Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 06/03/2018 15:23:18
-
The Michelson/Morley experiment enabled Einstein to produce his theory of special relativity. Einstein's work has produced excellent results such as the slowing of time clocks in orbit around the Earth. Yet the experiment itself was flawed. The big problem is the idea that photons travel from the sun to the Earth independent of the gravitational fields of the sun and the Earth. It was assumed that they travel at the speed of light C without any changes. However as I see it, photons jump at the speed Co and then stop for a tiny amount of time. Then they jump again along the gravitational field lines. The result is that once they move from the sun's gravitational field to the Earths gravitational field, they jump at Co with respect to the center of the Earth. Thus whether the Earth is moving toward or away from the Sun the measured speed is Co. Thus the Michelson/Morley experiment proved nothing at all.
-
The MM experiment proved that you can't detect your speed of travel through the aether with an MMX. It also showed that some kind of length contraction must come into play.
The MGP experiment (Michelson Gale Pearson) then showed that the aether doesn't rotate with the Earth, and it also proved that the speed of light through an object is not always the same in opposite directions, thereby proving the existence of the aether (see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71552.0 posts #10 and #17 for more details), but it still doesn't provide any way for you to calculate your speed through that aether.
-
The result is that once they move from the sun's gravitational field to the Earths gravitational field,
There is only 1 gravitational field in the universe. It is dominated locally by things like the Sun and the Earth.
-
I guess you think that there is one electric field in the universe as well. That makes no sense to me. When you are near the sun, it is the suns field with slight differences due to the various planets. As you move toward the Earth it is the Earths field with some effect from the sun and other planets. Once the photons leave the sun's field, they adjust their speed to the Earths field. All photons at the Earth travel at light speed C with respect to the Earth. People made this error long ago and many still believe it.
-
The big problem is the idea that photons travel from the sun to the Earth independent of the gravitational fields of the sun and the Earth.
The problem with this argument is that the Michelson-Morley experiment was not measuring the speed of photons traveling from the Sun to Earth, aligned with gravitational field lines. It was measuring the speed of light on a level path on the surface of the Earth, perpendicular to such gravitational field lines. For the source of light, they originally used an oil burner.
They rotated the apparatus on a bath of mercury, so they could measure the speed in different directions, so they could capture the effect of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, taking it through the hypothetical aether wind.
Because the experiment was on a level surface, there were none of the effects of General Relativity that you might get with photons traveling out of the Sun's gravitational field, or falling into the Earth's gravitational field.
They showed that the aether wind, if it existed, had a speed relative to the Earth that was much less than the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun. Einstein took the whole way, and say there is no aether, and no need for it.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment_(1887)
-
I guess you think that there is one electric field in the universe as well.
Yes.
Anywhere in the universe, if you put a small test charge, it will experience a force in the local direction of the electric field.
What else could it do?
-
They showed that the aether wind, if it existed, had a speed relative to the Earth that was much less than the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun.
No they didn't. They merely showed that their experiment couldn't detect the aether, and the reason for that turned out to be that the apparatus contracted in length in the direction of its movement such that it cancelled out the timing difference that they imagined it would pick up.
Einstein took the whole way, and say there is no aether, and no need for it.
And Michelson-Gale-Paerson then showed that there is an aether which doesn't rotate with the Earth. When you analyse their experiment fully, you can prove that light moves faster across some objects in one direction than the opposite direction and that those objects are necessarily moving relative to the aether.
-
To Evan: Ok what you say seems okay but what is the reference for the photon? It appears that the photon always adjusts its speed so that it travels at C relative to the point of measurement. A photon leaving the sun would travel at C relative to the sun. If the Earth was moving toward the sun, the relative speed would be C +Vearth. If the earth was moving away from the sun, the relative speed would be C -Vearth. Thus the photon is always changing speed whether or not there is an ether. You say the MM experiment proved there is no ether or that the velocity of the ether was very small compared to the speed of the Earth. Does that really matter?
-
To bored Chemist:
So you put a test charge anywhere in the universe and it reacts with the particular electric field at that point. Ok. So what does that prove? You say there is one electric field in the universe. But where does the electric field come from?
It comes from the particular charges in the area under test. If it was perfectly balanced it would be zero. It may very well be that the force between a test charge and a particular electric field may be somewhat constant everywhere in the universe where the gravitational gradient is similar. surely things will be different near a black hole. In any event the electric field is composed of a huge amount of charges and is the weighted sum total of all the charges and the inverse square of the distances. So in my opinion there is no single electric field in the universe.
-
To David Cooper:
People have been arguing that the test instruments contracted in the direction of motion. This would invalidate the MM experiment and Einstein's conclusions. The EE'S have taken this approach. Who is correct? The third argument is that the photons adjust their speed to the particular reference platform where the measurements are taking place. To me, the Earth itself is a reference platform and all photons coming to the Earth will have a velocity C relative to the Earth. If that is true the MM experiment proved nothing at all.
Einsteins special relativity would be incorrect but the answers would still be valid because the best we could measure would be the geometric mean of the Doppler measurements and this is identical with Einstein. So you cannot beat Einstein's equations even though they are no 100 percent correct. I believe that the Doppler solution is correct but since you get the same results, it matters little.
The big problem is how does the photon travel? Does it remain in the X,Y,Z,t dimension or does it move into another dimension. If it moves into another dimension then we would have a period of time when it is not in our dimensions. This would enable it to adjust to the reference platform used to measure it. So at the present time we have limited knowledge of what the photon is doing.
-
People have been arguing that the test instruments contracted in the direction of motion. This would invalidate the MM experiment and Einstein's conclusions.
Contraction in the direction of motion (as described by Einstein) does not invalidate the MM experiment - it (partially) explains it. And MM provided one input to Einstein's result.
The third argument is that the photons adjust their speed to the particular reference platform where the measurements are taking place.
This suggests that if you have two people in different frames of reference measuring the speed of the same photons, the photons will speed up for one observer, and simultaneously slow down for the other observer... That sounds like a contradiction to me.
It seems much simpler to me to assume that the photons always travel at c, and that observers in different frames of reference adjust their own length and rate of time so that they always measure the photons to be traveling at c.
This makes the constant c the reference, and each observer makes his own measurements; the only measurement they all agree on is that light measured in their frame of reference always travels at c.
Even an atomic clock in another frame of reference seems to run at a different rate (eg the GPS satellites).
-
People have been arguing that the test instruments contracted in the direction of motion. This would invalidate the MM experiment and Einstein's conclusions.
You can't invalidate the experiment - it's a fully sound experiment that does exactly what it does (although it doesn't produce the result that had been predicted before it was first run). This only issue is the interpretation of what's going on. The rational interpretation is that the apparatus contracts, and we have a rational explanation of why it should contract too, because relativistic mass necessarily drives that contraction. What Einstein did was come up with an alternative interpretation which was disproved by the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment (MGP), but Einsteinists handled MGP by creating fake rules about rotating frames of reference which turn out to be incompatible with reality, as I showed in my analysis of the MGP experiment by mapping the action to a non-rotating frame of reference: you can match the speed of light between the two frames at any one point and it produces contradictions elsewhere, which means one set of rules is necessarily wrong and invalidates the other [see the link in reply #1 of this thread for the details]. It is shocking that physicists cannot recognise such a whopping great contradiction in the SR model, but the reality is that they are philosophers rather than gods, and they are open to making the same kinds of mistakes as any other poor philosophers.
The EE'S have taken this approach. Who is correct?
I've never heard of the EE'S.
The third argument is that the photons adjust their speed to the particular reference platform where the measurements are taking place. To me, the Earth itself is a reference platform and all photons coming to the Earth will have a velocity C relative to the Earth. If that is true the MM experiment proved nothing at all.
MGP shows that the aether (fabric of space) does not rotate with the Earth (and that, most of the time, the speed of light cannot be the same in opposite directions relative to anything standing on the Earth away from the poles), so the MMX is guaranteed to be moving through the aether and must contract to produce a null result at all times. Modern versions of the MMX are so accurate that they would not produce a null result without length contraction.
-
Even says: "This suggests that if you have two people in different frames of reference measuring the speed of the same photons, the photons will speed up for one observer, and simultaneously slow down for the other observer... That sounds like a contradiction to me."
To the best of my knowledge this has never been measured. An observer moving toward the photons will see they turn toward the blue while an observer moving away from the light will see them turn red.
All we ever get is the round trip measurement. We always get the speed of light C. So Einstein says that space and time varied. That is a good mathematical approximation. We could have had C+V and C-V and the geometric mean would still give the Einstein answers. So there is no solution to the various arguments. And yet we still do not understand how the photon functions.
-
David Cooper Said: "You can't invalidate the experiment - it's a fully sound experiment that does exactly what it does (although it doesn't produce the result that had been predicted before it was first run). This only issue is the interpretation of what's going on. The rational interpretation is that the apparatus contracts, and we have a rational explanation of why it should contract too, because relativistic mass necessarily drives that contraction. What Einstein did was come up with an alternative interpretation which was disproved by the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment (MGP), but Einsteinists handled MGP by creating fake rules about rotating frames of reference which turn out to be incompatible with reality, as I showed in my analysis of the MGP experiment by mapping the action to a non-rotating frame of reference: you can match the speed of light between the two frames at any one point and it produces contradictions elsewhere, which means one set of rules is necessarily wrong and invalidates the other [see the link in reply #1 of this thread for the details]. It is shocking that physicists cannot recognise such a whopping great contradiction in the SR model, but the reality is that they are philosophers rather than gods, and they are open to making the same kinds of mistakes as any other poor philosophers.
"Since I believe the simple Doppler Solution is true, what you say makes sense to me.When the Earth is moving toward the sun, there is a gravitational shrinkage of the Earth's field with respect to the sun's field. Thus the instrument obeys the shrinkage rules.
Quote
The EE'S have taken this approach. Who is correct?
I've never heard of the EE'S.
A long time ago when Einsteins work was being discussed and put in print, various EE's (Electrical Engineers) produced books which denied what he said. They were for instrument shrinkage. One thing I found interesting long ago in the secret military radar libraries was the effects of Doppler mass such that frontal and rearward masses were different. The data obtained appeared to the scientists to show that they were correct but unfortunately it was still in the band of possible errors. Yet I believed that they were correct. And in my books I just used simple Doppler masses rather than the more complex equations they used. The geometric mean of the Doppler masses is identical with Einsteins equations. Thus from a geometric mean perspective Einstein has the best fit approximation to the time clocks and distance shrinkage. But in my opinion he only has a best mathematical fit and not the true answers.
Quote
The third argument is that the photons adjust their speed to the particular reference platform where the measurements are taking place. To me, the Earth itself is a reference platform and all photons coming to the Earth will have a velocity C relative to the Earth. If that is true the MM experiment proved nothing at all.
MGP shows that the aether (fabric of space) does not rotate with the Earth (and that, most of the time, the speed of light cannot be the same in opposite directions relative to anything standing on the Earth away from the poles), so the MMX is guaranteed to be moving through the aether and must contract to produce a null result at all times. Modern versions of the MMX are so accurate that they would not produce a null result without length contraction.
R
I like what you have to say. The big problem is what is the aether? Every day I have new ideas and new thoughts. I will post a different understanding of the aether soon.
-
Thus from a geometric mean perspective Einstein has the best fit approximation to the time clocks and distance shrinkage.
Einstein's SR and Lotentz's LET both use the same maths, so they're both the best fit for those things. It is merely the interpretation that is different, and only one of those interpretations is rational (while the other produces contradictions).
The big problem is what is the aether? Every day I have new ideas and new thoughts. I will post a different understanding of the aether soon.
The aether is the fabric of space - the medium which limits the speed of light through it to c. Everything else (matter and light) may just be ripples of that fabric.
-
DEinstein's SR and Lotentz's LET both use the same maths, so they're both the best fit for those things. It is merely the interpretation that is different, and only one of those interpretations is rational (while the other produces contradictions).
I assume that you believe that Eiinstein produces contradictions while Lorentz the EE wizzard is more correct. Today I am starting to reread Einsteins 1920 relativity. Mathematically he is excellent. Yet as an EE I want to know what is happening. How does the photons interact with space from a physical perspective? What is inside of space that produces the mathematical answers? So I am looking at new possibilities again.
Quote
The big problem is what is the aether? Every day I have new ideas and new thoughts. I will post a different understanding of the aether soon.
The aether is the fabric of space - the medium which limits the speed of light through it to c. Everything else (matter and light) may just be ripples of that fabric.avid Cooper Says:
You say that space limits the transmission through it to the speed of light C. Yet various experiments have concluded that space itself can travel faster than C. So we have a situation where photons and electromagnetic effects are limited by the speed of light C. Yet space itself may be able to react thousands or millions times faster than C.
The question of the Aether wind looks at something slow compared to the motion of the Earth. Yet it is possible that the Aether is extremely high light speed.
-
I assume that you believe that Eiinstein produces contradictions while Lorentz the EE wizzard is more correct.
That's correct, and it's because Einstein tries to have his cake and eat it by trying to do away with the absolute frame of reference on the ludicrous basis that it doesn't exist because we can't identify it, even though the MGP experiment shows that there must be one.
How does the photons interact with space from a physical perspective?
That's what we all want to know.
You say that space limits the transmission through it to the speed of light C. Yet various experiments have concluded that space itself can travel faster than C.
We already have reason to think that c is not the absolute speed limit, but is merely the speed limit for things that move through the fabric of space (relative to that fabric). Outside of that fabric, faster speeds can be attained, and the space fabric itself must be able to move and expand through another kind of space, thereby allowing two things in the universe to move apart faster than 2c relative to each other.
The question of the Aether wind looks at something slow compared to the motion of the Earth. Yet it is possible that the Aether is extremely high light speed.
As our galaxy could be moving at close to c through the space fabric, the "aether wind" could be extremely high in speed, but the only impact that would have on us would be to slow our functionality and contract our length in the direction of that wind, and neither effect would be measurable by us.
-
David Cooper Responded:
Gerald Grushow: I assume that you believe that Eiinstein produces contradictions while Lorentz the EE wizzard is more correct.
DC:That's correct, and it's because Einstein tries to have his cake and eat it by trying to do away with the absolute frame of reference on the ludicrous basis that it doesn't exist because we can't identify it, even though the MGP experiment shows that there must be one.
I agree that there is an absolute frame of reference. As I see it, we live on a planar surface a distance Ru from the center at the big bang. We also live at a distance Ru (13.8 billion light years) from an outer sphere. Einstein tried to make every independent platform relative to their particular velocities. Yet the Earth and everything on it is tied to the Earths gravitational field.
GG: How does the photons interact with space from a physical perspective?
DC:That's what we all want to know.
Now we have new information from the Neutrino people in the mountain. Data from neutrinos developed at cern show they travel 2/1000 of 1 percent faster than light. Why? Discussion on "Faster than light" on internet.)
They look to string theory and see that the neutrino can occupy our dimensions most of the time and switch to other dimensions some of the time. The net result is that they can travel faster than light.
From my point of view, the Photon jumps at the true speed of light and then stops and enters a high light speed dimension. Then it returns to the same spot. The net result is that the measure speed of light is slightly less than the true maximum speed of light in vacuum.
If the neutrino was a horse of a different color as per Dorothy and the Wizzard, it is possible that it does not jump from point to point and then stop. The the speed of the neutrino is the true light speed and the neutrino is the only particle/wave that stays in our light speed Co dimension.
GG: You say that space limits the transmission through it to the speed of light C. Yet various experiments have concluded that space itself can travel faster than C.
DC:We already have reason to think that c is not the absolute speed limit, but is merely the speed limit for things that move through the fabric of space (relative to that fabric). Outside of that fabric, faster speeds can be attained, and the space fabric itself must be able to move and expand through another kind of space, thereby allowing two things in the universe to move apart faster than 2c relative to each other.
GG: To me as a minimum our universe is light speed Co and light speed Cs. At the big bang energy from light speed Cs flowed into small sphere and slowly transformed into mostly energy from at light speed Co. Yet we still oscillate between these extremes. It is my belief that the maximum light speed is 1000 light years per second. However Cs may be much lower than that. That would give us a triple light speed universe. In any event Einstein turned the Universe into a simple electrical engineering problem. Yet it is obvious to me that we have an entire light speed spectrum up toward light speed infinity to consider. That I have been thinking about since 1981.
Quote
GG: The question of the Aether wind looks at something slow compared to the motion of the Earth. Yet it is possible that the Aether is extremely high light speed.
DC:As our galaxy could be moving at close to c through the space fabric, the "aether wind" could be extremely high in speed, but the only impact that would have on us would be to slow our functionality and contract our length in the direction of that wind, and neither effect would be measurable by us.
GG: Good point. I am always perplexed by adding our light speed C motion away from the initial point to our ordinary motion. Using Einstein's equations it is confusing how to add then. However if the high light speed dimension Cs is 100C, we could still use Einstein's approximation and as you say it would only produce immeasurable distortions.
-
The Michelson/Morley experiment enabled Einstein to produce his theory of special relativity. Einstein's work has produced excellent results such as the slowing of time clocks in orbit around the Earth. Yet the experiment itself was flawed. The big problem is the idea that photons travel from the sun to the Earth independent of the gravitational fields of the sun and the Earth. It was assumed that they travel at the speed of light C without any changes. However as I see it, photons jump at the speed Co and then stop for a tiny amount of time. Then they jump again along the gravitational field lines. The result is that once they move from the sun's gravitational field to the Earths gravitational field, they jump at Co with respect to the center of the Earth. Thus whether the Earth is moving toward or away from the Sun the measured speed is Co. Thus the Michelson/Morley experiment proved nothing at all.
This is just a re-wording of the "ether-dragging" argument. The problem with this is that it is inconsistent with other observations, mainly stellar aberration. When we look at distant stars, their apparent positions shift as the Earth orbits the Sun. If, as you argue, the speed of light from those stars were to change to being relative to the Earth, then this effect would, at the very least, be of a different magnitude than what we presently measure. In other words, the stellar aberration we measure is in perfect agreement with the fact that the light is not at all affected as it enters the Earth's sphere of influence.
-
Janus responds:
GG stated: The Michelson/Morley experiment enabled Einstein to produce his theory of special relativity. Einstein's work has produced excellent results such as the slowing of time clocks in orbit around the Earth. Yet the experiment itself was flawed. The big problem is the idea that photons travel from the sun to the Earth independent of the gravitational fields of the sun and the Earth. It was assumed that they travel at the speed of light C without any changes. However as I see it, photons jump at the speed Co and then stop for a tiny amount of time. Then they jump again along the gravitational field lines. The result is that once they move from the sun's gravitational field to the Earths gravitational field, they jump at Co with respect to the center of the Earth. Thus whether the Earth is moving toward or away from the Sun the measured speed is Co. Thus the Michelson/Morley experiment proved nothing at all.
Janus replied:
This is just a re-wording of the "ether-dragging" argument. The problem with this is that it is inconsistent with other observations, mainly stellar aberration. When we look at distant stars, their apparent positions shift as the Earth orbits the Sun. If, as you argue, the speed of light from those stars were to change to being relative to the Earth, then this effect would, at the very least, be of a different magnitude than what we presently measure. In other words, the stellar aberration we measure is in perfect agreement with the fact that the light is not at all affected as it enters the Earth's sphere of influence.
GG: Thanks for your information
That would be a problem if the light from the far stars changed as they entered the Earths gravitational field. However as I see it, photons continually change every split second. They change as they leave the far star. they change as they leave the far galaxy. Then they enter our galaxy. All along the way they have changed. On the way to our sun, they change again. The biggest changes have occurred prior to reaching the Sun's gravitational field. Then they come to the Earth where they make a final change which will be very small as compared to all the changes along the trip.
Every time the far photons move from one dimension to the other they lose energy and become redder. Thus there is a transfer of energy between the dimensions.
-
In light experiments, the light source usually gives continuous light. This can lead to false assumptions and interpretations in experiments.
For example, the interfering photon packages in the MM experiment are assumed to be half of the light that was emitted at the time of T1 . This misconception is at the level of stigmatization / dogma. However, it can not be guaranteed that two photon packets begin to travel at the same time. But we can say the photon packages arrive to a observer eye or a board/panel at the same moment.
-
Xersanozgen said:
In light experiments, the light source usually gives continuous light. This can lead to false assumptions and interpretations in experiments.
For example, the interfering photon packages in the MM experiment are assumed to be half of the light that was emitted at the time of T1 . This misconception is at the level of stigmatization / dogma. However, it can not be guaranteed that two photon packets begin to travel at the same time. But we can say the photon packages arrive to a observer eye or a board/panel at the same moment.
GG: I am trying to understand what you are saying. I guess it means that one beam is split in half and one goes in a straight line direction and the other in a perpendicular direction. They end up at the same final point in perfect alignment. Thus no interference pattern is observed. However the fact that they ended up in alignment perfectly does not mean that they both started their journey simultaneously. Is that correct?
As I see it, photons move at light speed C when they exist in our ordinary dimensions. However they move and then stop and move again as they leave our dimensions and move into another dimension either by string theory or multi-light-speed theory.
If they start and stop together then what you say is invalid. However we only know part of the trip. Our physics is governed by our particular light speed dimension but most importantly it is under the control of the higher dimension.
Two pulses starting at different times can enter the higher dimension and then be synchronized by the higher controlling physics. then you would be correct.
Unfortunately physics has depended upon what we see and measure using instruments and particles which operate mostly at light speed C. String theory maintains C but variable light speed physics does not have that limitation.
Einstein was a single light speed person. So his theory was reduced to simple electrical engineering type physics. The issue you bring up goes beyond Einstein's understanding. And until we move forward we will not truly understand how the universe works.
-
Xersanozgen said:
In light experiments, the light source usually gives continuous light. This can lead to false assumptions and interpretations in experiments.
As I see it, photons move at light speed C when they exist in our ordinary dimensions. 1- However they move and then stop and move again as they leave our dimensions and move into another dimension either by string theory or multi-light-speed theory.
If they start and stop together then what you say is invalid. However we only know part of the trip. Our physics is governed by our particular light speed dimension but 2- most importantly it is under the control of the higher dimension.
3- Two pulses starting at different times can enter the higher dimension and then be synchronized by the higher controlling physics. then you would be correct.
Unfortunately physics has depended upon what we see and measure using instruments and particles which operate mostly at light speed C. String theory maintains C but variable light speed physics does not have that limitation.
Einstein was a single light speed person. So his theory was reduced to simple electrical engineering type physics. The issue you bring up goes beyond Einstein's understanding. And until we move forward we will not truly understand how the universe works.
1- Light never needs to accelerate for final value of its velocity and it travels linear. So the light is a perfect reference frame according to Galilei Relativity principle. Also, the actor -which has higher capacity- must be preferred/assigned for reference frame in accordance with methodology; Light is a universal reality. Therefore to prefer the light -for the role of reference frame- is more accuracy. Unfortunately SR and some scientist preferes a local thing (the source or moving body) for this role. This SR mentality is a first approach for light's motion in accordance with locality, mechanic habits or inadequate paradigm/methodology. For the relation of light and moving body, the light or most external frame (space) is sufficient and requirement co-reference frame.
2- Here is the higher dimension or paradigm: LCS concept The motion of an identified photon and other actors (source, observer etc) must be analyzed by using Light Coordinate System or space.
3- Yes, two pulses starting at different times can enter/arrive/meet at same moment. If we directly enter the lights from the Andromeda and Sirius sources simply (without interferometer testing), we will see the same interference fringes like MM experiment. Because both lights come to the observer or the panel (despite the universal speed of the observer and the panel). Please examine the figure.
According to my conviction, there is no need to produce new theories. It is sufficient to analyze the movements of the photon and other actors in the outermost frame (according to the space/LCS - light coordinate system). This analysis was studied by me to calculate the age of universe ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E) )
-
Your work looks at a particular phenomenon which specialists in the field would understand. I look for the basic workings of the universe. Here we are left with Einsteins work and Quantum mechanics. A new theory is necessary to understand how the photon works and what is gravity.
It is clear to me that Einstein produced a great approximation to reality but he did not explain what gravity is and how gravity works. He had a mathematical solution but that is not good enough. We live in a physical universe.
Professor Juen Yin specified that quantum entanglement works at a speed of 10,000C. This means there is a higher dimension of light speed 10,000C or higher. A MuMeson moving close to light speed degenerates at a much slower rate than upon the Earth. What does that mean?
Einstein would say that the clock inside the MuMeson has slowed. He would also say that space has contracted. Thus Einsteins equations which are the geometric mean of Doppler type equations tend to be correct. Yet did space really contract or time slowed.
If as I say the MuMeson entered the 10,000C dimension some of the time, it would travel at tremendous speed some of the time. At the same time the internal workings of the MuMeson would slow. Mathematically Einstein would be correct but physically he would be wrong. So we need to understand multi-light-speed physics. We need to understand that the primary particle of everything is a dot-wave which oscillates between the light speed Co dimension and the light speed Cs dimension which we can assume is at least 10,000Co. It is my belief that the highest light speed within our universe is 1000 light years per second, however the workings of the physical world may be closer to the 10,000C.
As we look at the photon (as I study today), it appears that the photon exists in the Co universe and switches to the Cs dimension. Within the Cs dimesion it could travel at Cs but when it returns to the Co dimension, it has only traveled at Co. The physics of the photon is controlled by the physics of the 10,000C universe. This makes it difficult to get sufficient data to see what is happening. Anyway I am still studying that today.
-
. A MuMeson moving close to light speed degenerates at a much slower rate than upon the Earth. What does that mean?
I had reconsidered the subject of muons.
The scientific article contains a serious mistake; even it may be said that it is a misinformation or a false fact.
Because, the lifetimes of atmospherical/natural muons and laboratory muons must be compared. If they accept the lifetime of laboratory muon as comparison material (as reference frame) they would must consider the difference value of the speeds of atmospherical and laboratory muons on calculating, but they had considered solely the value that is according to Earth for muon's speed (98 % c).
Whereas the difference of their speeds is not significant for this conclusion. The values of both speeds are similar.
-
It is just something I learned 50 years ago. At that time it tended to prove Einstein's variation of time with speed. The laboratory Muons were assumed to be basically stationary. So now you specify that the lab muons and the outerspace muons operate at the same speed. I do not know. So now if that is true then the only ready proof of einstein's is the clock experiments and the navigation system from the satellites system.
-
It is just something I learned 50 years ago. At that time it tended to prove Einstein's variation of time with speed. The laboratory Muons were assumed to be basically stationary. So now you specify that the lab muons and the outerspace muons operate at the same speed. I do not know. So now if that is true then the only ready proof of einstein's is the clock experiments and the navigation system from the satellites system.
I did not discuss clock experiments yet.
But sorry for satelites system.
It is claimed that the relativity theories is usen for GPS correction about practical useage area.
We can examine this subject:
Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (4 km/sec) (http://www.gpsports.com/gpsports_website/articles/GPS%20-%20What%20is%20it.pdf (http://www.gpsports.com/gpsports_website/articles/GPS%20-%20What%20is%20it.pdf))
The Earth has the rotational speed at equator about 1667 km/hour (0.46 km/sec).
To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html) )
The path length of microwave is 2 x 20,000 = 40,000 km; and the duration is 40 000/300 000 = 0.133 sec = 133 000 microsec.= 133 000 000 nanosec
( transposition because of the limited value of light's velocity: 0.133 sec x 4 km/sec = 0.532 km )
max transposition because of relativity theory: 0.000000030 sec x 4 kmsec = 0.00000012 km = 0.012 centimeter.
Alright, now, we may look/consider the tolerans of GPS:
The accuracy commitments do not apply to GPS devices, but rather to the signals transmitted in space. For example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time. ( http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ (http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/) )
So, what is the conclusion? Is the GPS relativity correction sufficient for endorsement the theory?
However I may say: MM experiment proves that all photons arrives to an observer's eye by the universal velocity of light ' c '. The speed of Earth (local or universal) is not operative.
-
It is just something I learned 50 years ago. At that time it tended to prove Einstein's variation of time with speed. The laboratory Muons were assumed to be basically stationary. So now you specify that the lab muons and the outerspace muons operate at the same speed. I do not know. So now if that is true then the only ready proof of einstein's is the clock experiments and the navigation system from the satellites system.
Neither are proof of Einstein's relativity - they are merely compatible with it, just as they are compatible with Lorentz's more rational theory of relativity. There are no proofs of Einstein's relativity, but there are several logical disproofs of it.
-
DC said:Neither are proof of Einstein's relativity - they are merely compatible with it, just as they are compatible with Lorentz's more rational theory of relativity. There are no proofs of Einstein's relativity, but there are several logical disproofs of it.
That makes sense. You two guys look at things from a more scientific viewpoint. From an engineering viewpoint Einsteins clock slowing is correct. Yet I get the same answers when I used the geometric mean of the Doppler. And I like that better because it enables differences between forward time and rearward time, forward length and rearward length. As as a Sperry radar research and development engineer, the Doppler seems better to me.
The problem I find with Einstein is that he only looks at relative speed between platforms. Yet I must agree with the string theory mathematicians that the universe we see and measure is only a part of a higher structure. The pictures they use appear very funny to me. I do not need small dimensions because our physical universe is defined by light speed Co = 186,000 miles per second. Another dimension can exist in the same X,Y,and Z but at a different light speed Cs. What is Cs? One answer is greater than 10,000C. That means we can perfectly coexist with this other dimension and we can assume that it is basically stationary. The only interconnection between the dimensions is that the basic sub-particle of everything oscillate between these light speeds.
Einstein did a great job but it does not describe the more complex universe we live in. So his work is a good approximation for many things but until you look at the light speed spectrum, you are only looking at a small part of the total universe.
-
Xersanozgen says:However I may say: MM experiment proves that all photons arrives to an observer's eye by the universal velocity of light ' c '. The speed of Earth (local or universal) is not operative.
GG says: This is a puzzle I am still trying to understand. Does the photon travel in the light speed Co dimension? We tend to believe that but the dot-wave structure of the photon continually oscillates into the high light speed Cs dimension. One would think that it could travel at the Cs speed or any speed higher than light speed. Yet when it come back to our physical dimension it must return to Co. So the light is independent of any relative motion. Somehow the interaction between the higher and lower light speed dimensions produce what you say. Yet I am trying to understand why this happens. And my dual light speed oscillating dot-waves are only a few months old. My single light speed dot-waves have not explained the gravitational force very well but the dual light speed dot-waves make gravity quite understandable to my engineering mind.
-
The theory SR adopted light speed as the highest speed. He even set out a formula for the resultant velocities to be lower than this rate.
However, an innocent mind may think/determine that the diameter of a light sphere growing at a radius c speed will grow at a rate of 2c.
In genuine relativity, the upper limit is c.
In supposed relativity, the upper limit is 2c.
-
That of course makes little sense. If you radiate a radar signal in all directions, the wave in opposite directions will move apart at 2C. Einstein has attempted to create a universe according to his imagination. Yet now we find that neutrinos move faster than C and that interactions occur at greater than 10,000C. So the Universe of Einstein is only a particular limited version of the actual universe.
-
That of course makes little sense. If you radiate a radar signal in all directions, the wave in opposite directions will move apart at 2C. Einstein has attempted to create a universe according to his imagination. Yet now we find that neutrinos move faster than C and that interactions occur at greater than 10,000C. So the Universe of Einstein is only a particular limited version of the actual universe.
Yes, neutrinos of 1987 A supernova had arrived to earth before two hours according to its photons. When photons meet some materials, they before are absorbed and then emitted again by these materials; whereas neutrinos transit directly and this time difference will be realised.
10000 c interesting.
-
The 10,000C is the work of Professor Juan Yin during the quantum entanglement experiments. To me it shows that the general principles of string theory are correct. Our physical light speed Co universe is part of a more complex multi dimensional universe. To me that is multi-light-speed going upward toward light speed infinity. This enabled the initial creation of the universe to come from a much higher light speed form of energy.
You defend special relativity but that is only one simple solution out of many more complex solutions.
Today I am contemplating a photon traveling toward the Earth while the Earth is moving toward the sun. Einstein would say that space shortened but as the photon oscillated into the high light speed dimension, it would travel faster. Then was it returned to the light speed Co dimension, the distance would have shortened. Einstein's equations would be correct but his analysis would be quite wrong. So he gets the right mathematical answers but his physics is incorrect.
-
As far as the neutrinos not be absorbed by particles as photons may be, that would see a possibility. However the latest experiments at CERN to the neutrino scientists within the nearby mountain, the scientists looked at all possibilities and could only conclude that neutrinos generated at CERN travel faster than light. So we are dealing with a lot of scientific minds and have to come up with a more complex answer than your simple one. What is happening? I just learned about this and am trying to understand the time differences between photons and neutrinos.
Every split second a photon oscillates between the Co dimension and the Cs dimension. There is a discrete but small time during the transition. If the neutrino took more time in the high speed Cs dimension, it would travel faster than light by a small amount.
An alternate possibility is that the high energy impact producing the neutrinos produced particles on the other side of the light speed barrier. What then is the light speed barrier? It is an interaction point between the light speed Co dimension and the light speed Cs dimension. It is a transition point between dimensions and a certain differential light speed band applies.