Is an observer aware of any events without light (detectable em radiation)?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It is a proof that his models are broken. Nitpicking about the wording of the introductory part is avoiding the issues.Same answers as usual. Do a quick review of history, and realize a few thousand years of human rule is responsible for the tragic state of humanity.
I have built models which show that STR doesn't work, and no one in the world has ever built any models in which STR does work - they all cheat by breaking the rules of the model to create the illusion of it working. They bring in an extra kind of time tied to an absolute frame to coordinate the action on different paths and then pretend they haven't done so, but in every single case they have. My models of STR are openly available and have been for a decade. Your side has completely failed to counter them by showing the simplest model that can handle the same action without cheating. A working model of STR is impossible if it works purely on STR's rules. It has to cheat because the model is broken.I have no associations with science organizations. You might submit your work to an established research center to make them aware of your models.
From Phys.org. Physicists reverse time using quantum computer. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reverse-quantum.htmlfrom the article"
There is a major difference. However, if you keep mixing models and imagine that you're doing SR while you're actually mixing LET and SR, then no wonder you're confused. In LET there is an absolute frame. In SR there is not, so you are banned from having time dilation - time cannot dilate for a stationary object, and all objects are stationary in SR
Take the twins paradox. Twin A stays at home. Twin B goes away and back, recording less time passing than twin A. Did time dilate? Twin B is not moving according to SR during the first leg, so no - it could not dilate. Twin B is not moving according to SR during the second leg, so again no - it could not dilate. Twin A is also not moving according to SR, so again time did not dilate. You cannot have time dilation without an absolute frame mechanism, and you cannot have multiple absolute frames to switch between whenever it suits you because you are changing the speed of light relative to the content every time you change frame, breaking the rules of the universe where the speed of light is constant through space[There's one serious misinterpretation (red). SR does not state or imply the red portion. It states postulate 1 as: "the laws of physics are the same for all inertial (constant velocity) frames of reference". This translates to, any inertial frame may serve as a reference. A and B qualify as inertial frames, but still have to consider their relative motion in any measurement process.]
1. If you are stationary or moving at constant speed and you assert that the speed of light relative to you from the north is c, if you then accelerate north to a different constant speed, the speed of light relative to you from the north is no longer c. If you want to claim it is now c relative to you, it can not have been c relative to you before.[1. That's as observed by a second party. In my inertial frame, light speed in space is always c, regardless of my speed. Light speed is independent of its source, i.e. it does not acquire the speed of the source, which differs from material objects.
2. If you want it to be the same speed relative to you for both frames, you need to use a 4D Spacetime model in which the speed for light relative to you in both cases is zero. There is no valid alternative to these options in mathematics.
If you start with two ships sitting a mile apart in frame A with one directly ahead of the other and you accelerate them both identically to 0.866c (in the direction they're pointing), they will still be a mile apart in frame A after the acceleration.[Agree for frame A. In the ship frames, they will measure their separation as .5 miles.]
If I accelerate every atom of a metre long stick to a fraction under c in an instant, those atoms will still be sitting at the same separations after the acceleration - the contraction has not been applied[A mass cannot be accelerated instantly. Length contraction happens at light speed over microscopic distances (electron cloud), which will be faster than a transfer of energy between particles. The incremental energy transfer will require increasing transit times as it progresses This is also the reason why a material object cannot be accelerated to light speed. It's NOT due to increasing mass.]
If he chooses 2, he is using an absolute frame mechanism, so he's abandoned STR.[ His conclusion is based on 'he knows SR', and there is no absolute frame, which is the basis for the 'relativity principle'.]
Yes.Quote from: mxplxxxIt is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time.
I know nothing about computer programming, and it’s too late to start on that now. However, I’m intrigued by this statement. What does “without any reference to time” mean?
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
Could it mean that the program completes its task without making any reference to time?
All inertial frames measure light speed as constant because they assert a particular speed for it and adjust everything else to conform to that requirement.[Observers have no control over the effects of td and lc, which modifies their measurements. The effects result from a constant independent speed of light. I.e. it's built into the physical behavior of the universe.]
An observer on the ship will see the trip as taking no time due to the practically halted functionality. An observer stationary relative to the start and finish lines will see the ship travelling for an hour without contracting - it will appear to be an unstable length, but its functionality is frozen, as expected for an object moving at such high speed.
In the 4D non-Euclidean geometry of STR and GTR, those zero-length distances exist. If we sent a ship at nearly c to M32 and back, it would return to us at a different location from the one it left, but the first leg of its trip would be shortened to next to zero length, and so would the second leg of its trip. The time it would pass through for the trip would be next to zero too. Light would make an equivalent trip in zero time of zero distance. That is a mathematical necessity of the model.
Which Relativity? With LET, yes - it's the propagation speed of light relative to space. With STR and GTR, it's just a constant which represents the apparent propagation speed of light relative to space, but with those models the real speed of light is zero. If you don't want it to be zero, don't use a 4D model.
Not sure he said anything about everything happening all at once, but see no reason why this could not occur. A photon observing the universe would likely see the result of everything happening at once (probably nothing, literally?).
Einstein's theory of SpaceTime (I think) postulates that the past, present and future all exist at once.
Also Electromagnetic waves (which seem closely related to photons) have electro and magnetic wave components that travel faster than light, thus allowing for the possibility that they originate in the future.
Pretty sure this is what is believed by lots of physicists[You are referring to the '4D block universe', where all events exist simultaneously, and each observer experiences their own 'now' as they journey through space. Paul Davies is one advocate for this theory. One critical fact when considering this idea. There is one occurrence for each event, but many perceptions of that event.]
It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time.
With inertial frames too, we know that one of them must be a true representation of reality (because it provides the correct speeds for light relative to an object in every direction) while all the rest must be false. However, because we can't tell which one is true, we have to treat all inertial frames as potentially true. We shouldn't do that with an accelerated frame though because it's guaranteed not to be true.[All inertial frames measure light speed as constant, because light speed is independent of any source.
In the same way, a ship of any length that's accelerated to a speed that practically stops functionality will not contract significantly
However, all of that is predicated on the idea that light can travel at speeds approaching c in the first place. In 4D models, light must actually travel at zero speed because it has no option other than to reduce all the paths it follows to zero length[An observers world gets smaller the faster he moves in space. Near zero distance is perceived by the moving observer only.]
OK, so maybe SR came first, but if the quote above is correct, it wasn't interpreted as 4D spacetime until Minkowski's contribution.True. Einstein always saw time as distinct from space, and later acknowledged Minkowski's 4D interpretation as having a mathematical advantage. Minkowski treated time as just another variable/parameter, what I refer to as a 'lines on paper' theory. By representing time as a line, it loses its identity. All lines are treated equally, allowing motion in time and space. The problem is, science starts believing the models are reality.
Interesting. Didn't know Einstein published what sounds like a metaphysical interpretation of his own work. I would probably need to see the context in which these statements are made.
No, it is detected at D, a frame-independent event. No light beam intersects the A line at event D'. Neither D nor D' is labeled in fig 2. Yes, A's clock reads 2.31 when the light signal is detected, but that is at event D, not at D'.
Einstein drew from Minkowski's work (and Lorentz, among others) in his SR theory.Lorentz ether Theory, Wikipedia, Jun. 2016:
No it isn't. A is not moving relative to A, so the A line should be vertical from A's perspecitve and his clock does not dilate.
And my repeated point is that nothing really happens at R'', so LET does not describe a reflection event there. It happens at A', about the same interval between event D and the event where Ax crosses the M line.
In Minkowski spacetime (still no relativity going on),
You seem to be claiming that they don't produce the same resultsLET vs SR: