Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: McQueen 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)!
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/5da5/oxu9c1vofct329z4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/oxu9c1vofct329z/invariance_of_light.jpg)
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.
-
"t goes absolutely against every practical experience known to mankind! "
Does your GPS work?
If so, that's an experience which goes along with the invariance of the speed of light.
-
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.
No, the speed on sound is not invariant. The speed of sound is constant relative to the medium carrying it, and thus the speed of sound relative to you depends of the motion of the medium relative to you. If someone is upwind of you the sound they make would take less time to reach you than the sound made by someone an equal distance from you but downwind. Relative to you, the sound coming from one direction travels faster.
The same would happen on a calm day if you were moving relative to the air from pone person to the other. If both of them made a sound at the exact moment you were have way between them, you would hear the sound coming from the person you are heading towards before you hear it coming from the one you are walking towards. If you were standing still relative o the air, and they were both traveling in the same direction, then if they made sounds at the same time, you would hear them at the same time. While the speed of sound relative to you does not depend on the source's velocity with respect to the medium, it does depend on your velocity with respect to the medium.
With light in a vacuum, this is not the case. You always measure the speed of light as being c relative to you. So for example with your flashlight and plane example, if you are at rest with respect to the flashlight you measure both the flashlight and plane's light running neck and neck at ~300,000 km/sec relative to yourself. (the plane and the front edge of the beams would be separating at 0.1c) If you are riding in the plane, you would measure both lights traveling neck and neck relative to the plane.(the flashlight and front edge of the beams would be separating at 1.9c)
With sound, if the plane where traveling at mach 0.9 relative to the air and the flashlight at rest with with respect to it, both the plane and flashlight would agree that the sound traveled at mach 1 relative to the flashlight and at mach 0.1 relative to the Plane.
Sound and light can not be equated in this manner.
-
It can also depend on observational methods. It is known light can be bent by gravity, ie:, path of the photon being affected by the gravity of the sun. To the photon, there is no change in speed, but from point a to point b one would logically assume because of the greater distance traveled there would be a discrepancy in the apparent speed of light. Now carry that further and you can assume the medium the photon travels in can affect the observed speed. Could the speed of light potentially be affected by air molecules due to gravitational pull of the molecules, Yes in my book, significant difference, it depends on the time of travel.
-
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!
I understand the point, but the constancy of the speed of light doesn't go against attempts to measure the speed of light: those always show a constant speed in a vacuum relative to a local system of coordinates.
One could say that things that are colored red go against all experience of things that aren't red, but that wouldn't be particularly informative. Language that ignores the real evidence for contemporary relativity theory makes it seem that relativity theory is merely conceptual and undercuts the empirical evidence for the theory.
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 than 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.
Except that we have reasons to believe that, in the normal world, the cars aren't actually moving according to Galilean transformations; it's just that Galilean transformations are a really good approximation to the actual transformations that the cars obey. We can use the Lorentz transformations for the cars and get the same answers, well within allowable error, to the standard physics problems. We just know that there are circumstances where the Lorentz transformations give us a more accurate picture of the relevant physics.
I was thinking about this problem when it occurred to me that the speed of sound (because it is a wave) is also invariant.
It might be invariant with respect to the medium, but the speed of a particular sound on Earth relative to Mars will be different than the speed of that sound relative to the Earth. This is different to the constancy of the speed of light: the speed is constant relative to any well-formed system of coordinates that we might choose. This is not a simple difference, since our time coordinates can be different as well as the relative position of spatial axes over time. And the ramification of this do trickle down to the transformations that govern cars, unlike the limitations of the speed of sound in a medium.
-
No, the speed on sound is not invariant. The speed of sound is constant relative to the medium carrying it, and thus the speed of sound relative to you depends of the motion of the medium relative to you. If someone is upwind of you the sound they make would take less time to reach you than the sound made by someone an equal distance from you but downwind. Relative to you, the sound coming from one direction travels faster.
Bringing the wind into it is surely not the point in question here? For instance when talking about the constancy of the speed of light it is always "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant." and never just the speed of light is constant. I think you have a lot of your facts mixed up.
The speed of sound is a property of the medium. Sound is not an object, but a disturbance in a given medium, so it will always travel at the rate the medium prescribes. The only way to change its speed is to change the medium somehow (typically temperature in air). This means that the fact a person is moving or not is immaterial to the speed that the sound travels with providing that the medium remains unchanged. If you are moving relative to the sound the frequency might change but the velocity of the sound will remain the same.
-
It's interesting how when a statement is made most look for the differences rather than the sameness. Sound through a medium is very similar to light in the wave form. The medium of a vacuum obviously cannot be transported but that does not mean there is no medium. Air can be transported so we have a difference. If there is an Aether type medium it has to be somewhat static by position and rotate by c. This would actually create relativity measurements. A photon would propagate by c and the electron would rotationally cycle by c. Creating the background for mechanical and light clocks tick at the same rate in every frame.
Dilation by mass would dilute the Aether by expanding the distance between Aether particles. So energy would be of space and not mass. Mass would just be a conduit for c spin as energy of space. How can a slower electron produce a faster photon in any mechanical sense?
-
If you're looking for a parallel, consider thought experiments using a sound clock. If it's moving along through the air it will run slow, but if you have a second sound clock and accelerate it away from the first one to travel at higher or slower speed, then turn it round and bring it back to reunite it with the first one, the one that's done these accelerations will have recorded less time than the one which moved at a constant speed throughout (the difference being down to the second clock's different speeds of travel through the air). The relationship between the time kept by these clocks is exactly the same mathematically as the one you get with light clocks. The big difference is that we have a means to detect our movement through air, so we don't make the mistake of assuming the air doesn't exist when doing experiments with sound clocks. What is weird though is that people make exactly that mistake when it comes to light, because even though the fabric of space can't be detected, we know that it must be there because it has a crucial role in hosting the functionality of separation and distance between all the things that we can detect. If it's literally nothing, then there can be no separation or distance between things. It is a fabric within which things reside and through which they travel.
Not only must light travel through a medium (a space fabric such as "aether" or "Spacetime"), but it also has to have a consistent speed limit through that medium rather than doing a wide range of different speeds along the same path all at the same time. When you actually push SR to its extremes though, you reach a point where you realise that light has to travel all paths in zero time covering zero distance, and while the believers deny that, it is a necessary extension of their insistence that fast moving objects moving close to the speed of light cover their journeys in next to zero time while covering next to zero distance. This ability of light to travel from the start of the universe to the end in zero time on a path of zero distance also destroys all possibility of causality having any real role in anything, leaving you depending on infinite improbability instead to account for all the apparent causation which is written through the universe. Shifting to an alternative explanation of SR to avoid that problem immediately kills the claim that time never runs slow on any path, which turns it into a contrived version of Lorentz Ether Theory with a superfluous "time dimension" cobbled onto it to work in conjunction with Newtonian time (which would be needed to allow "time" to run slow on some paths). Sadly, few people appear to be able to hold all these ideas in their head well enough to process them all and recognise that the Spacetime model doesn't work, so they generally jump between incompatible explanations and models while imagining that they all somehow hang together as a viable theory, but they don't. Where there are contradictions in a theory, that theory is broken.
My web page on this subject ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html ) has been up for several years now and it has survived all the attempts of a number of professional physicists to shoot it down - all they ever do is run away when they realise they have no answers and that they can't find a fault in it, because none of them have had sufficient courage to admit that it's right. The interactive exam (which requires nothing more than a series of yes/no answers) is designed to force them to identify the point at which they believe my argument is broken, but they refuse to say which question they failed the exam on because it spells out to them the consequences if that part is to be rejected - the result is that they don't dare to point to a fault but have to run away instead (or more often, slink away silently while hoping no one will notice). The open invitation remains in place - if any of them really understand relativity as well as they claim they do, they should be able to find the fault in the argument and spell out what it is, at which point I have promised to rewrite the page to explain where the argument is wrong and to turn it into the endorsement of Einstein's relativity that I had originally intended it to be when I started writing it a decade ago. It really can't be made any easier for them than it is - a short series of simple questions with yes/no answers, and the right answer to each question is the one on the left, making it hard to fail. To pass the exam is to agree that my argument is correct. To fail it involves failing on a numbered question which should identify a clear point at which the person takes issue with the argument, but it would be embarrassing for anyone to state the number of the question(s) they failed on because the interactive exam always spells out to them exactly what magic they have to believe in in order to get the wrong answer, and that's why they don't admit where they failed the test. This has now become an important psychological study into herd mentality and the degree to which standard "scientific" beliefs can be equivalent to a religion with people failing to recognise that they have bought into the irrational.
-
I know exactly where you are coming from and good on you. A shake up now and then is a very good thing. I have been investigating your trigonometry for time dilation. That was a breath of fresh air.
-
If observers disagree on the ''speed'' of time, they must disagree on speed.
t1(γ)/dx is not equal to t2(γ)/dx
-
My web page on this subject ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html) ) has been up for several years now
Thanks David, I'll take a look.
I have always had a great respect for you and your posts. Unlike many who claim to know physics but make fundamental errors, you are sound in your understanding.
I take an agnostic view, that we don't know what lies below the vacuum or em field, and may never know, but it is clearly different from the luminiferous ether that was postulated.
I'll have a read, might not be back soon as rather busy.
Good to see you back
-
Very interesting David but I had to stop taking the relativity test because to me you made a straw man argument about time claiming that is how Einstein recognized time. Time is just energy related to a measurement of distance. So different frames have different energy levels available and the energy level dictates the tick rate of a clock. Everything is in the present but the view is always from the past. We can only observe an event that already happened but not when it happened in its present. Its your understanding of time that allows you to disbelieve relativity and if what you are saying about what is being taught is true no wonder we have not progressed. I am shocked if what you are saying about Einstein is true about his understanding. All views are equally valid because none are valid. It would be incorrect to say they are equally invalid. The present - relativity of simultaneity is the equally valid view.
Contraction of time is actually an increase in distance as you have suggested. Contraction of view is an angle different from perpendicular.
If you follow the postulates properly you will notice there is no such thing as a perpendicular view with velocity. And everything has velocity
Take half the speed of light you are looking at perpendicular from a past position at an angle of the hypotenuse of a 30,60,90 triangle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 relative to 1 at rest. So basically light has to travel 1.133075 relative between mirrors for the clocks tick rate. At your 0.866 relative speed to an at rest observer the distance of space added between mirrors reduces the tick rate to 1/2 that of the observer at relative rest. Time is just an artifact of distance traveled relative to a straight line c. There are two types of energy. Well actually only one c. Kinetic energy is a conduit for total space energy c. Total available energy c - kinetic energy used = clock tick rate. Why would anyone consider time as anything other than a chosen cycle distance?
The equivalence is in GR as dilation where the radius expands for the density of energy particles c. At the speed of light the expansion of energy can no longer keep atoms apart and a BH forms
-
Very interesting David but I had to stop taking the relativity test because to me you made a straw man argument about time claiming that is how Einstein recognized time.
I need to know which question number you had a problem with so that I can find out where this straw man argument was and whether it breaks the argument or if the argument needs to be modified to resolve whatever issue you have with it.
Time is just energy related to a measurement of distance.
Time is tied tightly to the sequence of events in chains of causation with past events dictating the ability of future ones to occur, so how can that be tied into your definition? Causation chains depend on befores and afters and must run through all in sequence. When running through those events in sequence, there are points during the processing when future events have not happened yet while past events have happened, and the time that clocks measure can vary on different paths from the same starting point to the same end point. The big issue here is whether those clocks are all running time at the same speed (with some reaching a destination Spacetime location before others, leading to event-meshing failure) or if some of them are being forced to run slow (which allows events to mesh correctly but requires the time of a preferred frame of reference to govern the slowing of clocks for all other frames). You need to show me how your definition relates to any of that.
So different frames have different energy levels available and the energy level dictates the tick rate of a clock.
Depending on which frame you pick to work with for your calculations, those energy levels are different and the tick rate of clocks will vary too, so whenever you change the frame you're using as the base for your calculations, you will then generate new numbers with contradict the previous ones, meaning that different frames produce accounts of events that contradict each other. Only one of those accounts can be true unless you can demonstrate that your system is somehow Lorentz invariant, and if you achieve that, you still need to show that it can avoid event-meshing failure. Just changing the definition of time into one that calls it "energy related to a measurement of distance" doesn't make the problems go away.
Everything is in the present but the view is always from the past. We can only observe an event that already happened but not when it happened in its present.
Everything was or will be in the present when it happened or happens, but from any position that is present, we can only have measurements of the past. But how does that add anything to the argument?
Its your understanding of time that allows you to disbelieve relativity and if what you are saying about what is being taught is true no wonder we have not progressed.
What we need is clear description of what's what. All the objections that I make should be standard ones that everyone asks when learning about relativity and there should be standard answers available which clear them all up systematically. What I actually find though are people who claim to understand relativity who don't know how to handle those objections - they are unable to provide clear, rational explanations that show where those objections contain errors, and that's what leads me to believe that they have no answers. "You don't understand time!" is their usual response, but they never show where the faults are with my understanding of time, and their own understanding of time is shown by my argument to be an understanding which depends squarely on toleration of contradictions.
I am shocked if what you are saying about Einstein is true about his understanding. All views are equally valid because none are valid. It would be incorrect to say they are equally invalid. The present - relativity of simultaneity is the equally valid view.
I can't work out from that which part of what I said you're taking issue with, and I don't know if those sentences are meant to be representations of what I've said or if they're what you're claiming. What I say is this: where different accounts contradict each other, only one can be valid (though all of them are potentially valid so long as they can't be disproved). If none of them were valid, it would be correct to say that all of them are equally invalid and that all of them are equally valid, but saying that they are equally valid wouldn't mean that any of them are valid, and saying that they are equally invalid wouldn't mean they are all invalid if they're all valid, but neither of those cases has anything to do with my argument where we're looking at a case where at least one account is true and wherever two accounts contradict each other, one of them must be wrong.
Contraction of time is actually an increase in distance as you have suggested. Contraction of view is an angle different from perpendicular.
If you follow the postulates properly you will notice there is no such thing as a perpendicular view with velocity. And everything has velocity
Again this doesn't appear to address the issues (I don't know if it's in agreement with my argument or against it in some way), so how do you relate it to the argument?
Why would anyone consider time as anything other than a chosen cycle distance?
But with measured distances changing as you change frame, you're on shifting sands, which brings you up against all the points in my argument, and you aren't resolving any of them.
The equivalence is in GR as dilation where the radius expands for the density of energy particles c. At the speed of light the expansion of energy can no longer keep atoms apart and a BH forms
If this relates to my argument, please show how it does it. How are you dealing with event-meshing failure? How are you avoiding having a preferred frame? Etc. Thanks for raising my hopes that you might be able to find a place where my argument breaks (because I would like to see it destroyed if it's wrong), but you need to show me that point and explain what the error is with it.
-
I should also expand a little on the sound parallel. If a sound clock is aligned perpendicular to the direction of its travel through the air, the maths matches the maths of what happens with light clocks. If you align a sound clock in the same direction as its direction of travel through the air, the same will not apply unless the sound clock is carefully constructed to govern its length using signals sent at the speed of sound rather than at the speed of light.
If we use three drones, A, B and C to hold parts of our sound clocks, we can have two sound clocks with one running from drone A to drone B aligned with the direction of travel of all the drones, while the other sound clock runs from drone A to drone C and is perpendicular to the direction of travel of the drones. If these are stationary within the air, they will adjust their positions until the clock ticks are the same for both clocks and they will be arranged like three corners of a square. If they are moving along through the air though, either A and B will have to move closer together or A and C will have to move further apart, or a mixture of both, and we will end up with the three drones being arranged like three corners of a rectangle. This produces length contraction to exactly the same degree as you get for light clocks, which shows that length contraction is not ad hoc but is a natural consequence of moving along through the air/aether. Not only that, but you also get a sound equivalent of the headlights effect with the sound being projected forward more strongly and backwards less strongly.
That leaves one issue though - why does the length contract and the width stay the same rather than things widening as they contract (or widening instead of contracting)? It has to be about the way force is applied. If we take a system with a small object orbiting a massive one in a circular orbit, when we change reference frame we see it orbiting in an elliptical orbit instead, but with the massive object at the absolute centre of the ellipse instead of one of the foci. That unlikely orbit follows the laws of physics, automatically producing a shape that's length contracted and not widened. Length contraction is automatic, and the effects of length contraction feed into the shape of the distribution of energy with the headlights effect. All of this boils down to classical physics, once the incorrect assumptions of classical physics (which actually went against classical physics, if only they'd realised they'd made errors) are eliminated.
-
Depending on which frame you pick to work with for your calculations, those energy levels are different and the tick rate of clocks will vary too, so whenever you change the frame you're using as the base for your calculations, you will then generate new numbers with contradict the previous ones, meaning that different frames produce accounts of events that contradict each other. Only one of those accounts can be true
David - consider that we are measuring at ground level only. We measure the energy, frequency and wavelength of a whole bunch of phenomenon 'at' ground level 'from' ground level via the rate of time of ground level clock.
We then place clocks at each elevation and observe from the lower potential at ground level that each clock at each higher elevation is ticking faster than the next.
Now take the length of second of each elevated clock and systematically measure the energy, frequency and wavelength of the phenomenon that you previously measured via the ground level clock's rate of time by each elevated clock's rate of time.
What will happen is that these measurements that you are making 'of' the lower potential, 'from' the lower potential, but via the rate of time of each elevated clock will result in a lower energy, a lower frequency and a longer wavelength as you measure via each faster rate of time.
Remaining at ground level, now measure the energy, frequency and wavelength of the clock at elevation 6 via the rate of time at elevation 3...
This will give the same results as measuring the clock at elevation 3 via the ground level clock's rate of time.
I think by now it should be clear why all accounts can be true, and that its just a case of which rate of time one measures what by... and accepting that one must refer back to the value of the gravity field to understand that which one is observing.
-
I need to know which question number you had a problem with so that I can find out where this straw man argument was and whether it breaks the argument or if the argument needs to be modified to resolve whatever issue you have with it.
I stopped at 4. I could not maintain the fictitious block of time. The subjective definition of time being something that you can travel through was ridicules. Everything is in the present as motion caused by energy which we label as time. Time is nothing more than distance of a cycle relative to distance traveled. c is the fixed frame of available energy. Clocks measure the available energy of a frame. Take the cycle of the electron. In SR velocity of the atom the electron goes through its cycle adding distance through space. The at rest space and the velocity space are two different distances through space so the clock slows by that extra distance. There is no such thing as a fixed dimension of time that is silly sci fi stuff.
Time is tied tightly to the sequence of events in chains of causation with past events dictating the ability of future ones to occur, so how can that be tied into your definition?
We are always in the present as motion. The idea of future and past is a man made concept to differentiate what has happened and what is expected to happen. A cycle distance related to the available energy state of a frame remains in the present no matter what that energy state reads on a clock.
Causation chains depend on befores and afters and must run through all in sequence. When running through those events in sequence,
The present motion affects the new present motion that is physics What is the issue?
there are points during the processing when future events have not happened yet while past events have happened, and the time that clocks measure can vary on different paths from the same starting point to the same end point. The big issue here is whether those clocks are all running time at the same speed (with some reaching a destination Spacetime location before others, leading to event-meshing failure)
The failure is the definition you are using for time. Event meshing is always in the present no matter what value you put on a clock that measures the energy state of a frame.
or if some of them are being forced to run slow (which allows events to mesh correctly but requires the time of a preferred frame of reference to govern the slowing of clocks for all other frames). You need to show me how your definition relates to any of that.
Time is a measurement of available energy from c. It is not a dimension you can travel through. Motion creates our ability to live and for our brain to function which we describe as the present. It does not matter about which energy state you are in you are always in the present. If you could go the speed of light all the energy for the electron would be used for velocity and none for cycle so your biological clock for aging would stop. No reaction could proceed.
Depending on which frame you pick to work with for your calculations, those energy levels are different and the tick rate of clocks will vary too, so whenever you change the frame you're using as the base for your calculations, you will then generate new numbers with contradict the previous ones, meaning that different frames produce accounts of events that contradict each other. Only one of those accounts can be true unless you can demonstrate that your system is somehow Lorentz invariant, and if you achieve that, you still need to show that it can avoid event-meshing failure. Just changing the definition of time into one that calls it "energy related to a measurement of distance" doesn't make the problems go away.
Its your mistaken understanding that creates them in the first place. There was never a problem. All energy measurements are in the present. A slow clock is in the present and a fast clock is in the present. Aging is a reaction based on your energy state.
Everything was or will be in the present when it happened or happens, but from any position that is present, we can only have measurements of the past. But how does that add anything to the argument?
We understand relativity differently. You say it is incorrect and I say it is completely correct. Not the subjective interpretations (especially about time) but the observations, math and postulates
What we need is clear description of what's what. All the objections that I make should be standard ones that everyone asks when learning about relativity and there should be standard answers available which clear them all up systematically. What I actually find though are people who claim to understand relativity who don't know how to handle those objections - they are unable to provide clear, rational explanations that show where those objections contain errors, and that's what leads me to believe that they have no answers. "You don't understand time!" is their usual response, but they never show where the faults are with my understanding of time, and their own understanding of time is shown by my argument to be an understanding which depends squarely on toleration of contradictions.
If you were taught when you were young that witches and warlocks were real you would go through life possibly believing in them. If you were taught there is a God once again you might believe. If you believe time is a dimension then you might believe in time travel. Subjective interpretations abound. How can I argue with you if you say God creates time and he created it this way so there is time travel?
I can't work out from that which part of what I said you're taking issue with, and I don't know if those sentences are meant to be representations of what I've said or if they're what you're claiming. What I say is this: where different accounts contradict each other, only one can be valid (though all of them are potentially valid so long as they can't be disproved). If none of them were valid, it would be correct to say that all of them are equally invalid
No because they are not equally invalid. They are invalid differently. Einstein had a deep understanding that may not be interpreted correctly. They can have equal validity because they are not valid.
and that all of them are equally valid, but saying that they are equally valid wouldn't mean that any of them are valid, and saying that they are equally invalid wouldn't mean they are all invalid if they're all valid, but neither of those cases has anything to do with my argument where we're looking at a case where at least one account is true and wherever two accounts contradict each other, one of them must be wrong.
And there is the straw man argument.]
But with measured distances changing as you change frame, you're on shifting sands, which brings you up against all the points in my argument, and you aren't resolving any of them.
I cannot resolve your subjective understanding. My subjective understanding is relativity being correct. Your creation of your relativity based on the subjective interpretations of others is the only thing in conflict.
If this relates to my argument, please show how it does it. How are you dealing with event-meshing failure?
There is no event meshing failure.
How are you avoiding having a preferred frame?
The preferred frame is total energy c never at rest. Clocks measure available energy state of a frame. There is no preferred energy state.
Thanks for raising my hopes that you might be able to find a place where my argument breaks (because I would like to see it destroyed if it's wrong), but you need to show me that point and explain what the error is with it.
The subjective parts of the standard model are incorrect. Quantum mechanics is c energy. Entanglement is a trick based on the misunderstanding of their standard model.
The error is not relativity! It is in the subjective interpretation of their standard model. This began to happen when they disregarded Einstein's 1920 papers and misinterpreted the MMX. There is no perpendicular view in relativity because light cannot travel in a perpendicular direction. SR light clocks prove that.
-
David - consider that we are measuring at ground level only. We measure the energy, frequency and wavelength of a whole bunch of phenomenon 'at' ground level 'from' ground level via the rate of time of ground level clock.
We then place clocks at each elevation and observe from the lower potential at ground level that each clock at each higher elevation is ticking faster than the next...
You have focused in on something that doesn't generate contradictions - everyone making measurements of that agrees that the lowest clock ticks slowest (or that it's the one taking the shortest path into the future through the time dimension). With SR it's very different because there's no such agreement in the accounts generated from different frames with clocks in rockets moving relative to each other.
-
Bringing the wind into it is surely not the point in question here? For instance when talking about the constancy of the speed of light it is always "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant." and never just the speed of light is constant. I think you have a lot of your facts mixed up.
The speed of sound is a property of the medium.
The speed of sound is dependent on the medium
It's calculated from the square root of the stiffness divided by the density.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Equations
And, in much the same way you can calculate the speed of light in a vacuum from Maxwell's equations and the properties of that vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Propagation_of_light
The equation is even similar in form
I forget the detail- it's something like the square root of the reluctance divided by the permitivity.
And that's why it's constant for all observers.
If I measure the speed of sound in air I have to take account of the motion of the air relative to me- that's why wind makes a difference.
In principle you would expect to have to do the same with light- you need to take account of how fast the vacuum is travelling with respect to the observer.
But that's clearly absurd- a vacuum doesn't have a "speed" wrt anything. How can you say how fast "nothing" is travelling?
That's why the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers- because a vacuum isn't moving wrt any observer.
-
If I measure the speed of sound in air I have to take account of the motion of the air relative to me- that's why wind makes a difference.
In principle you would expect to have to do the same with light- you need to take account of how fast the vacuum is travelling with respect to the observer.
But that's clearly absurd- a vacuum doesn't have a "speed" wrt anything. How can you say how fast "nothing" is travelling?
The model you use for a vacuum is incorrect Energy of space is stationary while mass moves because of energy c. Something is causing it to be constant and confounded with the electron
That's why the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers- because a vacuum isn't moving wrt any observer.
The speed of light is measured to be the same for all observers in a vacuum. There is a subtle difference.
[/quote]
-
If I measure the speed of sound in air I have to take account of the motion of the air relative to me- that's why wind makes a difference.
In principle you would expect to have to do the same with light- you need to take account of how fast the vacuum is travelling with respect to the observer.
But that's clearly absurd- a vacuum doesn't have a "speed" wrt anything. How can you say how fast "nothing" is travelling?
The model you use for a vacuum is incorrect Energy of space is stationary while mass moves because of energy c. Something is causing it to be constant and confounded with the electron
That's why the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers- because a vacuum isn't moving wrt any observer.
The speed of light is measured to be the same for all observers in a vacuum. There is a subtle difference.
[/quote]
Who invited that electron?
If it's there then there's no longer a vacuum.
Very subtle- so much so that it doesn't affect the outcome. C is fixed.
-
I need to know which question number you had a problem with so that I can find out where this straw man argument was and whether it breaks the argument or if the argument needs to be modified to resolve whatever issue you have with it.
I stopped at 4. I could not maintain the fictitious block of time. The subjective definition of time being something that you can travel through was ridicules. Everything is in the present as motion caused by energy which we label as time. Time is nothing more than distance of a cycle relative to distance traveled. c is the fixed frame of available energy. Clocks measure the available energy of a frame. Take the cycle of the electron. In SR velocity of the atom the electron goes through its cycle adding distance through space. The at rest space and the velocity space are two different distances through space so the clock slows by that extra distance. There is no such thing as a fixed dimension of time that is silly sci fi stuff.
So your objection to the argument is that when it focuses on model 1 it is discussing model 1 rather than model zero, model 2 (or some other model)? Do you imagine that I'm impressed by model 1's block in which "past", "present" and "future" are all eternal components of a giant crystal in which items are stretched through it from the "past" end to the "future" end like strands of spaghetti? It is a model that many Einsteinists believe in, so I've had to explore and discuss it, and you are supposed to approach it on that basis rather than claiming my discussion of it is wrong on the basis that you don't believe in the particular model that's being discussed at that point.
There are multiple models that attempt to match up to the actual universe and each one needs to be judged individually. To ignore model 1 and not discuss it would leave something for Einsteinists to cling to and claim that they have a model that works, so it is essential to take it on and show up its failings. You don't have to believe in model 1 to agree that my assessment of it is correct; that such a model can only work if it allows events to change over the course of Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations where Einsteinists believe such change shouldn't happen, but I have shown that if such change isn't allowed to happen they simply can't generate the block in the only manner they can be allowed to, which means they would have to switch to another model entirely. Generating it with all clocks ticking at full speed leads to event-meshing failure and they can't eliminate those failures unless they're prepared to allow for changing events at individual Spacetime locations.
Model zero (which isn't illustrated with the interactive diagram, but could be generated by all three modes of the diagram if they were to leave a persisting block of solidified events in their wake) is a static Spacetime block which has never been generated and which simply exists by magic eternally, all fully formed without past events causally generating future ones. Model 1 attempts to improve on model zero by generating the block in cause-and-effect order so that the causation becomes actual. It is fully possible to imagine there being no block involved with model 1 though, in which case all you have is an unrolling of events with the past ones not persisting, although that version of model 1 must immediately be ruled out because of the event-meshing failures, which is why model 1 only makes sense if it forms a persisting block behind it. Model 2 allows the clocks on some paths to run slower than clocks on other paths, but it does so in a way that generates contradictions. Model 3 also allows clocks to run at different relative rates on different paths, but eliminates the contradictions by having a preferred frame. All of those are Spacetime models. If you have devised another Spacetime model which can somehow avoid event-meshing failure AND avoid having a preferred frame AND avoid generating contradictions, then you need to describe that magical model and show that it is somehow viable, but no one has ever produced such a model (because it is impossible to do so).
Time is tied tightly to the sequence of events in chains of causation with past events dictating the ability of future ones to occur, so how can that be tied into your definition?
We are always in the present as motion. The idea of future and past is a man made concept to differentiate what has happened and what is expected to happen. A cycle distance related to the available energy state of a frame remains in the present no matter what that energy state reads on a clock.
Causation chains depend on befores and afters and must run through all in sequence. When running through those events in sequence,
The present motion affects the new present motion that is physics What is the issue?
The present is generated out of previous states of the universe but doesn't depend on subsequent states. In generating the events in a universe, you have to start at the earliest events and run through to from there to the later ones. From any point in Spacetime, you can't generate events backwards in time, and if you generate them too soon on some paths compared with other paths you get event-meshing failures where things can't interact with other items at locations where they should both be but where they cannot both arrive there together if the unfolding of events isn't coordinated correctly. The point is that events must run through in sequence, and that is impossible without a kind of time that runs.
there are points during the processing when future events have not happened yet while past events have happened, and the time that clocks measure can vary on different paths from the same starting point to the same end point. The big issue here is whether those clocks are all running time at the same speed (with some reaching a destination Spacetime location before others, leading to event-meshing failure)
The failure is the definition you are using for time. Event meshing is always in the present no matter what value you put on a clock that measures the energy state of a frame.
I'm using different definitions of time with different models, as I'm required to. With model zero, the only kind of time in the model is the "time dimension", but that is a kind of time that doesn't run, and the result is that the model describes a universe which cannot be generated. In model 1, I have taken model zero and made a single change to it by allowing it to run its time. When that happens, the result is event-meshing failure. If a rocket arrives at a reunion point with its planet and the planet isn't there, that's a failure of events to mesh. If the planet arrives there and the rocket is there too, events mesh correctly, but they can't both fail to mesh and mesh correctly without producing a contradiction. What they can do though is allow for meshing failure earlier on within a Newtonian time that's additional to the model and then allow for correct meshing at that same Spacetime location later on in Newtonian time. This means that you have to understand not only that there are several distinct models, but that there are different versions of some of the models too, and you have to keep them all in separate compartments in your head instead of mixing them up with each other. You are not reading about a single model, but a series of different, incompatible models and each model brings with it its own definition(s) of time.
or if some of them are being forced to run slow (which allows events to mesh correctly but requires the time of a preferred frame of reference to govern the slowing of clocks for all other frames). You need to show me how your definition relates to any of that.
Time is a measurement of available energy from c. It is not a dimension you can travel through. Motion creates our ability to live and for our brain to function which we describe as the present. It does not matter about which energy state you are in you are always in the present. If you could go the speed of light all the energy for the electron would be used for velocity and none for cycle so your biological clock for aging would stop. No reaction could proceed.
If your model is a Spacetime model and you don't allow things to move along the time dimension, it sounds as if you are tying your own beliefs to model zero, and that means you can't generate a universe because you've banned the running of events. With Spacetime models and running time, it is not possible for objects not to move along through the time dimension. If your model is not a Spacetime model, what are you doing objecting to the discussion of Spacetime models on the basis that they are Spacetime models with objects moving through a time dimension as well as through space dimensions?
Its your mistaken understanding that creates them in the first place. There was never a problem. All energy measurements are in the present. A slow clock is in the present and a fast clock is in the present. Aging is a reaction based on your energy state.
What mistaken understanding? I'm going through a tour of different models and showing where they break. You appear to have a model of your own which is incomplete and doesn't appear to attempt to address any of the issues at all - all you have is a definition of time which denies it the ability to run, but you aren't prepared to explore the consequences.
We understand relativity differently. You say it is incorrect and I say it is completely correct. Not the subjective interpretations (especially about time) but the observations, math and postulates
You are simply refusing to discuss the points where it breaks down, so you don't have an understanding of relativity but a mere belief in something which you aren't prepared to push to the limits. How does your model generate later events from earlier ones without running time? If you allow it to run in order to make that generation possible, how do you coordinate events on different paths? Have you explored any of that at all or do you just not bother and take it on trust that it all works fine? I don't see any rigour in your approach at all - you just assert that a model (which one? - you can't even describe it) works and you refuse to look at the details at the points where it breaks.
If you were taught when you were young that witches and warlocks were real you would go through life possibly believing in them. If you were taught there is a God once again you might believe. If you believe time is a dimension then you might believe in time travel. Subjective interpretations abound. How can I argue with you if you say God creates time and he created it this way so there is time travel?
Who is it here that suffers from such a condition? I never believed in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, God, or any other magical being of any kind for which there was no evidence, despite being told that they were real. I was told by experts in physics that time is a dimension, but I questioned that too. I have never been someone who just believes things which other people say unless they can show good evidence that backs their position, and even if they have good evidence of something, I still don't believe it completely if there's any possibility of it not being true. Sometimes it's possible to apply a 100% or 0% rating to the truth of something, but even then that has to be done with "if our system of logic holds" tagged onto it. I don't depend on any fairy defining time for me, but I look at the evidence and I see the process by which events are caused by earlier events in such a way that imposes a direction in which those events are generated and which imposes befores and afters on them with an unfolding of those events under time - remove time from it and there is no separation between those events and all the causation is rendered apparent and not real. The lack of running time destroys all causality.
I can't work out from that which part of what I said you're taking issue with, and I don't know if those sentences are meant to be representations of what I've said or if they're what you're claiming. What I say is this: where different accounts contradict each other, only one can be valid (though all of them are potentially valid so long as they can't be disproved). If none of them were valid, it would be correct to say that all of them are equally invalid
No because they are not equally invalid. They are invalid differently. Einstein had a deep understanding that may not be interpreted correctly. They can have equal validity because they are not valid.
Okay, you've dragged me down this diversion and you're actually right that some things can be invalid to a greater degree than others, but if they're all invalid, they're all invalid and can be discarded.
and that all of them are equally valid, but saying that they are equally valid wouldn't mean that any of them are valid, and saying that they are equally invalid wouldn't mean they are all invalid if they're all valid, but neither of those cases has anything to do with my argument where we're looking at a case where at least one account is true and wherever two accounts contradict each other, one of them must be wrong.
And there is the straw man argument.]
Where? When a model generates contradictions, it's plain wrong. This is most relevant to model 2 where different accounts say that "clock A is running faster than clock B" and "clock B is running faster than clock A" - it is impossible for both of those to be true. It is also relevant though when someone depends on mixing two incompatible models to create a hybrid where they use one model to enable one thing to match up with reality and another model to enable another thing to match up with reality, but where neither model can account for both things and the two models cannot be turned into a single viable model because each drags baggage along that does not match up with reality.
But with measured distances changing as you change frame, you're on shifting sands, which brings you up against all the points in my argument, and you aren't resolving any of them.
I cannot resolve your subjective understanding. My subjective understanding is relativity being correct. Your creation of your relativity based on the subjective interpretations of others is the only thing in conflict.
All you are able to do is assert that it's incorrect while refusing to analyse it with any rigour. You just wave at the whole thing and say "it works fine", but you aren't engaging with any of the issues. It's like trying to argue with the wind.
If this relates to my argument, please show how it does it. How are you dealing with event-meshing failure?
There is no event meshing failure.
That is not an adequate defence - it's just assertion and evasion.
How are you avoiding having a preferred frame?
The preferred frame is total energy c never at rest. Clocks measure available energy state of a frame. There is no preferred energy state.
You're just giving me guff with absolutely no substance. It's impossible to discuss anything with someone who simply won't engage with the issues. If I was to add those sentences to my page, everyone reading it would stop and think to themselves, "what the heck is he trying to say here and what the heck does it have to do with the price of fish?" Give me clarity, focus and relevance please, and cut out the evasion.
-
So your objection to the argument is that when it focuses on model 1 it is discussing model 1 rather than model zero, model 2 (or some other model)? Do you imagine that I'm impressed by model 1's block in which "past", "present" and "future" are all eternal components of a giant crystal in which items are stretched through it from the "past" end to the "future" end like strands of spaghetti? It is a model that many Einsteinists believe in, so I've had to explore and discuss it, and you are supposed to approach it on that basis rather than claiming my discussion of it is wrong on the basis that you don't believe in the particular model that's being discussed at that point.
There are multiple models that attempt to match up to the actual universe and each one needs to be judged individually. To ignore model 1 and not discuss it would leave something for Einsteinists to cling to and claim that they have a model that works, so it is essential to take it on and show up its failings. You don't have to believe in model 1 to agree that my assessment of it is correct; that such a model can only work if it allows events to change over the course of Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations where Einsteinists believe such change shouldn't happen, but I have shown that if such change isn't allowed to happen they simply can't generate the block in the only manner they can be allowed to, which means they would have to switch to another model entirely. Generating it with all clocks ticking at full speed leads to event-meshing failure and they can't eliminate those failures unless they're prepared to allow for changing events at individual Spacetime locations.
Model zero (which isn't illustrated with the interactive diagram, but could be generated by all three modes of the diagram if they were to leave a persisting block of solidified events in their wake) is a static Spacetime block which has never been generated and which simply exists by magic eternally, all fully formed without past events causally generating future ones. Model 1 attempts to improve on model zero by generating the block in cause-and-effect order so that the causation becomes actual. It is fully possible to imagine there being no block involved with model 1 though, in which case all you have is an unrolling of events with the past ones not persisting, although that version of model 1 must immediately be ruled out because of the event-meshing failures, which is why model 1 only makes sense if it forms a persisting block behind it. Model 2 allows the clocks on some paths to run slower than clocks on other paths, but it does so in a way that generates contradictions. Model 3 also allows clocks to run at different relative rates on different paths, but eliminates the contradictions by having a preferred frame. All of those are Spacetime models. If you have devised another Spacetime model which can somehow avoid event-meshing failure AND avoid having a preferred frame AND avoid generating contradictions, then you need to describe that magical model and show that it is somehow viable, but no one has ever produced such a model (because it is impossible to do so).
No one has produced such a model? This may or may not be true but to give up and say impossible is just your understanding limit and not a physics limit.
The present is generated out of previous states of the universe but doesn't depend on subsequent states. In generating the events in a universe, you have to start at the earliest events and run through to from there to the later ones. From any point in Spacetime, you can't generate events backwards in time, and if you generate them too soon on some paths compared with other paths you get event-meshing failures where things can't interact with other items at locations where they should both be but where they cannot both arrive there together if the unfolding of events isn't coordinated correctly. The point is that events must run through in sequence, and that is impossible without a kind of time that runs.
The defined time by all your examples are fictitious. Who in their right mind would believe such crap. The subjective beliefs you assign to Einstein to me feels like a straw man argument. Yes things run through a sequence dictated by physics of motion. You believe real scientists believe in time travel? Time is not a dimension it is merely motion that is dictated by physics. Time=Motion=Energy c.
I'm using different definitions of time with different models, as I'm required to. With model zero, the only kind of time in the model is the "time dimension", but that is a kind of time that doesn't run, and the result is that the model describes a universe which cannot be generated. In model 1, I have taken model zero and made a single change to it by allowing it to run its time. When that happens, the result is event-meshing failure. If a rocket arrives at a reunion point with its planet and the planet isn't there, that's a failure of events to mesh. If the planet arrives there and the rocket is there too, events mesh correctly, but they can't both fail to mesh and mesh correctly without producing a contradiction. What they can do though is allow for meshing failure earlier on within a Newtonian time that's additional to the model and then allow for correct meshing at that same Spacetime location later on in Newtonian time. This means that you have to understand not only that there are several distinct models, but that there are different versions of some of the models too, and you have to keep them all in separate compartments in your head instead of mixing them up with each other. You are not reading about a single model, but a series of different, incompatible models and each model brings with it its own definition(s) of time.
Subjective understanding by individuals is no different from the past beliefs being incorrect. If you believe time is a dimension we can travel through and manipulate I suspect you are incorrect. This in no way proves relativity is incorrect. Your interpretation of relativity is incorrect. You discuss the meshing of time. Does that mean you believe time is a dimension?
If your model is a Spacetime model and you don't allow things to move along the time dimension, it sounds as if you are tying your own beliefs to model zero, and that means you can't generate a universe because you've banned the running of events. With Spacetime models and running time, it is not possible for objects not to move along through the time dimension. If your model is not a Spacetime model, what are you doing objecting to the discussion of Spacetime models on the basis that they are Spacetime models with objects moving through a time dimension as well as through space dimensions?
Once again I believe in space time. Time=energy=motion. Space time is interchangeable with space energy and space motion E=mc*c. c being of space and not mass. c moving the electrons of mass and mass causing a disturbance on c creating a wave on the spectrum.
What mistaken understanding? I'm going through a tour of different models and showing where they break. You appear to have a model of your own which is incomplete and doesn't appear to attempt to address any of the issues at all - all you have is a definition of time which denies it the ability to run, but you aren't prepared to explore the consequences.
The consequences is time meshing being a straw man argument based on subjective interpretation of a defined space time as a dimension in and of itself. That is a silly interpretation. I agree with you those are extremely unlikely in your examples. But do you believe time is a mesh able dimension?
You are simply refusing to discuss the points where it breaks down, so you don't have an understanding of relativity but a mere belief in something which you aren't prepared to push to the limits. How does your model generate later events from earlier ones without running time? If you allow it to run in order to make that generation possible, how do you coordinate events on different paths? Have you explored any of that at all or do you just not bother and take it on trust that it all works fine? I don't see any rigour in your approach at all - you just assert that a model (which one? - you can't even describe it) works and you refuse to look at the details at the points where it breaks.
Relativity does not break. Your interpretation of relativity breaks because you may believe time is a dimension. Any argument that believes time is a dimension is subject to fail. Time meshing is not a thing. There is only energy meshing. E= available energy c - kinetic energy for SR. Dilation has an equivalency in expansion of energy diluting the energy c available per volume of space slowing clocks by GR.
Who is it here that suffers from such a condition? I never believed in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, God, or any other magical being of any kind for which there was no evidence, despite being told that they were real. I was told by experts in physics that time is a dimension, but I questioned that too. I have never been someone who just believes things which other people say unless they can show good evidence that backs their position, and even if they have good evidence of something, I still don't believe it completely if there's any possibility of it not being true. Sometimes it's possible to apply a 100% or 0% rating to the truth of something, but even then that has to be done with "if our system of logic holds" tagged onto it. I don't depend on any fairy defining time for me, but I look at the evidence and I see the process by which events are caused by earlier events in such a way that imposes a direction in which those events are generated and which imposes befores and afters on them with an unfolding of those events under time - remove time from it and there is no separation between those events and all the causation is rendered apparent and not real. The lack of running time destroys all causality.
Once again time is not a dimension such as an arrow of time. This confuses relativity with subjective nonsense. Of course with this model it fails to describe events properly. Energy of space time c causes motion that follows physics we observe as relativity. There is no meshing of a time dimension. Cycles of energy recorded by clocks is not a dimension.
Okay, you've dragged me down this diversion and you're actually right that some things can be invalid to a greater degree than others, but if they're all invalid, they're all invalid and can be discarded.
We can discard subjective ideas but not observations. Relativity is about observations. If you relate subjective ideas to prove relativity is incorrect you are being unfair to relativity. Subjective ideas that have contradictions do fail. Math is a good tool but even math that follows a theory can be incorrect.
Where? When a model generates contradictions, it's plain wrong. This is most relevant to model 2 where different accounts say that "clock A is running faster than clock B" and "clock B is running faster than clock A" - it is impossible for both of those to be true.
While that can be observed (and the important part is "observed") it is not physically possible. It is easy to explain why using the correct form of relativity.
It is also relevant though when someone depends on mixing two incompatible models to create a hybrid where they use one model to enable one thing to match up with reality and another model to enable another thing to match up with reality, but where neither model can account for both things and the two models cannot be turned into a single viable model because each drags baggage along that does not match up with reality.
The correct form of relativity has no baggage and is a beautiful mathematical explanation of reality. The subjective interpretation of time as a dimension is unreal not relativity.
All you are able to do is assert that it's incorrect while refusing to analyse it with any rigour. You just wave at the whole thing and say "it works fine", but you aren't engaging with any of the issues. It's like trying to argue with the wind.
If someone came to me and said God created everything what rigor could I use to logically disprove the assertion? Your block issues with time are the same thing. They can say we go through a worm hole changing the very meaning of Euclidean time. Who is arguing with the wind? Its just like the BB based on 13.6 billion years because that is all we can observe. BH's prove the timing is incorrect for the age of the universe. To suggest our limit of view is the limit of the universe is ridicules.
GOC
There is no event meshing failure.
That is not an adequate defence - it's just assertion and evasion.
If you describe what God does and I say there is no God is that an evasion? To me time meshing is equivalent to a belief in God. How do I prove there is no God? Relativity does not need time meshing because there is no real dimension of time. You either understand that or you do not. Science is not magic. A time dimension for meshing is magic.
You're just giving me guff with absolutely no substance. It's impossible to discuss anything with someone who simply won't engage with the issues.
The issue is relativity as a belief or non belief based on subjective interpretations. Time as a dimension is one such subjective interpretation. Relativity is incompatible with time as a dimension of meshing.
If I was to add those sentences to my page, everyone reading it would stop and think to themselves, "what the heck is he trying to say here and what the heck does it have to do with the price of fish?" Give me clarity, focus and relevance please, and cut out the evasion.
Time=Motion=Energy c. Energy c causes motion we measure in cycles of distance and label as time measurement. So we are measuring one distance by a second distance as a cycle. If you consider that as an evasion sorry, I do not have faith that there is a God either.
-
If you have devised another Spacetime model which can somehow avoid event-meshing failure AND avoid having a preferred frame AND avoid generating contradictions, then you need to describe that magical model and show that it is somehow viable, but no one has ever produced such a model (because it is impossible to do so).
No one has produced such a model? This may or may not be true but to give up and say impossible is just your understanding limit and not a physics limit.
It is impossible to eliminate event-meshing failure without having time run at different rates on different paths, and as soon as you allow that, you need to have a preferred frame to eliminate contradictions. There is no way round that.
The defined time by all your examples are fictitious. Who in their right mind would believe such crap.
That's exactly the point. So why do they believe such crap?
The subjective beliefs you assign to Einstein to me feels like a straw man argument. Yes things run through a sequence dictated by physics of motion. You believe real scientists believe in time travel? Time is not a dimension it is merely motion that is dictated by physics. Time=Motion=Energy c.
Do you deny that SR has a time dimension?
Subjective understanding by individuals is no different from the past beliefs being incorrect. If you believe time is a dimension we can travel through and manipulate I suspect you are incorrect.
What do my beliefs have to do with it? Spacetime is a fabric combining three space dimensions with a time dimension. I don't believe in Spacetime or time dimensions, but when I'm looking at other people's models where they have Spacetime (and therefore a time dimension), I have to discuss their model on that basis and not reject it because it isn't a model that I believe in. I explore their model by the rules of their model and then see if it holds up. When it doesn't hold up, I point to the fault.
This in no way proves relativity is incorrect.
When a model breaks, that model is no longer a player (unless it can be patched to fix it, and I have provided a patch for model 1 to make it potentially viable, at the cost of adding Newtonian time to it to enable the initial event-meshing failures to be erased later).
Your interpretation of relativity is incorrect.
I have looked at a variety of interpretations of relativity involving Spacetime, none of which are mine (although I've suggested ways of patching them to make them potentially viable) - they all came from Einsteinists.
You discuss the meshing of time.
Meshing of events; not of time.
Does that mean you believe time is a dimension?
In a model where there is a time dimension (and it was never my choice to put a time dimension into a model), I have to discuss that model on the basis that it has a time dimension. The model that I personally consider to be the only serious player in the game is LET and it has no time dimension - it is not a Spacetime model. You appear to want to defend Spacetime, but deny that there's a dimension, which is downright bizarre.
Once again I believe in space time. Time=energy=motion. Space time is interchangeable with space energy and space motion E=mc*c. c being of space and not mass. c moving the electrons of mass and mass causing a disturbance on c creating a wave on the spectrum.
I can't understand how you can imagine you've got a Spacetime without a time dimension. What do you actually have in your model? Just three dimensions? Are you doing some version of LET and mislabelling it as a Spacetime theory?
The consequences is time meshing being a straw man argument based on subjective interpretation of a defined space time as a dimension in and of itself.
What's this "time meshing" that you've invented?
That is a silly interpretation. I agree with you those are extremely unlikely in your examples. But do you believe time is a mesh able dimension?
Event meshing is the only kind of meshing I've discussed, and the "meshing" part refers to things matching up (like gears interlocking). If a rocket arrives at a Spacetime location where it's supposed to meet a planet but the planet isn't there, but when the planet arrives at that same Spacetime loaction the rocket does meet it there, that's a failure of events to mesh correctly - the rocket cannot both meet the planet and not meet it at that Spacetime location unless events at that Spacetime location can change over Newtonian time. I'm guessing that you still don't understand that though because you don't appear to know what Spacetime is normally taken to be.
Relativity does not break. Your interpretation of relativity breaks because you may believe time is a dimension. Any argument that believes time is a dimension is subject to fail. Time meshing is not a thing. There is only energy meshing. E= available energy c - kinetic energy for SR. Dilation has an equivalency in expansion of energy diluting the energy c available per volume of space slowing clocks by GR.
Relativity certainly doesn't break, but all the standard Spacetime models do, although some can be patched by adding Newtonian time to them or an absolute frame, and while that goes against some of the claims of SR, it's not too late to remove those faulty claims from its dogma. Your interpretation skills keep letting you down - anyone who reads my page and imagines that I believe in a time dimension or in "time meshing" is clearly not managing to grasp very much of what's being said there at all. As it stands, you simply aren't entering the discussion in any meaningful way because you don't understand what you read, and you don't understand a theory that you think you're defending while you're cutting key parts of it out and flushing them down the toilet.
Once again time is not a dimension such as an arrow of time. This confuses relativity with subjective nonsense.
You appear to be attacking SR rather than defending it - the nonsense you're referring to is SR.
Of course with this model it fails to describe events properly. Energy of space time c causes motion that follows physics we observe as relativity. There is no meshing of a time dimension. Cycles of energy recorded by clocks is not a dimension.
If you're happy that model 1 isn't viable, that's great. Model 1 isn't viable (unless you break the rules of SR by adding Newtonian time to it to patch it). Your should therefore be able to agree with me that that model is broken and move on to looking at the next one to see if it works.
We can discard subjective ideas but not observations. Relativity is about observations. If you relate subjective ideas to prove relativity is incorrect you are being unfair to relativity. Subjective ideas that have contradictions do fail. Math is a good tool but even math that follows a theory can be incorrect.
The observations are not contested. The issue is with the proposed mechanisms by which the universe governs the events that drive the observations. Something has to coordinate the action on different paths to make some clocks run slower than others, and when a clock runs slower than another clock, the latter clock cannot also be running slower than the former clock - that is the kind of contradiction that cannot be tolerated without diving headlong into the irrational.
When a model generates contradictions, it's plain wrong. This is most relevant to model 2 where different accounts say that "clock A is running faster than clock B" and "clock B is running faster than clock A" - it is impossible for both of those to be true.
While that can be observed (and the important part is "observed") it is not physically possible. It is easy to explain why using the correct form of relativity.
And what is the correct form of relativity? Model zero doesn't allow movement; model 1 had event-meshing failures; model 2 generates contradictions of the kind just discussed; and model 3 avoids the contradictions by having a preferred frame, which SR bans. You don't have a correct form of relativity (unless you've chosen one of the banned ones, some of which are viable).
The correct form of relativity has no baggage and is a beautiful mathematical explanation of reality. The subjective interpretation of time as a dimension is unreal not relativity.
Show me the correct form of relativity then. Point me to the model. If it has no preferred frame, it must be model zero, 1 or 2. If it has no time dimension, it must be something more like model 4 (LET, which is not a Spacetime theory) .
If someone came to me and said God created everything what rigor could I use to logically disprove the assertion?
It is possible to disprove God - he is logically impossible.
Your block issues with time are the same thing.
Like God, the block universe idea has properties which can be tested logically and it can be ruled out where its claims are impossible, although some block universe ideas are potentially valid where they have Newtonian time in addition to the "time dimension".
They can say we go through a worm hole changing the very meaning of Euclidean time. Who is arguing with the wind? Its just like the BB based on 13.6 billion years because that is all we can observe. BH's prove the timing is incorrect for the age of the universe. To suggest our limit of view is the limit of the universe is ridicules.
Arguing with you is like arguing with the wind because the wind doesn't engage in the argument fully - you claim to have a model with space time (which I take to mean Spacetime because you appear to be defending SR), but you say your model has no time dimension. Einstein asserted that "time is a dimension". If you remove that from his model, you don't have SR, but something like LET with a preferred frame.
If you describe what God does and I say there is no God is that an evasion? To me time meshing is equivalent to a belief in God. How do I prove there is no God? Relativity does not need time meshing because there is no real dimension of time. You either understand that or you do not. Science is not magic. A time dimension for meshing is magic.
You're being evasive because you're completely ignoring all the parts of relativity that make it relativity - all you've done is deny that there's a time dimension in a theory that depends on a time dimension while failing to describe your model to show that it can avoid event-meshing failure AND not have a preferred frame AND not generate contradictions. That is clear evasion - a pile of assertions that you cannot back up.
The issue is relativity as a belief or non belief based on subjective interpretations. Time as a dimension is one such subjective interpretation. Relativity is incompatible with time as a dimension of meshing.
I can't work out what you're picturing when you've scrambled what you've been reading: "time as a dimension of meshing" makes no sense to me.
Time=Motion=Energy c. Energy c causes motion we measure in cycles of distance and label as time measurement. So we are measuring one distance by a second distance as a cycle. If you consider that as an evasion sorry, I do not have faith that there is a God either.
And there you are doing the same thing again - you are simply not discussing relativity, but providing a definition of time without applying it to relativity. You don't appear to have a model other than in your imagination, and that appears to be why you can't describe it or show how your definition of time has any role in relativity.
-
David
You are correct communication is not my strongest suit. Yes I do have a model in mind that follows the observations of relativity postulates. Our sticking points seem less than I first imagined. Time as a dimension was not really defined because time as a dimension would be an unknown. The dimension of time for me is a dimension of size. Aether particles in a grid structure (stationary in space) spinning 2d sheets in a complimentary manner at c. Each 2d is offset by ~45 degrees (flexibility on the angle because axils cannot be equal). Einstein said the Aether could not move because that would invalidate relativity. But spin would actually cause relativity. In that structure electrons would move between the spin particles in a DNA type motion (which actually might have caused life as we know it). So time dimension is actually an energy dimension we measure with clocks. The spin is the total energy c. Motion through space reduces the cycle time of the electron moving through the Aether spin particles and slows a clock. That is quantum mechanics the Aether spin particles. Motion always being in the present through out the universe. That is my basis for relativity being correct.
-
If you have devised another Spacetime model which can somehow avoid event-meshing failure AND avoid having a preferred frame AND avoid generating contradictions, then you need to describe that magical model and show that it is somehow viable, but no one has ever produced such a model (because it is impossible to do so).
No one has produced such a model? This may or may not be true but to give up and say impossible is just your understanding limit and not a physics limit.
It is impossible to eliminate event-meshing failure without having time run at different rates on different paths, and as soon as you allow that, you need to have a preferred frame to eliminate contradictions. There is no way round that.
The defined time by all your examples are fictitious. Who in their right mind would believe such crap.
That's exactly the point. So why do they believe such crap?
The subjective beliefs you assign to Einstein to me feels like a straw man argument. Yes things run through a sequence dictated by physics of motion. You believe real scientists believe in time travel? Time is not a dimension it is merely motion that is dictated by physics. Time=Motion=Energy c.
Do you deny that SR has a time dimension?
Subjective understanding by individuals is no different from the past beliefs being incorrect. If you believe time is a dimension we can travel through and manipulate I suspect you are incorrect.
What do my beliefs have to do with it? Spacetime is a fabric combining three space dimensions with a time dimension. I don't believe in Spacetime or time dimensions, but when I'm looking at other people's models where they have Spacetime (and therefore a time dimension), I have to discuss their model on that basis and not reject it because it isn't a model that I believe in. I explore their model by the rules of their model and then see if it holds up. When it doesn't hold up, I point to the fault.
This in no way proves relativity is incorrect.
When a model breaks, that model is no longer a player (unless it can be patched to fix it, and I have provided a patch for model 1 to make it potentially viable, at the cost of adding Newtonian time to it to enable the initial event-meshing failures to be erased later).
Your interpretation of relativity is incorrect.
I have looked at a variety of interpretations of relativity involving Spacetime, none of which are mine (although I've suggested ways of patching them to make them potentially viable) - they all came from Einsteinists.
You discuss the meshing of time.
Meshing of events; not of time.
Does that mean you believe time is a dimension?
In a model where there is a time dimension (and it was never my choice to put a time dimension into a model), I have to discuss that model on the basis that it has a time dimension. The model that I personally consider to be the only serious player in the game is LET and it has no time dimension - it is not a Spacetime model. You appear to want to defend Spacetime, but deny that there's a dimension, which is downright bizarre.
Once again I believe in space time. Time=energy=motion. Space time is interchangeable with space energy and space motion E=mc*c. c being of space and not mass. c moving the electrons of mass and mass causing a disturbance on c creating a wave on the spectrum.
I can't understand how you can imagine you've got a Spacetime without a time dimension. What do you actually have in your model? Just three dimensions? Are you doing some version of LET and mislabelling it as a Spacetime theory?
The consequences is time meshing being a straw man argument based on subjective interpretation of a defined space time as a dimension in and of itself.
What's this "time meshing" that you've invented?
That is a silly interpretation. I agree with you those are extremely unlikely in your examples. But do you believe time is a mesh able dimension?
Event meshing is the only kind of meshing I've discussed, and the "meshing" part refers to things matching up (like gears interlocking). If a rocket arrives at a Spacetime location where it's supposed to meet a planet but the planet isn't there, but when the planet arrives at that same Spacetime loaction the rocket does meet it there, that's a failure of events to mesh correctly - the rocket cannot both meet the planet and not meet it at that Spacetime location unless events at that Spacetime location can change over Newtonian time. I'm guessing that you still don't understand that though because you don't appear to know what Spacetime is normally taken to be.
Relativity does not break. Your interpretation of relativity breaks because you may believe time is a dimension. Any argument that believes time is a dimension is subject to fail. Time meshing is not a thing. There is only energy meshing. E= available energy c - kinetic energy for SR. Dilation has an equivalency in expansion of energy diluting the energy c available per volume of space slowing clocks by GR.
Relativity certainly doesn't break, but all the standard Spacetime models do, although some can be patched by adding Newtonian time to them or an absolute frame, and while that goes against some of the claims of SR, it's not too late to remove those faulty claims from its dogma. Your interpretation skills keep letting you down - anyone who reads my page and imagines that I believe in a time dimension or in "time meshing" is clearly not managing to grasp very much of what's being said there at all. As it stands, you simply aren't entering the discussion in any meaningful way because you don't understand what you read, and you don't understand a theory that you think you're defending while you're cutting key parts of it out and flushing them down the toilet.
Once again time is not a dimension such as an arrow of time. This confuses relativity with subjective nonsense.
You appear to be attacking SR rather than defending it - the nonsense you're referring to is SR.
Of course with this model it fails to describe events properly. Energy of space time c causes motion that follows physics we observe as relativity. There is no meshing of a time dimension. Cycles of energy recorded by clocks is not a dimension.
If you're happy that model 1 isn't viable, that's great. Model 1 isn't viable (unless you break the rules of SR by adding Newtonian time to it to patch it). Your should therefore be able to agree with me that that model is broken and move on to looking at the next one to see if it works.
We can discard subjective ideas but not observations. Relativity is about observations. If you relate subjective ideas to prove relativity is incorrect you are being unfair to relativity. Subjective ideas that have contradictions do fail. Math is a good tool but even math that follows a theory can be incorrect.
The observations are not contested. The issue is with the proposed mechanisms by which the universe governs the events that drive the observations. Something has to coordinate the action on different paths to make some clocks run slower than others, and when a clock runs slower than another clock, the latter clock cannot also be running slower than the former clock - that is the kind of contradiction that cannot be tolerated without diving headlong into the irrational.
When a model generates contradictions, it's plain wrong. This is most relevant to model 2 where different accounts say that "clock A is running faster than clock B" and "clock B is running faster than clock A" - it is impossible for both of those to be true.
While that can be observed (and the important part is "observed") it is not physically possible. It is easy to explain why using the correct form of relativity.
And what is the correct form of relativity? Model zero doesn't allow movement; model 1 had event-meshing failures; model 2 generates contradictions of the kind just discussed; and model 3 avoids the contradictions by having a preferred frame, which SR bans. You don't have a correct form of relativity (unless you've chosen one of the banned ones, some of which are viable).
The correct form of relativity has no baggage and is a beautiful mathematical explanation of reality. The subjective interpretation of time as a dimension is unreal not relativity.
Show me the correct form of relativity then. Point me to the model. If it has no preferred frame, it must be model zero, 1 or 2. If it has no time dimension, it must be something more like model 4 (LET, which is not a Spacetime theory) .
If someone came to me and said God created everything what rigor could I use to logically disprove the assertion?
It is possible to disprove God - he is logically impossible.
Your block issues with time are the same thing.
Like God, the block universe idea has properties which can be tested logically and it can be ruled out where its claims are impossible, although some block universe ideas are potentially valid where they have Newtonian time in addition to the "time dimension".
They can say we go through a worm hole changing the very meaning of Euclidean time. Who is arguing with the wind? Its just like the BB based on 13.6 billion years because that is all we can observe. BH's prove the timing is incorrect for the age of the universe. To suggest our limit of view is the limit of the universe is ridicules.
Arguing with you is like arguing with the wind because the wind doesn't engage in the argument fully - you claim to have a model with space time (which I take to mean Spacetime because you appear to be defending SR), but you say your model has no time dimension. Einstein asserted that "time is a dimension". If you remove that from his model, you don't have SR, but something like LET with a preferred frame.
If you describe what God does and I say there is no God is that an evasion? To me time meshing is equivalent to a belief in God. How do I prove there is no God? Relativity does not need time meshing because there is no real dimension of time. You either understand that or you do not. Science is not magic. A time dimension for meshing is magic.
You're being evasive because you're completely ignoring all the parts of relativity that make it relativity - all you've done is deny that there's a time dimension in a theory that depends on a time dimension while failing to describe your model to show that it can avoid event-meshing failure AND not have a preferred frame AND not generate contradictions. That is clear evasion - a pile of assertions that you cannot back up.
The issue is relativity as a belief or non belief based on subjective interpretations. Time as a dimension is one such subjective interpretation. Relativity is incompatible with time as a dimension of meshing.
I can't work out what you're picturing when you've scrambled what you've been reading: "time as a dimension of meshing" makes no sense to me.
Time=Motion=Energy c. Energy c causes motion we measure in cycles of distance and label as time measurement. So we are measuring one distance by a second distance as a cycle. If you consider that as an evasion sorry, I do not have faith that there is a God either.
And there you are doing the same thing again - you are simply not discussing relativity, but providing a definition of time without applying it to relativity. You don't appear to have a model other than in your imagination, and that appears to be why you can't describe it or show how your definition of time has any role in relativity.
Space time = XYZ0
not XYZT
Spacial ''points'' being 0 point source and 0 point energy.
XYZ is a virtual ''fabric'' of volume of 0's
4/3πr³
1.6 x 10-35 m³
-
thebox
You are not allowing for movement with XYZ0. Its XYZMotion=time c.
When scientists look down they stop at the electron. If you were to reverse engineer relativity you would need motion. c being the total available motion. Electrons do not move themselves or you believe in magic. A photon cannot be a particle and not have entropy. Photons have no entropy of c. A wave of a matrix of c would satisfy that requirement along with moving electrons. So an electron jump causes a disturbance in the spectrum of energy c propagating a wave. We measure time with the electron or photon and they remain synchronized in every frame. The radius of dilation in GR matches the length of the hypotenuse in SR. GR is a physical change in size by dilation. SR is a visual only change in size.
Reverse engineering from the bottom up shows us the necessity of motion controlling the photon and electron by energy spin state. Remember relativity would not work with an Aether of motion but spin state of c will actually cause the relativity engine to run smoothly. My model may or may not be correct but any other system fails relativity's cause for motion. c is invariant because the complimentary spin state is invariant as total E.
-
You are correct communication is not my strongest suit. Yes I do have a model in mind that follows the observations of relativity postulates. Our sticking points seem less than I first imagined.
It appears that you're accidentally defending a theory that isn't yours in the course of defending your own theory which may not have the same dogma attached to it, so what I want to see is how your model handles relativity and whether it does match up well enough with SR's dogma to justify defending that as well.
Time as a dimension was not really defined because time as a dimension would be an unknown.
Without time as a dimension, SR is out of the game - you have moved to something radically different that hopefully matches up to reality, so let's explore it and see exactly what you've got. Where should we start? Well, if there is no time dimension, we are left with three space dimensions, and if we measure the speed of light passing us in opposite directions, we get the same speed for both. If we then start moving in one of those directions and again measure the speed of light passing us in the same two directions, we get the same speed again for both. However, the only way to measure the speed of light is to do it on a round trip, which means we're incapable of pinning down its actual speed in either direction - it can be moving at different speeds relative to us in different directions, and without adding a time dimension, it must be doing just that. In model zero, there is no speed of light at all because nothing ever moves. In models 1, 2 and 3, light covers all distances in zero time while covering zero distance, so its speed is always infinite relative to the speed of anything else (or more accurately, it's zero - it really can't have a speed if it isn't covering any distance). It's only once you get away from Spacetime models that light can have a speed. I now want to understand what it does in your model.
The dimension of time for me is a dimension of size.
You said there is no time dimension, so how do you now have a time dimension that's a dimension of size?
Aether particles in a grid structure (stationary in space) spinning 2d sheets in a complimentary manner at c. Each 2d is offset by ~45 degrees (flexibility on the angle because axils cannot be equal).
This is already puzzling, because I'd expect 3D for 3D space. You haven't explained the spin axis of a 2D sheet, and you haven't spelt out how two of these sheets are arranged relative to each other beyond a 45 degree figure, which might mean that by the time you get to the ninth sheet it will be in the same place and alignment as the first. Do you have a thread where you describe your model clearly and concisely, setting out how it handles things like the Twins "Paradox"?
Motion through space reduces the cycle time of the electron moving through the Aether spin particles and slows a clock. That is quantum mechanics the Aether spin particles. Motion always being in the present through out the universe. That is my basis for relativity being correct.
That suggests that you have some clocks running slower than others, in which case I want to see exactly how you're handling this. If clock A is running slower than clock B, does your model also allow that to assert that clock B is running slower than clock A if you use a different frame as the base for your calculations, and if so, are both of those contradictory accounts supposedly true or do you have a preferred frame of reference? That is what you need to explore with your model.
-
It appears that you're accidentally defending a theory that isn't yours in the course of defending your own theory which may not have the same dogma attached to it, so what I want to see is how your model handles relativity and whether it does match up well enough with SR's dogma to justify defending that as well.
I like to think I am reverse engineering relativity observations by their cause not just postulates. What I created will in no way be accepted by ordained relativists. I follow relativity mechanically using a mechanical model.
Without time as a dimension, SR is out of the game -
far from it.
you have moved to something radically different that hopefully matches up to reality, so let's explore it and see exactly what you've got. Where should we start? Well, if there is no time dimension, we are left with three space dimensions, and if we measure the speed of light passing us in opposite directions, we get the same speed for both.
Only in the two way speed of light measurement. Atomic clocks can measure the one way speed of light and there is a difference with vector velocity. That is part of relativity.
If we then start moving in one of those directions and again measure the speed of light passing us in the same two directions, we get the same speed again for both. However, the only way to measure the speed of light is to do it on a round trip, which means we're incapable of pinning down its actual speed in either direction - it can be moving at different speeds relative to us in different directions,
Yes it is moving at different relative speeds to velocity but c in both directions.
and without adding a time dimension, it must be doing just that. In model zero, there is no speed of light at all because nothing ever moves. In models 1, 2 and 3, light covers all distances in zero time while covering zero distance, so its speed is always infinite relative to the speed of anything else (or more accurately, it's zero - it really can't have a speed if it isn't covering any distance). It's only once you get away from Spacetime models that light can have a speed. I now want to understand what it does in your model.
Same as relativity following the postulates. Time=energy
You 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 bot GR dilation and SR visual increase in length. The hypotenuse of SR and the dilation of GR has equivalence in Euclidean space.
Aether particles in a grid structure (stationary in space) spinning 2d sheets in a complimentary manner at c. Each 2d is offset by ~45 degrees (flexibility on the angle because axils cannot be equal).
This is already puzzling, because I'd expect 3D for 3D space. You haven't explained the spin axis of a 2D sheet, and you haven't spelt out how two of these sheets are arranged relative to each other beyond a 45 degree figure, which might mean that by the time you get to the ninth sheet it will be in the same place and alignment as the first. Do you have a thread where you describe your model clearly and concisely, setting out how it handles things like the Twins "Paradox"?
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.
The twin paradox is just reaction rate is slowed by velocity through space. You have to add space distance to cycle distance for the proton. The electron cycles less with velocity because of the ratio of total energy c vs. kinetic energy of vector speed as the ratio of ability to react differently at the different speeds.
Dual slit issue is a wave and not a particle going through one slit or the other.
That suggests that you have some clocks running slower than others,
Yes
in which case I want to see exactly how you're handling this.
No problem but I need to do stuff for my wife right now.
If clock A is running slower than clock B, does your model also allow that to assert that clock B is running slower than clock A if you use a different frame as the base for your calculations, and if so, are both of those contradictory accounts supposedly true or do you have a preferred frame of reference? That is what you need to explore with your model.
They are not contradictory because it is only the observation of measurement. When you understand relativity mechanically you understand why its not a contradictory observation. I can explain the observations when you give me the circumstances.
-
It appears that you're accidentally defending a theory that isn't yours in the course of defending your own theory which may not have the same dogma attached to it, so what I want to see is how your model handles relativity and whether it does match up well enough with SR's dogma to justify defending that as well.
I like to think I am reverse engineering relativity observations by their cause not just postulates. What I created will in no way be accepted by ordained relativists. I follow relativity mechanically using a mechanical model.
Without time as a dimension, SR is out of the game -
far from it.
I suspect the problem here may be that you're equating SR with relativity rather than viewing it as a specific theory of relativity which has rivals (one of which is yours). Perhaps SR is sufficiently ambiguous to allow that - I have seen LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) being presented as a rival interpretation of SR rather than as a rival theory to SR, but ordinarily they are regarded as different theories which clash on a couple of important points: (1) SR has a time dimension and non-Euclidean geometry, but LET has Newtonian time instead and works with Euclidean geometry; and (2) SR has no preferred frame of reference, while LET has one. You appear to be defending SR, but it isn't clear whether you're using the normal meaning of SR or a much wider one which would include LET, but everyone will automatically assume that you are doing the former rather than the latter unless you make that very clear in each discussion where you defend SR. Otherwise you are accidentally defending a rival theory to your own which has claims that go strongly against your own theory. Ordinarily, when people talk about SR they are talking about Einstein's theory which uses a time dimension, non-Euclidean geometry and which bans a preferred frame of reference, so if you remove the time dimension from it, you aren't doing SR any more, but just plain relativity.
you have moved to something radically different that hopefully matches up to reality, so let's explore it and see exactly what you've got. Where should we start? Well, if there is no time dimension, we are left with three space dimensions, and if we measure the speed of light passing us in opposite directions, we get the same speed for both.
Only in the two way speed of light measurement. Atomic clocks can measure the one way speed of light and there is a difference with vector velocity. That is part of relativity
Atomic clocks cannot measure the speed of light in a single direction any more than any other kind of clock can. If light passes any kind of stopwatch, you can start timing the light as it passes, but how do you stop the timer when the light has covered a set distance? There is a delay in getting the signal back to the clock because the information that the light has reached the finish line has to travel back to the clock at the speed of light, and that leads to the time recorded being a measurement of light on a round trip. If you imagine that atomic clocks are different in some way because of their mechanism, then again you're wrong: their mechanism it grounded in the speed of light, making the clock run slow if it is moved fast through space just like any other clock.
If we then start moving in one of those directions and again measure the speed of light passing us in the same two directions, we get the same speed again for both. However, the only way to measure the speed of light is to do it on a round trip, which means we're incapable of pinning down its actual speed in either direction - it can be moving at different speeds relative to us in different directions,
Yes it is moving at different relative speeds to velocity but c in both directions.
Do you understand that one of the claims of SR is that the speed of light is constant relative to you and constant relative to someone else even while you and that other person are moving at high speed relative to each other? It isn't merely claiming that the speed of light is the same in opposite directions.
I now want to understand what it does in your model.
Same as relativity following the postulates. Time=energy
Time is not equal to energy. They may have a relationship, but they are distinct things with distinct roles.
You 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 bot GR dilation and SR visual increase in length. The hypotenuse of SR and the dilation of GR has equivalence in Euclidean space.
As you've started a new thread to discuss your theory ( https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70299.0 ), I'll press you on this and other issues specific to it there - I'm having trouble seeing how you match it up to the standard facts that all theories of relativity need to conform to.
The twin paradox is just reaction rate is slowed by velocity through space. You have to add space distance to cycle distance for the proton. The electron cycles less with velocity because of the ratio of total energy c vs. kinetic energy of vector speed as the ratio of ability to react differently at the different speeds.
I don't think you understand why I brought this into the conversation. Remember that one of the claims of SR is that the speed of light is constant relative to you and constant relative to someone else even while you and that other person are moving at high speed relative to each other. SR does a very special kind of voodoo in that regard, but your theory doesn't appear to attempt to do the same thing at all, putting you in direct conflict with SR. When you talk about adding space distance to cycle distance, that space distance is frame-specific. In one frame of reference where that distance is a mile, in another frame it will be ten miles, while for another frame it will be zero miles. If you have an object which is moving through space at ten miles per second, the electron takes longer to cycle, leading to interactions between atoms slowing down, but if you switch to a frame of reference in which the object is not moving through space at all, the electron cycles in the shortest possible amount of time as it has no extra distance to cover, but these are contradictory accounts of the action which cannot both be true. If your mechanism produces contradictions in this way, it can only be right if the model has a preferred frame of reference and acknowledges that not all the accounts can be true.
If clock A is running slower than clock B, does your model also allow that to assert that clock B is running slower than clock A if you use a different frame as the base for your calculations, and if so, are both of those contradictory accounts supposedly true or do you have a preferred frame of reference? That is what you need to explore with your model.
They are not contradictory because it is only the observation of measurement. When you understand relativity mechanically you understand why its not a contradictory observation. I can explain the observations when you give me the circumstances.
I suspect now that you weren't trying to evade the issues earlier, but that the problem is that you don't fully understand what it is you're defending. The accounts as to what's happening contradict each other when you change the frame you're using as the base for your calculations. LET says that most of these accounts are wrong and that only the accounts generated from one frame can actually be true, whereas SR claims that all of the accounts are equally valid and that there is no preferred frame. That is one of the key pieces of dogma that I take issue with because it requires people to ignore contradictions which invalidate that theory.
Imagine two rockets, A and B, somewhere out in deep space. The two rockets are heading towards each other, but the people on each rocket believe their rocket is stationary. Captain A looks at rocket B coming towards him and says, "Aha! They're moving through space, so their clock is being slowed down by that movement, whereas our clock is ticking at full speed. If they stop when they reach us, their clock will speed up and tick as fast as ours, but if we accelerate to move with them, our clock will slow down to match theirs."
However, Captain B looks at rocket A coming towards him and says, "Aha! They're moving through space, so their clock is being slowed down by that movement, whereas our clock is ticking at full speed. If they stop when they reach us, their clock will speed up and tick as fast as ours, but if we accelerate to move with them, our clock will slow down to match theirs."
The two captains can't both be right, but SR asserts that both their accounts are equally valid. They are, of course, equally valid in the sense that neither account can be disproved, but when it comes to what is going on mechanically in the actual universe, at least one of those two accounts must be wrong, but SR's dogma asserts that neither of these accounts is wrong. Some people tolerate these contradictions and imagine that it's acceptable to assert that a particular change in speed can lead to a clock ticking faster than it was ticking before while in the same incident this change in speed has led to that clock ticking slower than it was ticking before, but they are going against the rules of reason by accepting both these accounts. Some of the more intelligent ones recognise this as a problem and retreat into more extreme models of SR to try to escape from the problem, but no matter where they go, their models still break, so they're left having to point to different models to account for different aspects of SR while fooling themselves into thinking that they're consistently using a single model while in reality they're using two or more incompatible models.
Your model appears to be the same - if it isn't to be as irrational as SR, it will be required to have a preferred frame of reference to eliminate the contradictions.