate of a clock not contraction.
A nice collection of words that has no relationship to physical systems.
-
Special relativity definitely does not include acceleration. That is the whole point of general relativity.
Please, please, please look at any textbook on special relativity.
-
[quot]Special relativity definitely does not include acceleration. That is the whole point of general relativity.
Please, please, please look at any textbook on special relativity.[/quote]
Physbang thanks for joining in n the conversation. The statement I made is definitely misleading. I was in a hurry and it came out wrong. The scolding was appropriate. I have read up on the subjective interpretations of special Relativity through many years. My words have no meaning to you because our interpretations are different. My interpretations are mechanical and yours are strictly mathematical. Math can only prove a theory incorrect. So to follow the math of Relativity without a mechanical basis laves allot to be desired for truth. I am sure you feel frustrated with my approach since it does not follow what you were taught. I understand what you were taught.
First let me fix the statement I made. Special relativity definitely does not include acceleration. That is the whole point of general relativity.
Acceleration in Special Relativity does not affect tick rate of a clock. g=a for equivalence but only at a specific relationship with c. This point can be shown in both GR and SR.
You have a disadvantage in understanding mechanical Relativity because no one teaches mechanical Relativity. The math is great and proper. Its fitting the pieces together as you were taught that violates Relativity understanding.
Lets examine some of your understanding vs. my understanding by answering relative questions.
What causes the electron to move?
-
It is not as straight forward as it appears. See the posts here. The one mentioning quantum gravity is very interesting. The point made appears to have gone unremarked.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6742/acceleration-in-special-relativity (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6742/acceleration-in-special-relativity)
-
And we can also consider this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration)
-
Imagine Compton scattering that relied on an action that changed in a relativistic way. So no longer dependent on h as a constant.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/compeq.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/compeq.html)
-
I suspect it is a little more straight forward once it is understood properly. I know what the current understanding suggests but that understanding violates Relativity. An electron absorbing a photon particle and some how ejecting that particle at a different angle faster than the electron travels? Not to mention a photon being a particle has to be declared a virtual photon without mass to maintain Relativity mathematics.
Yes a photon carries energy but it does not have to be the same particle traveling through space to carry energy. If particles exist in space already at c spin it just becomes a type of propagation wave representing the electron. Motion at a lower speed causes the wave to have length because of the electron cycle distance. So the photon carries energy to macro mass as a type of radiation wave. No particle travels through space at the speed of light. c remains constant and Relativity mathematics are not violated.
if observations are ignored to favor an existing model that is not science.
two problems:
How does something slower cause something faster?
How can a particle move through space at light speed and have relativity be valid?
Virtual photon is a made up word to maintain the standard model. Of course if you do not want to follow Relativity anything can be made up.
The dual slit experiment with waves on c becomes a natural consequence. When you think you are firing electrons it is just the representative wave of the electron propagating through space at c. The dual slit becomes inconsequential.
For all of you who accept mathematics over mechanism shame on you.
-
So for the photon E = hc/lambda where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light and lambda is the wavelength. Rearranging we get E/h = c/lambda. We can restate this as h/E = lambda/c which can be represented by t = lambda/c. This indicates a relationship between a change in time and a change in wavelength. Not necessarily a length contraction in the accepted sense.
-
For all of you who accept mathematics over mechanism shame on you.
So, shame on Isaac Newton then?
-
If we apply gravitational time dilation to lambda/c we may find something of interest.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/gratim.html#c4 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/gratim.html#c4)
-
So for the photon E = hc/lambda where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light and lambda is the wavelength. Rearranging we get E/h = c/lambda. We can restate this as h/E = lambda/c which can be represented by t = lambda/c. This indicates a relationship between a change in time and a change in wavelength. Not necessarily a length contraction in the accepted sense.
Yes of course I accept the math but not E from the electron. E of space = c fundamental energy E. Change of time and change in wavelength are both clock and rod dependent in GR dilation of E. The h of wave length in dilated GR is the added length the electron travels in more dilated fundamental energy E. The rods are longer, the light has to travel further and the ticks are slower because the electron cycle has a longer distance to travel. The extra travel distance of the electron exactly matches the extra distance light has to travel. This causes the speed of light (in a vacuum) to be the same measured value in every frame and position in GR
Clock tick rate is not due to acceleration. It is due to the relative vector speed of mass to the speed of light. Deceleration causes what we describe as gravity along with acceleration causes gravity. Clocks tick faster during deceleration and clocks tick slower during acceleration. So we can see it is not acceleration causing tick rates.
In SR the rods appear longer but that is only visual. We can work that out mathematically to show the view changes for the rigid rod in length. The equivalence is the ratio to c in energy spent for inertial vector speed.
PhysBang:
So, shame on Isaac Newton then?
No, there were a couple of posts I read recently that suggested all we needed was the math for Relativity. They suggested the cause was unimportant. Its shame on them not old Newton or even Einstein. He tried to look for the mechanics to his postulates.
-
PhysBang:
So, shame on Isaac Newton then?
No, there were a couple of posts I read recently that suggested all we needed was the math for Relativity. They suggested the cause was unimportant. Its shame on them not old Newton or even Einstein. He tried to look for the mechanics to his postulates.
I'm not surprised that you are entirely ignorant of the work of Isaac Newton. Newton made a special point of adding to the second edition of his Principia the idea that when measurement evidence establishes mathematical relationships, one cannot abandon these relationships because one cannot determine the mechanism. Overcoming objections on the basis of a demand for mechanism was one of the main challenges Newton had to face in establishing this theory of gravity.
-
The Doppler effect does the same thing to light images for the perpendicular observer at relative rest. The observer at rest views the object at half the speed of light at a 120 degree angle rather than a 90 degree angle by the time the image reaches him. So the angle of light as the perpendicular position becomes a 30,60,90 geometry triangle. Cos 30 is 0.866025 contracted view. The Lorentz contraction at half the speed of light is 0.866025 which many consider physical contraction just because the image is contracted. Smoke and mirrors can fool most of us. The visual image is just smoke and mirrors.
Mirrors but no smoke, effectively any beams are of the imagination, mirrors also been observer effect.
A physical length contraction would be physically impossible for a few factors.
For a train carriage to contract in physical length at any speed,
either
a) the front of the train would have to be travelling at a slower speed than the rear of the carriage
b) the rear of the train would have to be travelling faster than the front of the carriage.
c)or the carriage would have to become curved.
-
For a train carriage to contract in physical length at any speed,
either
a) the front of the train would have to be travelling at a slower speed than the rear of the carriage
b) the rear of the train would have to be travelling faster than the front of the carriage.
Very well reasoned.
Now think how speed + slower and faster are calculated, then you have the answer.
-
PhysBang
Interestingly you take what I have said out of context. What are you jealous about? I totally agree with relativistic math. I agree with the observations. I have reservations about the subjective standard model.
Specifically:
1. A photon being physical mass traveling through space at c.
This violates relativity. Just calling it virtual does not explain away the root problem.
2. The Lorentz contraction.
In SR we can calculate by geometry the extra distance light has to travel for reflection off an object. Light being independent of the source. This calculation is the same as the Lorentz contraction. So the contraction is a visual contraction and not physical contraction.
3. Gravity being curved space.
This is a 2 dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional issue. It is the dilation of space in GR causing a relationship of attraction to the center of mass. Not a torsion of a curve. The torsion can follow gravity attraction to the center but that suggests a different mechanism than dilation.
4. Using only SR red shift for distance without taking into account GR red shift.
This will cause an inaccurate relationship between galaxies in the same neighborhood. The larger galaxies will have a greater red shift and mathematically have a greater distance. The lensing affect is the dilation of a galaxy. there is an accumulated dilation affect.
Colin2B
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 03:44:09
For a train carriage to contract in physical length at any speed,
either
a) the front of the train would have to be travelling at a slower speed than the rear of the carriage
b) the rear of the train would have to be travelling faster than the front of the carriage.
Very well reasoned.
Now think how speed + slower and faster are calculated, then you have the answer
By which observer?
Using only SR if you synchronize clocks in the front of a train the one you take to the back from the direction of travel adds ticks until it reaches the back of the train. Once in the back of the train the front and back tick at the same rate but there is an offset where the rear clock is ahead of the front clock. When you send the signal from the back to the front the signal will show they remained synchronous if the train remains inertial. If you send the signal from front to back they will once again appear to be synchronized. That just means the same thing affects light and clocks equally. Physically there is a difference in clock time but not tick rate. An observer at rest with a magic photograph would view the difference in readouts. Mechanical clocks follow light clocks.
The conclusion:
Light and the electron are confounded in every frame.
So rather than measuring with time we measure with relativistic time related to c.
And once again measure by what observer?
SR Size is visually relative to c.
GR Size is physically relative to c.
-
PhysBang
Interestingly you take what I have said out of context. What are you jealous about?
Sure, jealousy is the only motivation that someone could have to correct your untrue statements about Isaac Newton and physics in general.
I totally agree with relativistic math. I agree with the observations. I have reservations about the subjective standard model.
OK, so you objections about something that exists in your head and nowhere in practicing physics. Fair enough.
Specifically:
1. A photon being physical mass traveling through space at c.
This violates relativity. Just calling it virtual does not explain away the root problem.
This is something that you invented, it is not something that is in physics.
2. The Lorentz contraction.
Why tell the lie, "I totally agree with relativistic math," if you are almost immediately going to reveal that you are lying. The Lorentz contraction is part of "relativistic math".
In SR we can calculate by geometry the extra distance light has to travel for reflection off an object. Light being independent of the source. This calculation is the same as the Lorentz contraction. So the contraction is a visual contraction and not physical contraction.
You seem hopelessly ignorant of the actual physics. The Lorentz contraction has nothing to do with light reflecting off an object. It originates from determining where the ends of a length are at a given time. This will, in part, determine how something looks, but it will also determine what things collide with what other things.
3. Gravity being curved space.
This is a 2 dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional issue. It is the dilation of space in GR causing a relationship of attraction to the center of mass. Not a torsion of a curve. The torsion can follow gravity attraction to the center but that suggests a different mechanism than dilation.
Again, why tell the lie about, "I totally agree with relativistic math," if you are almost immediately going to reveal that you are lying. Why don't you try to learn how to do a relativistic gravity application and see how it actually works?
4. Using only SR red shift for distance without taking into account GR red shift.
This will cause an inaccurate relationship between galaxies in the same neighborhood. The larger galaxies will have a greater red shift and mathematically have a greater distance. The lensing affect is the dilation of a galaxy. there is an accumulated dilation affect.
Again, you speak in ignorance. Astronomers do take all kinds of redshift into account. In fact, I cannot recall any astronomer using some kind of SR only redshift in contemporary cosmology; all redshift discussed is that from GR or from dust interference.
-
Well here is something more interesting. We can say t = h/E. If we take h to be at a minimum at infinity then we can make the variable substitution of t = u/E. So that it is not the frequency that changes but an amplitude. Just a different way of looking at the same phenomena.
-
Well here is something more interesting. We can say t = h/E. If we take h to be at a minimum at infinity then we can make the variable substitution of t = u/E. So that it is not the frequency that changes but an amplitude. Just a different way of looking at the same phenomena.
Thank you jefferyH. We need to look into our environment in as many ways as possible to make progress.
PhysBang
I am sorry what I say is upsetting you. You look at the Universe as relativistic measurements. So your conclusions are the physical follows the math. I view relativistic math as a tool to understanding the physical universe. I do understand what main stream teaches and I agree with relativistic math. We just have a different perspective. You seem jealous of what and the way you were taught. I must have hit a protection nerve. Until science reconfigures its thinking progress in mechanics for relativity will suffer.
Explain in detail where you believe I am lying. I totally believe relativity. Show me my mistake. Just saying am lying without explanation of the lie is pure emotion.
We can start with the expanding universe if you like as SR red shift and space expansion. Cepheid variables are also on the table if you like.
-
PhysBang
I am sorry what I say is upsetting you. You look at the Universe as relativistic measurements. So your conclusions are the physical follows the math. I view relativistic math as a tool to understanding the physical universe. I do understand what main stream teaches and I agree with relativistic math. We just have a different perspective.
I suppose so. From my perspective, you simply say one thing and then another, without any care for what physics has actually been studied and established or what you pretend to commit to from one sentence to the next.
You seem jealous of what and the way you were taught.
I must admit, I do have a certain jealousy that the things that I say generally are held to some standard of truth whereas yours do not seem to be held to any standard.
Explain in detail where you believe I am lying. I totally believe relativity. Show me my mistake. Just saying am lying without explanation of the lie is pure emotion.
At this point the proper response is, "Are you f*cking kidding?" I gave a detailed response above: you claim to believe in one thing but then you directly deny that thing. Now, I get it if you are one of those clueless people who just goes about imagining the content of physics and spouts off without understanding the contradictions you are making.
We can start with the expanding universe if you like as SR red shift and space expansion. Cepheid variables are also on the table if you like.
Can you give a single example of SR redshift used in cosmology?
-
PhysBang
Interestingly you take what I have said out of context. What are you jealous about? I totally agree with relativistic math. I agree with the observations. I have reservations about the subjective standard model.
Specifically:
1. A photon being physical mass traveling through space at c.
This violates relativity. Just calling it virtual does not explain away the root problem.
2. The Lorentz contraction.
In SR we can calculate by geometry the extra distance light has to travel for reflection off an object. Light being independent of the source. This calculation is the same as the Lorentz contraction. So the contraction is a visual contraction and not physical contraction.
3. Gravity being curved space.
This is a 2 dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional issue. It is the dilation of space in GR causing a relationship of attraction to the center of mass. Not a torsion of a curve. The torsion can follow gravity attraction to the center but that suggests a different mechanism than dilation.
4. Using only SR red shift for distance without taking into account GR red shift.
This will cause an inaccurate relationship between galaxies in the same neighborhood. The larger galaxies will have a greater red shift and mathematically have a greater distance. The lensing affect is the dilation of a galaxy. there is an accumulated dilation affect.
Colin2B
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 03:44:09
For a train carriage to contract in physical length at any speed,
either
a) the front of the train would have to be travelling at a slower speed than the rear of the carriage
b) the rear of the train would have to be travelling faster than the front of the carriage.
Very well reasoned.
Now think how speed + slower and faster are calculated, then you have the answer
By which observer?
Using only SR if you synchronize clocks in the front of a train the one you take to the back from the direction of travel adds ticks until it reaches the back of the train. Once in the back of the train the front and back tick at the same rate but there is an offset where the rear clock is ahead of the front clock. When you send the signal from the back to the front the signal will show they remained synchronous if the train remains inertial. If you send the signal from front to back they will once again appear to be synchronized. That just means the same thing affects light and clocks equally. Physically there is a difference in clock time but not tick rate. An observer at rest with a magic photograph would view the difference in readouts. Mechanical clocks follow light clocks.
The conclusion:
Light and the electron are confounded in every frame.
So rather than measuring with time we measure with relativistic time related to c.
And once again measure by what observer?
SR Size is visually relative to c.
GR Size is physically relative to c.
Moving one clock to the rear of the train has no affect on the train or the trains speed or the trains time. It doesn't matter if the clocks tick slower or if the clocks tick faster , I assure you there is no change in the trains journey time. You are enclosing your clocks in time. Time surrounds your clocks and is constant like the length of the train is constant ,
Take note the front of a train arrives before the rear .
-
Quote
You seem jealous of what and the way you were taught.
I must admit, I do have a certain jealousy that the things that I say generally are held to some standard of truth whereas yours do not seem to be held to any standard.
I am not trying to be held to the standard subjective model. This is the new theories section.
If you hold yourself to some standard of truth please explain my lie.
What you call standard of truth is just subjective agreement.
I gave a detailed response above: you claim to believe in one thing but then you directly deny that thing. Now, I get it if you are one of those clueless people who just goes about imagining the content of physics and spouts off without understanding the contradictions you are making.
You are making general claims without pointing out what you believe is the correct response. The contradictions might be in your understanding. Bring up my contradictions as you believe them and we can discuss your objections.
Can you give a single example of SR redshift used in cosmology?
Yes, the Big Bang where all galaxies are moving away from us. Blue shift in SR suggests objects are moving towards us and SR red shift away from us. All galaxies appear red shifted from our position.
Now can you show me where I lied previously?
thebox
Moving one clock to the rear of the train has no affect on the train or the trains speed or the trains time. It doesn't matter if the clocks tick slower or if the clocks tick faster , I assure you there is no change in the trains journey time. You are enclosing your clocks in time. Time surrounds your clocks and is constant like the length of the train is constant ,
.
With synchronized clocks in the front of a inertial train, if one is moved to the back, the clock moved to the back will tick faster until the clock comes to rest in the back of the train. Then they will resume the same tick rate.
Take note the front of a train arrives before the rear
Yes and the difference in recorded time is the speed of light from the front to the back of the train.
-
Moving one clock to the rear of the train has no affect on the train or the trains speed or the trains time. It doesn't matter if the clocks tick slower or if the clocks tick faster , I assure you there is no change in the trains journey time. You are enclosing your clocks in time. Time surrounds your clocks and is constant like the length of the train is constant ,
.
With synchronized clocks in the front of a inertial train, if one is moved to the back, the clock moved to the back will tick faster until the clock comes to rest in the back of the train. Then they will resume the same tick rate.
Take note the front of a train arrives before the rear
Yes and the difference in recorded time is the speed of light from the front to the back of the train.
You are failing to recognise the very simple error you are making in your thinking.
A very long car makes a journey of 100 mile, on the speedometer it reads 100 mph and remains 100 mph when the car passes point (A).
The car arrives at point (B) 1 hour later, travelling a constant 100 mph for the entire journey.
At the front and rear of the car is two Caesium clocks. Both clocks ''tick'' at different rates.
So in this scenario I am using the speedometer constant to time my journey.
Can you please tell me how either of the Caesium clocks affect the journey time?
The answer is they don't, the velocity is constant and the time is constant relative to the speed of 100 mph. In short when an apple falls to the ground at constant G, it always takes the same amount of time to fall the distance it falls from.
-
Can you give a single example of SR redshift used in cosmology?
Yes, the Big Bang where all galaxies are moving away from us. Blue shift in SR suggests objects are moving towards us and SR red shift away from us. All galaxies appear red shifted from our position.
OK, so your answer tells me that you are just a crazy person. Thank you, we're done.
-
OK, so your answer tells me that you are just a crazy person. Thank you, we're done.
Red Shift
When the light from a galaxy which is moving away from you is observed the wavelength of the observed light appears longer, it moves towards the red end of the spectrum. This is called RED SHIFT.
Direct quote from Physicsnet.co.uk
Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer
Direct quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
PhysBang do you often feel the rest of the world is crazy?
Challenge me on anything I have said but please do not make straw man arguments. That is beneath any true scientist
-
OK, so your answer tells me that you are just a crazy person. Thank you, we're done.
Red Shift
When the light from a galaxy which is moving away from you is observed the wavelength of the observed light appears longer, it moves towards the red end of the spectrum. This is called RED SHIFT.
Direct quote from Physicsnet.co.uk
Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer
Direct quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
PhysBang do you often feel the rest of the world is crazy?
Challenge me on anything I have said but please do not make straw man arguments. That is beneath any true scientist
To be clear, you are quoting things that have absolutely nothing to do with SR.
-
OK, so your answer tells me that you are just a crazy person. Thank you, we're done.
Red Shift
When the light from a galaxy which is moving away from you is observed the wavelength of the observed light appears longer, it moves towards the red end of the spectrum. This is called RED SHIFT.
Direct quote from Physicsnet.co.uk
Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer
Direct quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
PhysBang do you often feel the rest of the world is crazy?
Challenge me on anything I have said but please do not make straw man arguments. That is beneath any true scientist
To be clear, you are quoting things that have absolutely nothing to do with SR.
So you believe vector speed red shift has nothing to do with SR? Or the equivalence between SR and GR in red shift also has nothing to do with SR? I am interested in what you understand about SR that I am missing. I am always willing to learn.