The Speed of Light is Infinite

  • 113 Replies
  • 28054 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #50 on: 07/05/2011 01:50:08 »
Well, when it comes to a 'universal time' I'm somewhat leaning to it too :) That local time you talked about Geezer. It's about 'frames of reference' and where one end and another starts. In a way you could define all points in SpaceTime as being unique. In another we do perceive this 'local time' to be the same when being in, loosely defined, the same frame of reference as on Earth.

So okay, imagine all points in some positional system to have a unique 'SpaceTime', a different experience of SpaceTime. Then define it such as the closer those points are to each other, the more similar will their 'SpaceTime' be. You will also need to consider gravity and motion, but if we define the points as needed to be at rest relative each other for them to experience this similarity, we can get around it for this.

So, doing so we have defined a SpaceTime where if two points are at rest relative each other they will experience the 'same'. Will this definition hold if they are at rest relative each other but not placed back to back? Not really, to make that work we will have to consider gravity as such. But assuming the same gravity acting on those points it will be true as long as they are at rest relative each other.

So, if you have a system where depending on two parameters, relative motion and gravity, where points get the same experience of our SpaceTime if converging, being at rest relative each other, can we then state that there might be a 'ground state' for those different 'clocks'?

What if we super imposed one point upon another? Would they then have the exact same experience? If you think they would, then you think there is a 'ground state'. If you don't expect this to be true, then there can't be any 'ground state' for time. Myself I think there exist a 'ground state' but as we're all different, and can't be superimposed upon each other without becoming bosons?
« Last Edit: 07/05/2011 02:50:07 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 363
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #51 on: 21/05/2011 19:33:03 »
 On the matter of time. A gravity well basically extends to infinity and a clock runs slower the deeper it is in that well, so we could say that time like a gravity well gets smaller (runs faster) as you go farther away from the central mass, a sort of time/gravity bubble that gets thinner the bigger it gets. Using that analogy the Universe is full of these time/gravity bubbles, a kind of spaces within spaces. It seems possible that there might be a bigger bubble that our Universe is contained inside and that some event inside that bubble created our Universe.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 363
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #52 on: 22/05/2011 20:55:22 »
Suppose I am two meters outside the the event horizon of a black hole. I observe someone turning a laser beam on from a planet circling the black hole. The beam is aimed at another planet in the same system. When I try to measure the speed of that beam I find it to be almost infinite because my clock is almost stopped and no time passes between when the beam was fired and when it got to it's destination. There are circumstances where it can be infinite.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #53 on: 23/05/2011 11:52:04 »
Indeed.  "The speed of light is constant" is a slightly abused phrase.  The speed of light is constant in a vacuum locally in curved space-time (of globally in flat space-time).  In your black hole example, the speed of light is constant when measured over a tiny enough patch of space, but it isn't constant over large distances because of the curvature of space-time.

And of course, if light hits matter, it slows down because of interactions with the matter. 

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 363
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #54 on: 23/05/2011 15:06:34 »
From my position the speed of light will always appear to be almost infinite except in my locale area.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #55 on: 27/05/2011 17:23:49 »
Indeed.  "The speed of light is constant" is a slightly abused phrase.  The speed of light is constant in a vacuum locally in curved space-time (of globally in flat space-time).  In your black hole example, the speed of light is constant when measured over a tiny enough patch of space, but it isn't constant over large distances because of the curvature of space-time.

And of course, if light hits matter, it slows down because of interactions with the matter. 
Excuse me ,JP. I see your position here.It is right.

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #56 on: 27/05/2011 17:46:32 »
"outside of a gravitational field a photon travels instantaneous"

Hey, MikeS! A gravitation increases energy of photon . May be absence of gravitation reduces energy of photon, then photon will not have energy. [:P]

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #57 on: 29/05/2011 08:48:43 »
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction).  Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
I just cannot understand what does gravitational delay of light? Length contraction or time dilation?
« Last Edit: 29/05/2011 09:23:47 by simplified »

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #58 on: 02/06/2011 08:59:24 »
Mike,

The answer is "It depends"
It depends on the frame of reference you are considering.

If you consider Special Relativity and the frame of reference of the light beam itself, then I agree with you that its speed must be viewed as being infinite since it arrives anywhere in an instant, without experiencing any passage of time. This is the definition of infinite velocity;- any distance covered in no time at all.
However, if you consider any other (stationary) frame of reference viewing the same motion, then the speed is always "c".
How can that be you might ask, but I can only say that this the nature of space-time and it is described by the Lorentz transformation.

The key here is Lorentz, but we are talking scientific heresy here. What we are proposing is that the time dilation of motion produces an increase in velocity and NOT A LENGTH CONTRACTION in the direction of motion. With Lorentz, you can have either but not both. SR decides to go with length contraction firstly since it was an inherited idea from the nineteenth century. SR also holds velocity CONSTANT across frames in relative motion because scientists cannot envisage and are discouraged from envisioning, a different speed as observed from both frames. They also know the implications of accepting this and so avoid the idea, not wishing to entertain any acceptance of speeds greater than "c". There are other heretic implications.

To me, and it appears to you also, the idea of the velocity EXPERIENCED within the frame can be different to the same velocity but OBSERVED from other frames. This has been a fundamental error in Special Relativity theory since 1905.


*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #59 on: 02/06/2011 10:16:32 »
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction).  Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
I just cannot understand what does gravitational delay of light? Length contraction or time dilation?

Per the post in the other thread - we can show that light travelling through a gravitational field (like that of the sun) is delayed compared to the Newtonian predictions.  There is a two fold reason why a distant observer will register this light as delayed, the time dilation effect of the gravitational potential and the fact that the light is travelling on a geodesic and is thus travelling further than it would in flat spacetime.

The calculated distance between Earth and Venus when they are in opposition (ie one either side of the sun) is actually 37km shorter than the real distance!  This 37 km is the extra distance that must be travelled because spacetime itself is curved.  To actually go much deeper requires a familiarity with metric tensor analysis and path integrals which is a bit beyond this forum (and me).

NB In a small enough local inertial frame Light speed is always constant and always the c we know and love.

You can read about this particular form of measurement of the slowing of light by searching on the Shapiro Delay - however this is heavy duty GR and require an engagement with the maths. 
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #60 on: 02/06/2011 16:47:35 »
And to me the 'real distance' includes those km too :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #61 on: 02/06/2011 16:54:07 »
Imatfaal,

About the quote you refer to from JP;- My response to that is - "Yes there is a definite reason why time dilation is more important than length contraction." In fact, I would go so far as to say that time dilation is important but length contraction is not. (provocative right?);-

When Hafele & Keating proved in 1971 that time dilation could be measured in accordance with Special Relativity, they actually proved it is REAL! Sadly, even today, this has still not sunk in for the mainstream! Although we all understand that you cannot detect any change in time rate from within your own frame, the RELATIVE differential time rates between moving frames is nevertherless a reality. Length contraction, on the other hand, is NOT real. It is merely a relative ILLUSION. How can I say this? Well, when the clock in the moving frame stops moving, it bears the evidence of the time rate differential during the journey and we can predict this and prove it by experiment. The length contraction demonstrates no such evidence on return to the stationary frame and as far as the stationary frame's experience goes, it does not experience any effect whatsoever from the movement of light or objects relative to it.

If we consider two close, moving plates with a relative electric charge then it does not matter which argument you use to calculate the relative compression of the electric field. Both Lorentz velocity increase and length contraction give the same result. So we can say any and all relative effects between frames can be viewed as a result of either. There is no scientific compelling argument to choose length contraction, more the discomfort of exceeding "c" in the moving frame if we choose velocity increase.

You can refer me to as much math as you like, but I, and you, as well as others in this forum, have a brain which is superior in certain ways to the best of mathematics. Here's a great quote;-

"Mathematics and physics take fundamentally different approaches to describing nature. The former is more concerned with what might be possible, and the latter with what is definitely real. Math is constrained by the need for internal consistency, but is generally oblivious to external constraints. Physics has its laws too, and these can change as knowledge improves. But physics is rigorously constrained by its principles which have no counterparts in mathematics. Examples are, the causality principle (“Every effect must have a proximate antecedent cause”), and the prohibition against creation. Violations of such principles are ruled out by logic as requiring magic, a miracle, or the supernatural. Although mathematically allowed, they are said to be physically impossible."
Tom Van Flandern & J. P. Vigier
(Foundations of Physics (32:1031-1068, 2002)


Now I am not anti math, far from it, but the mathematicians have "taken over" physics in the last hundred years and we are left with certain mistaken beliefs as a result. In the case of SR, it is unfortunate that we can justify, mathematically, our mistaken beliefs, but we can also justify the reality using the same mathematical rules. At the moment, the mainstream refuses to listen to the alternative and whenever it is tabled, obstacles are placed in the way of the argument before the case can be properly made. Our ducks are shot down before the row forms.
You will no doubt feel yourself wanting to do just that. It is human nature to resist any change in our beliefs.

If we come to terms with time dilation being THE reality (try to believe this for the moment), then we must accept, for reasons of causality, that TIME is the cause of ALL effects within space-time. There is nothing else available to affect anything. I am saying the distortion of a vacuum is unreal and that GR is a great way of getting to the right answers but it does not reflect reality. The abstract idea of breaking down volume into a Gaussian geometric frame, works in the mathematical sense, but you cannot attribute the property of variation to what is essentially, NOTHING !

If all this is the case, then when the time rate changes, only time related events or effects will likewise become affected as a result. Spacial or physical entities, (scalar quantities), cannot be affected by the time dilation of motion.

This means that velocity MUST change if the time rate changes since velocity has a time attribute (m/s, km/hr). It is a time related occurence and if you change the value of the unit of time then you change the value of the velocity.
If the velocity changes, then the length CANNOT change since Lorentz allows EITHER velocity OR length to change but NOT both.
You can do the math with Lorentz. It is very simple, and "c" turns out to be infinite in the moving frame whilst maintaining the limit of "c" as observed from the "stationary" frame.
 
As,    vs→c
Then,  vm→∞

It is this relative limit that has deceived us for over a century since we never observe anything faster. We would have to accelerate to some significant fraction of "c" to look out of our porthole and see the universe BLUE SHIFTED and speeding by with increasing velocity tending toward ∞ as we approach relative "c". Yes I know the SR argument of V being purely relative, but the symmetry of space simply does not apply to the dimension of time. Time is uni directional or assymetrical and any geometric analysis of space-time can become confused by ignoring this difference in nature between space and time.

So where does all this get us in answering your comment?

Well, all you have done is to throw the mainstream arguments at me and I am not dissagreeing with anything you suggest since we get the right answers from any analysis using them. If I may, I must throw my alternative arguments back at you which will give the same results. The question then simply boils down to deciding which version best reflects reality.

The speed of light is a constant outside of a gravitational potential. Agreed, except that I contend it is infinite when observations are made from the frame of the light beam, since its clock has stopped relative to the rest of the universe.

In a gravitational field, it would still be observed as a constant "c", if the observer's clock tracked the light beam's clock as it moved through the field. But since, in reality, we cannot do this and our clock remains constant whilst the beam's clock varies depending on its elevation in the field, we therefore observe a variation in speed. Agreed, except it is still infinite as observed from all the frames of the beam during its travels.

I am surprised you did not mention the doubled Newtonian deflection of the beam. Einstein attributed this to "One part due to the Newtonian free fall and one part due to the geometrical variations in space."
Here are extracts from a paper which gives the real reasons;-


“……………………..If we take into account the wave nature of light, there is an additional contribution coming from the time dilation in relativity. The observation that this contribution is independent and additional to the Newtonian deflection of the mean trajectory is the main purpose of this paper.

……………One does not need full general relativity for deriving the expression for the deflection of light. What is needed are the equivalence principle, conservation of energy, and the wave nature of light. One part of the deflection comes from the free fall of the particle or light ray in the gravitational field, and the deflection depends on the average velocity of the test particle. The other part comes from the red shift factor. This is always given by, 2GM/c2r
  independent of the velocity………

………………..For light, both contributions have the same magnitude, and they add to give the full deflection;- 4GM/c2r ”

On the gravitational deflection of light and particles
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Current science, vol. 88 No. 7, 10 April 2005

I take this one step further and state;-

The doubled deflection of the beam is due to One part Newtonian and One part wave front bending, BOTH due to local time dilation.

Einstein's notions of the distortion of volume and the geodesic, although essential in predicting outcomes, nevertheless divert us from reality. The reality is the time rate field, and anything that is demonstrated by GR can be equally demonstrated by an analysis of temporal effects.

There's much more, of course.

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #62 on: 02/06/2011 17:41:42 »
Ken,

On length contraction.  This is obviously not easily shown experimentally - but it is claimed that Relativistic Heavy Ion Collision generate results that only flow from a model where the ions are length contracted and not those where the ions remain spherical.  Have a look Here .  Similarly if we look at elctromagnetic interaction of heavy ions they also need to be flattened out HERE

I have done the calculation and SR works pretty damn well. Frankly, it is not really worth arguing I think the maths is right and Einstein's Theories describe reality in a very close way that can lead to further predictions; I would have to see mathematical predictions that agree with future experimentation before I changed my mind
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #63 on: 02/06/2011 18:24:19 »
Imatfaal,

Thankyou for your response. Yes, I have viewed the links you attached. I guess you are aware these are models which have the SR length contraction built in and so will inevitably show it.

Nevertheless,

I am also agreeing with the mathematics of SR, but SR mathematics, Lorentz, also works for velocity increase. Have you tried this also?
We can either view a flattened pancake striking something at 99.99"c", which I am saying is infinite velocity viewed from the moving frame, OR, we can view a spherical object striking something at infinite velocity in the moving frame. In which case, the front of the object hits at the same time as the rear of the object and so we can, if we wish, view it as a pancake. It doesn't matter either way as I have demonstrated.
What I am proposing will not affect science much at all. It's just that I believe we should always attempt to grasp reality, instead of relying on some convenient way of working practically. BOTH are important.

Considering the basis of SR,
Remember, the reciprocal views of clocks in relative motion has, to my knowledge, never been experimentally verified. In the case where two clocks are synchronised and one is flown out to space and eventually passes the Earth at great speed, I am predicting a redshift of the moving clock as viewed from Earth, but a blueshift of the Earth clock as viewed from the moving one. This is counter to the predictions of SR and can easily be tested.
We only predict reciprocal observations of redshift because we use geometry to do so whilst ignoring the asymmetry of time. This is wrong. Will someone please put me right by coming up with experimental verification of SR, or if unavailable at this time, will someone please carry out an appropriate experiment?

I'll take bets.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #64 on: 02/06/2011 18:43:00 »

Remember, the reciprocal views of clocks in relative motion has, to my knowledge, never been experimentally verified.


Isn't being continuously verified by GPS satellites?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #65 on: 02/06/2011 19:02:20 »
Hi Geezer,

My understanding is that the GPS satellites are verifying the different time rates at different elevations in the time rate field and also the time dilation of  motion (redshift) of the satellites relative to/as viewed from Earth.
I do not think this verifies the reciprocal view of Earth clocks being redshifted as viewed from the satellites. I am saying the Earth clocks will appear blueshifted from the satellite frames.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would appreciate some detail as to how and what is being measured from where, if you can. Anyone ?


*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #66 on: 02/06/2011 19:34:38 »
Hi Ken

Why would it not be reciprocal? If one is different relative to the other, there must be a reciprocal difference in the other direction. Or maybe I'm not getting your point?

G
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #67 on: 02/06/2011 21:19:14 »
Hi Geezer,

SR predicts the observation of a slow clock in the moving frame when viewed from the stationary frame. (I agree)
SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame. (I disagree, if both clocks were synchronised before one of them moved)
This is what is termed reciprocal. ie the observations are the same from either frame.
The justification for this is that relative motion is just that, relative, and it doesn't matter which frame is moving since the relative motion is the same whichever one moves.

I am saying there is a problem with this deduction. It supposes that all effects are reciprocal and therefore that a geometric analysis will render a correct prediction but this is not so.
Physical dimensions are symetrical, or bi-directional, whereas the time dimension is asymetrical or uni-directional and a geometric analysis can never take this difference into account since it is merely a symetrical, spacial analysis, not a temporal one.

If you remember the results from Hafele & Keating in 1971. No observations were ever made between frames at any stage of the journey and the time dilation was demonstrated only by the difference in times between the stationary clock and the moving clock when the journey was over. This proved that the moving clock had been operating at a slower rate than the stationary clock during the period of the motion, thus proving the time dilation of motion from SR is real.
However, if one clock really does run slower, then how can you observe a slower clock from this perspective when the other clock you're looking at really is faster.

There are various justifications for this from supporters of mainstream SR, but frankly, none of them stack up. They don't take account of the fact that initially, both clocks were synchronised but that only one of them moved.
The one that moved has the slow clock and the one that didn't move still has the same time rate as before.
The reality is the differential time rate which is asymetrical. ie, slow when looking at the moving clock but fast when looking at the stationary clock. This leads me to predict a BLUE SHIFT when looking out from the moving frame toward the stationary frame and this is counter to the prediction from SR

The symetrical result from SR only ever happens for the special case where both clocks move at the same speed away from the synchronised position. Then and only then, is the time dilation the same for both clocks.

What do you think?


*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #68 on: 03/06/2011 02:08:20 »
Special Relativity needs a length contraction to make sense Ken. What you might argue is that it is a geometrical illusion from the observer at rest relative the origin? General Relativity on the other hand is to me about 'gravity', and so discuss another subject.

As for it would matter if one of two uniformly moving frames would move with a different speed?

First of all, from where would you define their 'different speed'. Take away the stars and let them move against each other, can you by looking at one from the other say which one of you is moving now? How?

If you assume a third party that looks on both? Then there will be a measurable speed difference relative that third party of course. But the problem will still be that all uniform motions are the same when you try to measure them in a black room.

The blue shift you expect is also a frequency defining a energy, so what you seem to be saying is that the physics experiments on those two ship should deliver different results, aka measuring the flashlights energy in one frame, and then go to the other and do the exact same would give different energies measured? If that was true you would have introduced different outcomes from the same experiment, in two uniformly moving frames of reference. Then Einsteins special relativity would be wrong.
==

There is the gravitational blue shift of course?

If you compare a planet uniformly moving with a ship their invariant mass will differ, and the planet will find the light from the ship to be blue shifted as it gets a 'gravitational acceleration' which for a photon will translate into a blue shift.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 02:19:07 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #69 on: 03/06/2011 07:04:15 »

SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame.


Ken,

I could be wrong, but I thought it was the other way around.

Doesn't SR predict the observation of a fast clock in a stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame?

This would explain why the twin who goes for a jaunt around the Universe returns to find his twin, who never left Earth, is older.

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #70 on: 03/06/2011 09:48:11 »
Hi Guys,

Yor_on, your response is a little complicated to answer, so I'll respond to Geezer first.

Geezer, You and I are of like mind. We agree that we should observe blueshift from the moving frame when looking at the stationary frame. BUT, SR definitely claims that because the motion is relative and it doesn't matter which one is considered stationary, or moving, then the observations must be the same from both frames.
I am disagreeing with this and so it seems, are you. Yor_on is sticking with mainstream SR.

By the way, the twin paradox is just one of the contradictions from SR that show something is wrong. I agree with you, if he ages slower, then his whole existence/frame of reference has passed slower relative the twin left behind. The Earth twin's frame has passed at a faster rate than the travelling twin and so was blue shifted relatively during the period of the journey. There's definitely something amiss and I believe I know what it is. I will try again to clarify in my response to Yor_on. I am pressed for time at the moment.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 10:00:17 by Ken Hughes »

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #71 on: 03/06/2011 12:01:58 »
There is no twin paradox! Put one twin in a rocket with an atomic clock - leave the other one in Cape Canaveral.  Twinspaceman is accelerated upto .99c zooms out towards the great black yonder, slams on the brakes turns around and speeds back up and comes back to earth for a cheerful reunion with Twinstayathome.

Twinstayathome and his clock,his grey hairs, his infeasibly long beard etc all show that 14ish years have passed, Twinspaceman and his clock and all other measures show that two years have passed.  there are complications because the time dilation factor isn't constant during speed ups and slow downs but the errors brought in by those are minimal. 

OK - now if we break out the enormous and quite unbelievable telescopes we are explain what each twin sees of the others atomic clock.  On the outbound leg Twinstayathome sees the clock of Twinspaceman ticking once every 14 seconds (using the relativistic doppler formula) and Twinspaceman sees exactly the same when he looks at  the clock of Twinstayathome.  After turn around the reciprocal occurs and each twin sees the others clock run at 14 ticks per second.  This is very counter-intuitive but a little maths with ticks and leg lengths (sounds a bit weird) will confirm to you that this is possible
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #72 on: 03/06/2011 13:23:12 »
Yor_on,

Length contraction is not the only thing that can make sense of SR. SR needs EITHER length contraction OR increased velocity to make sense. I am indeed arguing that length contraction is an illusion, whereas time dilation is real. Time dilation has been proven to be real.
As an example, if our space ship approaches the speed of light, lengths of everything we can see out of the porthole become contracted in the direction of motion, but only because we travel in that direction at a speed which is now approaching infinite speed. If we consider the impractical limit, then as we reach lightspeed, our ship might be considered to be stuck in a completely flattened universe, like a dart in a dart board. This is not real. If it was, we would all be compressed flat if ever a massive body were to pass us close by at near lightspeed and we don't believe we will be, do we? What this image tells us is that we get anywhere in the direction of motion in no time at all, since the lengths in the direction of motion can be considered zero. But it is only AS IF  they are zero, due to our infinite speed. The reality is that time has slowed to a halt (relative to the rest of the universe) and so we can consider distances in the direction of motion as if they are zero length but only because we reach them in no time. Does anyone agree?
If you do the simple moving clock exercise to prove time dilation in SR, you get to a point in the argument when you have to decide whether to hold velocity constant across both frames and this is what SR indeed does and the result is length contraction. SR says that each observer must see the same velocity. I am saying you cannot hold velocity constant between frames in relative motion since the clock has slowed in one of them, so the speed in that frame is faster than the stationary frame, but only as viewed from the moving one. The result is not length contraction now, but is increased velocity via Lorentz. Lorentz comes out just the same, geometrically from this, but it shows an infinite v in the moving frame as velocity as observed from the stationary frame approaches "c". It works. Try it out.
The only other way I can put it is to point out that SR does predict the slowing of time, to zero at "c". The mainstream agrees. WE ALL AGREE! SR has therefore shot itself in the foot because if your clock stops relative to the universe, then any speed you have relative to the universe MUST be INFINITE, simply because velocity is distance moved over corresponding time taken. If the time taken becomes zero, then velocity becomes infinite. It's as simple as that, and MikeS has been trying to put this over for a while now. He's right! I'm right! The mainstream really is WRONG!
I've thought of another way:- Someone said earlier that we cannot assess the "experience" of light, but I say we can. SR says time is slowed and comes to a halt at "c". This must apply to energy just as it applies to mass. (Mass = energy). Also, relative velocity is independent of the nature of the moving entity. So, the clock stops for a light beam. If we consider an image in the beam, emitted at a certain time by our clock, then that image experiences no time in getting to us since it travels at "c" over, say 4 light years. We measure 4 years from time of emission to when we see the image, but the light thinks it got here instantaneously. This is demonstrated by the fact that the image we see is exactly the same image as was emitted 4 years ago by our clock. It has not changed, because it experienced no time to allow it to change, (even if there were a cause and effect).


Next point;- Jor_on, You grasp for some datum from which to measure a change in velocity and you make the point from mainstream SR that since all speed is relative, then it doesn't matter which frame you consider is moving, the effects between them must be symmetrical.
Why do I disagree? Because it's not just the geometric relativity that matters, there's more to it because of the nature of time. It matters what frame each of the relatively moving ships were in initially and which one moved away from it.
Let's take the following simple case;-
Situation 1. Two synchronised clocks at the Earth's surface. They share the same frame of reference with the same time rate and there is no red or blue shift to be measured between them.
Situation 2. One clock has been placed aboard a rocket and blasted of into space to a great distance. The ship has then done a u-turn and accelerated toward the Earth at great speed. The speed is great enough so that the time dilation due to its speed far outweighs any increase in time rate due to gravitational effects.
Situation 3. The ship with its clock, speeds by the Earth and observations are taken from both the ship and from the Earth.

What do you think will be observed from each position? I'll let you answer.

Next question. I am NOT saying that the results of experiments will be different. The principle of relativity still stands. It's just that things happen slower in the time dilated frame relative to the stationary frame. Realities within each frame remain unchanged, eg frequencies. Relatively though the time rates are different, just like the light ray slowing down near the Sun.

The reason you think I am mixing up SR with GR is that I am only considering relative time rates and you may as well consider relative times rates caused by inertial effects as by gravitational effects. It doesn't matter HOW the time was dilated, only that it is different between frames.
Generally, I am saying that relativity, currently being split into SR and GR, can be unified by taking time as the only real entity in the vacuum. That is why I jump from one to the other as if they are the same theory. If you simply look at the time dilation then the two theories merge. In fact you could argue that we only need SR with a modification and some more math based on temporal effects. The theory would then better reflect reality.



« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 09:46:52 by Ken Hughes »

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #73 on: 03/06/2011 13:26:56 »
Imatfaal,
I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #74 on: 03/06/2011 13:41:59 »
Imatfaal,
I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear

Quote
Twinstayathome and his clock,his grey hairs, his infeasibly long beard etc all show that 14ish years have passed, Twinspaceman and his clock and all other measures show that two years have passed.  there are complications because the time dilation factor isn't constant during speed ups and slow downs but the errors brought in by those are minimal.

What's unclear?

Your mentioning of blue-shifting and red-shifting in previous messages is incorrect by the way.  Reread how the clock ticks are described and you will see that SR is properly viewable from both perspectives. 

I have answered your question to Yoron 
Quote
What do you think will be observed from each position?
or doyou have different answers?  If you do then you are at variance with calcs and observations.

We def do need GR - SR does not hold in many situations, a few of which you have already mentioned.  If you feel that your ideas can overcome this - lay out the math
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #75 on: 03/06/2011 14:19:24 »
Imatfaal,

Your example seemed as though it might be contradicting the preceding quotation, but since you have reinforced this, everything is clear now. Thankyou.

Yes, I am aware of the physics of observations that you describe. That is why I picked an example with no motion either away from, or towards, the observers. In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. I still predict the red and blue shifts. It matters not HOW the passing ship achieved this situation, but only that the time rates are different at the moment of observation. Your explanation of observations, although traditional, is therefore not applicable in this case.

Of course "we definitely need GR and SR"................ until something better comes along.



I will take up your challenge regarding the math, but I am slightly perterbed by the thinly veiled contempt for ideas without math. Modern mainstream science is perhaps too dismissive of new and challenging ideas without mathematical "proofs".
Read my previous message with quotation from Tom Van Flandern.

Anyone know a good mathematician who does as he's told?
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 14:24:02 by Ken Hughes »

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #76 on: 03/06/2011 14:41:06 »
I read the quote - I don't agree. 

I will re-read your description of your setup.

And btw NO good mathematician does what he is told; he follows the rules and logic - that's why maths is invaluable and any science without maths is hand-waving.

Edit
---

You are gonna have to explain your setup more - I dont get it :-)
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 14:43:31 by imatfaal »
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #77 on: 03/06/2011 15:25:39 »
Imatfaal,

Of course you don't agree. I didn't expect you to.

Of course you will maintain that every good mathematician is "his own man". Maybe that's a problem sometimes. It is very rare to find a person who has a full grasp of physics, who has original ideas and the courage to challenge the mainstream view, especially these days. Superimpose upon that the requirement for full competency in higher maths and you're almost asking the impossible.
Even Einstein had mathematical help did he not? Newton did it all and he was indeed a rare man.
If a mathematician is contracted to a theorist and given a brief which described the basis of and limits within which he must work, he will b---y well do as he's told or lose his job. He can naturally discuss the merits, or otherwise of changing the basis. He can resign if he thinks his position is impossible.
That's the world of Engineering.
The point I am making is that the real theorist must oversee and guide the mathematician, even if it's the same person, and NOT the other way around. If the theorist tells him that you can bend a vacuum then he will simply produce equations that allow it. If he's told he can't and must produce equations on that basis, he must try and do so.
I never was a fan of Einstein's marble slab and the mysterious cosmic blow torch. His math and theory though are almost miraculous.

"Any science without math is hand waving" I need not comment.

I'll explain my set up more then;-

Two clocks, synchronised on Earth. They are in the same frame and will "tick" at the same rate.
Put one in a very very fast space vehicle and blast off into the "Aether".
The ship travels a way away, it does not matter in what direction, or for how long, or if the velocity has been uniform throughout, but eventually the ship returns to pass the Earth closely and at very great speed.
Observations are made from the Earth as it passes directly overhead.
Simultaneously, observations are made of the Earth, from the ship, at the same instant.

The reason I have set this up this way is so that, at the instant of observation, there is no Doppler shift, at least within the limits of simultaneity.
There is, however, a measurable dilation of time for the ship's frame due to its motion, given by 1- ROOT 1-v2/c2
So, the ship's clock (frame of reference) is ticking at a slower rate than the Earth clock as it passes overhead.

What will be the relative observations between frames?

I am saying the Earth observer will observe redshift of the ship's frame, and,
The ship's observer will observe blueshift of the Earth's frame.

Please explain to me and for the benefit of others, in detail, and in the English language, where I have got this wrong.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 15:29:45 by Ken Hughes »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #78 on: 03/06/2011 15:44:47 »
Well, we agree on SR needing both a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation, right?
You see the Lorentz contraction as a illusion, and I don't :)

The muon exemplifies how I see it. Take a look here Time Dilation - An Experiment With Mu-Mesons. Then look at this Muon Experiment. (comparing frames of reference) Together they become a basis for my point of view.

Then we come to 'time' :)

And there both you and me are interested in what it is, heh. You have an idea of times arrow as i understands it? Where we differ seems to be in that you put a importance on whom, of two uniformly moving objects, 'really' is moving. Where I see it as a 'relative motion', only definable relative arbitrarily defined objects of a 'system' like with two rockets in space, I understands it as you expect it to be definable as belonging to one of them.

If that would be true then there should be a difference in the same physics experiments, done at each one of them, and as far as I know there isn't. There are other arguments too but that's the crucial one I think. There is also the gravitational blue-shift of course. But that's a special circumstance, coupled to invariant mass.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #79 on: 03/06/2011 16:28:13 »
You can see a gravitational blue shift two ways. The first is to assume that it actually is the intrinsic 'energy' of that photon that change in a gravitational system. If we take Earth as an example you have two 'shifts' depending on the vector of the 'propagation' of our photon.

If it is infalling to earth, and we assume that you're on it (earth that is:), then you will observe that photon as 'blue-shifted' and so of a higher energy (frequency). And it will be true for you as you measure it. The opposite will be true if you measure it as it climbs Earths gravity-well, leaving it for space. Those that look at it in this way often use the words relative mass/momentum and 'potential energy'.

The other way to look at that phenomena is to define it as all 'photons'/light-quanta only can be of one 'energy' (wave= frequency), meaning that allthough different 'energy's' are possible, as shown by the photoelectric effect and black body radiation, a photon does not change that intrinsic 'energy'. If that is true, which I believe, any red and blue shift only can be a relation, defining something that's a variable dynamic relation to relative motion and gravitational 'accelerations' as Earth's one gravity is. You can also see it as a definition relative 'clocks' that ticks differently depending on position in a gravitational field.

I find the idea of 'dynamic relations' to be clearer myself as that clearly state that you only can see this in a relation, and in that it does not allow people to draw the conclusion that, when defined as clocks from a thought up observer will tick differently as he compares, it also must mean that if those people move down a meter that 'intrinsic measure' of 'time' given to them somehow gets 'longer'.

If you would consider time in meters, and I state that you have ten meters of time allowed, before your time is up, then those ten meters will be the same on Kilimanjaro as in a mine shaft. That 'intrinsic' length do not become any longer for you according to your yardstick/wristwatch, although all other 'frames of reference' will be found change their 'room time' relative your elevation.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 17:02:40 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #80 on: 03/06/2011 16:41:48 »
it's called the transverse doppler effect

f′=f0.√(1-β2) - it comes as θ=π/2 and Cosθ=0

Light which is received at this instant is blue-shifted, light emitted at this instant is red-shifted.

And if you want a long-winded explanation GIYF.

There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #81 on: 03/06/2011 16:47:21 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #82 on: 03/06/2011 18:05:52 »
Ah! I get it now. The debate is about what you would "see" if you had the ability to observe the other clock. I have no clue about that, so I will defer to the experts. The only thing I know is that the "stay at home" twin ages a lot more that the travelling twin, so, obviously, their clocks were running at different rates.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #83 on: 03/06/2011 18:14:07 »
Hm Ken?

You wrote "In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. " answering Imatfaal.

There is no way you can avoid a Doppler effect by passing someone at a higher speed, relative whatever you measure that speed against. To avoid a Doppler you must be at rest relative what you measure. Having a motion relative it you can't be 'at rest' no matter your angle. Neither is there any instant of having the same 'frame of reference' in your description, which means that you two never will agree on something happening simultaneously, as you will define both location and time differently.

I guess that you mean that the Lorentz contraction will become 'invisible' if you got Earth lined up at at right angle to you, and measured it just as you pass it? I'm not sure on that, the geometry becomes severely 'twisted' and you will be able to look 'around corners' as your uniform speed increase with accelerations. The thing about the equivalence of all uniform motions is not what you can see looking out from your ship, it's defined as what experiments you can do in a 'black room scenario' inside that ship, and, if you would find the outcomes to differ with your 'uniform motion' getting faster, accelerating in between, then drifting again?

To me that goes back to the idea that if all experiments give you the same outcome, no matter where in the universe you are, then we have a 'same universe' with the same physics. If we would prove that light changed its 'speed' in a vacuum depending on where we measured, compensating for gravity/bent SpaceTime then it would be very different.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #84 on: 03/06/2011 21:57:14 »
Imatfaal,

You left the "S" off GIYFS.

Let's get gravity out of the situation, it's confusing people.
Let's say the two clocks are both on ships, having taken off from Earth. Eventually they pass each other in opposite directions, but one is going much faster than the other (it has put much more energy into its acceleration).

I guess what this all boils down to is this question;-

If SR states that slow clocks are observed from both moving frames then how can the real differential time dilation shown by the clocks after the journey, be reconciled with this observation?

This is all I'm trying to get an answer to. Please can you help?

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #85 on: 03/06/2011 23:05:31 »
"Google is your friend" - it was a simple statement not an injunction  [;)]

No let's stop changing the situation.  If you/I cannot explain with the twins then it isn't working. 

Both twins see the clocks tick at 1/14 of the speed on the outward leg (that's the relativistic doppler effect) both twins see the clocks tick at 14 times the speed on the inward leg - you are claiming (I thinK) that the SR symmetry means that the clocks cannot be asymmetric.  but this setup does not mean it does not mean that both twins count the same number of clicks on the others clock.  I did say earlier that a bit of sums with ticks per second and leg length would help, and no one took up the challenge.

OK - I presume we agree that on their own clock the twins after the trip show 14ish years for the Twinstayathome and 2 years for Twinspaceman.  So we must do four sums now

Twinspaceman Outbound leg - from his perspective this lasts about a year - he sees the earthbound clock tick at 1/14 seconds add that up 1/14 of a year seems to have passed.

Twinspaceman Inbound leg - from his perspective this lasts about a year - he sees the earthbound clock tick at 14 times per second that adds up to about 14 years.

Twinspaceman  - so on the two legs the spaceman observes the earth clock add up to just over 14 years

Twinstayathome Outbound leg - now you need to concentrate here - Stayathome sees the ship turn around when the earthbound clock is reading about just under 14 years (7 years to travel and just under 7 years for the light to get back).  this is the important bit - Stayathome does not see the turn around at 7 years, (he might be able to calculate at the end that was when it occurred)  He see the ship with a slow ticking clock, ie receding, for all the time the ship takes to get there PLUS all the time it takes the light to get back.  just under 14 years at 1/14 of a tick per second is one year(ish)

Twinstayathome Inbound leg.  Again - slightly counter-intuitive.  from the perspective of the stayathome the return trip lasts a matter of a few days ! remember the spaceman is racing the light home - he is only a tiny bit slower.  So from the turnaround point the light sets off to the earth - just under 7 years later it arrives and stayathome observes that the ship has turned, but for all those 7 years the spaceman has also be travelling back (only a little bit slower than the light).  Less than a month  at 14 ticks per second is a year   

So Twinstayathome Spends a long time watching the Spaceman retreat from him with a slow clock - and a very short time watching the spaceman rush back with a very fast clock.  the important bit is the turnaround can only be judged at Spaceman's halfway and not Stayathome's (this is the very SRish breaking of perceived classical simultaneity due to non infinite light speed and inertial frames).  Whilst 14 years is passing for Stayathome - he reads from Spacemans clock a change of 2 years. 


So, all in all,  Spaceman's clock according to Spaceman advances by 2year. And Stayathome's clock according to Stayathome advances by 14 years.  And because of the fundemental asymmetry of the turningpoint from the two different frames Spaceman's clock ticks 2 years worth of ticks according to Stayathome, and Stayathome's clock ticks 14 years worth of ticks according to Spaceman. 

So there is no paradox and no disagreement.


NB
- I have massaged the figures a tiny bit cos the sums would need a bit of work otherwise - but it does work out in the exact same terms as this heuristic.
- You can redo these calculations using worldlines, and other frames of reference and they all pan out the same. 
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 23:15:47 by imatfaal »
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #86 on: 04/06/2011 06:39:33 »
Lengths contraction does not reduce amount  of rotations.Time dilation makes.

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #87 on: 04/06/2011 08:45:44 »
Lengths contraction does not reduce amount  of rotations.Time dilation makes.

Simplified, who is that comment addressed at?  And can you be a little more specific - i don't see what your point is
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #88 on: 04/06/2011 20:08:32 »
Imatfaal,

Thankyou very much for taking the time and trouble to post a very detailed and correct explanation of the "Twin Paradox" observations. I appreciate that.

On reflection, and on everyone's comments to date, I find myself aligning with "Geezer".
He implied he wasn't so concerned with the observation side of things, but that he was hanging on to the simple fact that one twin became older than the other.
I think this abdication of interest was a feint. He was, I believe, making the point that however you explain the observations throughought the procedure, the indisputable fact remains that one frame's time spent was shorter than the other's and from this we can say;-

For different inertial frames, there is always a net redshift/blueshift relation at any stage of the proceedings.

Which means, I still have the same understanding as I had at the beginning of the discussion.

I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.
Simultaneity doesn't seem to resolve the issue and neither does an understanding of transverse Doppler effects.

Is there anyone with a different slant on things that might resolve the issue or show hwy there is no issue?

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #89 on: 04/06/2011 20:39:11 »
Yor_on,

I have not ignored your valued comments, but I can only handle one thread at a time. In response to your earlier post. I am not of the school that believes motion is anything other than just relative. We are aligned in this regard. Motion is purely relative and does not require an "Aether" type field to measure against.

However, I do see a contradiction in SR between this idea and the idea of time being at a slower rate in the moving frame.
By "moving frame", I do not mean one is moving and the other is not. I mean that if two entities start off in the same frame, then one, and only one of them moves, then it is the one that moves who's clock is slow relative to the other and this was proved in 1971.
There is a real difference in time rates and this difference is one way only, no matter how we interpret observations between frames during motion.

I am seeking either an explanation or an acceptance that SR has an issue

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #90 on: 04/06/2011 20:49:00 »
Simplified,

Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?

If so, then I agree.

The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.

Are we beginning to think the same?

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #91 on: 04/06/2011 21:35:11 »
Quote
I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.

You clearly do not "fully understand the mainstream views" . 

1.  Both clocks are slow ticking/red shifted on the outbound passage fast ticking/blue shifted on the return leg - there are not only red-shifted.  There is no inverse relationship; this is simply incorrect.
2.  There is no one-way nor hidden  blue shift.
3.  There is no asymmetry in the ticking or the shifting - there is an asymmetry in the observation.  Ticking/Shifting is only relevant when viewed in terms of FoR with observation.

The sums were pretty simple - which one is wrong? 

« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 22:25:29 by imatfaal »
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #92 on: 04/06/2011 22:42:39 »
Hi Imatfaal,

I do understand the mainstream arguments and the way you have presented them. There is nothing wrong with the numbers. I agree with all of them.
I'm just not sure I agree with the mainstream interpretation of them. I still have my nagging doubt that there is something amiss, simply because the net end result is the moving twin being younger than the stay at home. This effect was proven in 1971.
I interpret this as the twin who has undergone the journey has had his clock slowed down throughout and therefore the ultimate, net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one. The moving clock changed its time rate due to its motion, but the stay at home did not.
I simply do not see the difference between say gravitational time dilation, where we all accept redshift in one direction and blueshift in the other, and inertial time dilation.
Now I know the mainstream says one is reciprocal and the other is not, but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.
I am more than willing to accept an overriding argument, but so far, I haven't heard one.
To me, time dilation is time dilation and it doesn't matter how it is created. I believe the relative effects must be the same for the same phenomena "viewed" from the same perspectives.
What I mean is, if you look outwards from a large mass, say the Earth, we observe blueshift, simply because we are looking out into a region with a faster clock. Why should we think of inertial time dilation any differently?
I understand the mainstream, I just do not agree with it. (We are in New Theories after all).

I guess the key is my idea that Time Dilation is the reality and everything else is either a man made creation, or an illusion.
After all, we cannot detect a gravitational field, but only infer its existence from the acceleration of entities within it. We cannot find the graviton. We now know the gravitational force is unreal. We cannot prove the distortion of a vacuum in GR is a reality even though it gives us the right answers. Einstein never gave us the cause and effect of gravitation but only suggested that mass somehow "distorts" space and time. Don't forget Newton gave us the right answers but his gravitational law does not reflect reality, it is more a convenient, behavioural rule but it does not contain the cause and effect.

HOWEVER, we CAN detect the time rate field and this is the ONLY thing we can actually detect.
GR does state that "Newtonian gravitation can be regarded as the curvature of time" and you can develop a formula that describes the cause and effect relationship between time and "g". THIS is the fundamental law of gravitation, but it involves only the time curvature and nothing else.
Einstein has brilliantly conceived a geometrical way to model space itself in order to explain and quantify relative effects due to gravitational fields, or in my mind, time dilation fields.

Obviously. the mainstream may dismiss such ideas as "hand waving" until a mathematical proof is forthcoming, but ask yourself how did science get to where it is now without developing new ideas first and then the math?
Although we can make deductions from  mathematical formulae and science can improve its understanding with this method, I do not believe Einstein, for instance, did the math first and then inetrpreted the meaning from it.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 22:46:33 by Ken Hughes »

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #93 on: 04/06/2011 22:48:27 »

I think this abdication of interest was a feint.


Although I am probably more interested in solving engineering type problem, believe me, there was no feint  [;D]
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #94 on: 04/06/2011 23:07:09 »
Quote
net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one.
 This is not accepted physics - I can see where you are coming from, but you cannot average in this way.  If you calculate correctly (ie a time-weighted sum) then the clocks tick the same - but the time is different.  The red-shifting/slow-ticking is an artefact of the relative velocity - the time dilation is also an artefact of this;  the redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artefact of the time dilation.

Quote
but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.
 But the proceeding is a strawman;   SR does not claim what you are saying it does.   Your other arguments boil down to an argument from personal incredulity - which again can never be answered.   Your comparison between gravitational field and the time field (what is that) is just not cogent - we measure everything by its effect on something else (nothing is known in and of itself), newtons theory of gravity postulates a force that acts at a distance (without any further explanation) einsteins general theory of relativity postulates that mass/energy distort spacetime (without any further explanation)

I have explained the Twin paradox in two ways - what do you not agree with?

This small personal bit of the mainstream will not dismiss a theory that is heuristic only (although he does get a bit peeved at being characterised as a dogmatic stick-in-the-mud repressing the nova-galileos of new theories.  But I will not accept a new theory that contradicts very well tested theories without a reasoned argument that shows where the dogma fails.

At present your argument is a mixture of strawman, personal incredulity and misinformed interpretations of relativity.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 23:29:55 by imatfaal »
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #95 on: 05/06/2011 21:59:45 »
Imatfaal,

The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."

I am interested in why you believe this to be so?

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #96 on: 06/06/2011 00:26:55 »
Due to wave-particle duality of matter, the dilation of time and of wavelength (constant speed of C) is the same, so space and time can be viewed as directly related dimensions. Someone seeing only the wave side of matter could say that only length is contracted and there is no time dilation. The thing is, both are true... You can solve it only if you find the origin..
« Last Edit: 06/06/2011 02:32:25 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #97 on: 06/06/2011 10:55:37 »
Imatfaal,

The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."

I am interested in why you believe this to be so?

I suppose my most proximal causes is that I know that doppler works at very non-newtonian speeds and other sources of wave - along with many other people, it was one of the first scientific theories explained to me (when I was 5ish making fire engine noises with the correct change in pitch my big bro was at university reading physics).   Secondly, it makes sense in a heuristic view.  Thirdly, a key test of relativity is that by either dropping the speed (or by thinking of light as infinite) you find a limit in the old newtonian equations - which it does.  And lastly, and cravenly, because it says on about page 80 of Rindler's Relativity.   
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #98 on: 06/06/2011 14:10:54 »
Simplified,

Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?

If so, then I agree.

The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.

Are we beginning to think the same?
I think time can be different,but it can not be relative.
I was against length contraction, but I should study mathematic first.

*

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #99 on: 06/06/2011 16:33:23 »
CPT ArkAngel, imatfaal,Simplified,

Yes, space and time are directly related by Lorentz.

Observing the wave side of matter, we have a choice. We can choose to believe that lengths contract or we can believe the wave impacts at increased speed and therefore SEEMS contracted. Either way the time dilation is the cause.

If you develop the Lorentz factor from the basic geometry of clock motion you reach a point where you have to choose whether or not to hold velocity constant across both frames.
If you do, you end up with the mainstream physics.
BUT, if you can accept, at least for just a moment, that the velocity in the moving frame must be greater because the clock is slower, then length contraction does not happen but velocity increase does.
Now I can hear you all screaming about the much loved length contraction, and you may have noticed that I don't necessarily believe everything I read, whatever the source. If you try this with the math, you get velocity in the moving frame approaching infinite speed as the velocity observed from the stationary frame approaches "c".
The relative limit of "c" remains intact but the speed experienced from the moving frame eventually increases to infinite speed due to the increasing time dilation. This infinite speed, is not only consistant with the time rate of zero at a relative velocity of "c", but it also clearly demonstrates WHY the finite value of "c" is the limit of relative velocity.


With the mainstream view, in the limit, we get a velocity of "c", a time rate of zero and length contraction to zero in the direction of motion only. These are all in consistant amongst themselves!
Frankly, when I hear "These are the counter intuitive effects of relativity so just accept them.", I become suspicious and this is what has driven me to explore this alternative. There are NO counter intuitive effects to swallow with this view of SR.

You may still have a problem accepting this because of the clearly observed relative effect of length contraction. All our education, experimental results and the sheer weight of consensus prevents us from even wanting to question SR at this level, but I can tell you that EITHER works mathematically and experimentally. So, it is a simple matter of choosing which one best reflects reality.

I don't know about you, but I have a problem accepting length contraction in anything but the purely relative sense, especially since it is only applicable in the direction of motion. This clearly is not a real effect.
Time dilation IS a real and proven effect of motion. Velocity increase is an indisputable result of time dilation. So, There is no contest between these options.

The mainstream is correct in that we CAN consider lengths to contract via Lorentz, but we can also explain these same effects as being due to velocity increase, if only you wanted to, or should I say, if only you were prepared to consider this option.
I have no problem at all with accepting the time dilation and the resulting velocity increase in the time dilated frame moving frame.
v = s/t, and if you dilate the "t" then v increases without any energy being applied. it's so simple.

Just don't expect me to accept length contraction as a real effect of motion. It's frankly ludicrous.

By the way, Simplified, Time is indeed relative. The mainstream also says so.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2011 17:16:00 by Ken Hughes »