Possible cause of relativity?

  • 34 Replies
  • 3067 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Possible cause of relativity?
« on: 20/11/2015 16:09:43 »
Energy,

What do we think we know about Energy? We think it is part of mass. What if we are incorrect and Energy is part of space. This would suggest mass draws that Energy from space in the form of moving the electrons in mass.

What would be the affects on Relativity?

A photon would be a propagation wave on Energy until it was absorbed back into a uniform distribution. This would be for all types of radiation in our known and unknown spectrum.

GR- Gravity would be dilation of that energy from space. The dilation greatest in the center of mass as a gradient outward. It would be the density of energy that affects time. With dilation of space the electron has a larger space to occupy. This would result in dilation of the mass object.

Relativity says the measurement of light in a vacuum is the same in every frame. Our measuring stick in a vacuum at the center of a planet would be dilated by the amount that space energy is dilated. We know mechanical and light clocks run the same in every frame so the dilated space that light travels through (Light being more red shifted when created in more dilated space vs. less dilated space) also effects the electron travel distance. Resulting in a slower clock with a longer distance traveled. Since the mass dilated with the measuring stick measurements, the speed of light in every frame would be the same while the distance measured would not be the same. Measured time and distance would be confounded in every frame. Time would be Energy c. Distance would relate to the density of the Energy state in GR. Gravity would be an acceleration monopole with no antigravity possibilities. Mass dilates space energy and mass is attracted towards less space energy density. Both dilation and gravity follow the inverse square law. Would gravity be equal to reduced potential space energy?

SR- acceleration would be resistance to the change in electron motion of c. Acceleration in SR would equal slowing the motion of the electron rest cycle by absorbing velocity relative to c. If you consider electrons motion being at c potential always from space energy than velocity would have to affect its rest cycle to a slower cycle. If you take mass to the extreme of c (which is unlikely) the electron would stop all motion but its linear distance motion. This of course is less than possible since motion could only attain motion through the energy of c, not greater than c.

Inertial speed and the center of a planet could have the same tick rate but for different reasons. The common denominator would be c.

This is all hypothetical of course. Time being equal to motion and motion being equal to energy density in space.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #1 on: 21/11/2015 14:17:44 »
1) You are underestimating the problems involved in deriving an adequate description of time dilation. 2) You cannot remove the energy from mass and obtain a consistent theory. What you are saying is that the vacuum energy is of a far higher magnitude than theory suggests. When you progress through the mathematics and start to understand the concepts you will come to appreciate both points.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #2 on: 21/11/2015 22:10:40 »
1) You are underestimating the problems involved in deriving an adequate description of time dilation.
I gave a rough explanation of a possible physical cause of time dilation. The suggestion that a distance is the issue negates the need for precision at this point. The only problem is c being constant and time rate changing. When the tick rate of a clock slows the distance has to increase in Euclidean space to maintain the same measurement for the speed of light. I understand the curved light path in GR dilation along with the linear visual light (simultaneity of relativity) increasing the appearance of a longer measuring stick in SR. Both of these issues end up with the appearance of a longer measuring stick for a slower clock.

2) You cannot remove the energy from mass and obtain a consistent theory.

Of course not! Mass being in a sea of energy can never be removed. Remember this is a subjective interpretation as to the cause of relativity. I am suggesting energy moves the electrons. Consider E= mc electron motion * c energy of space.

What you are saying is that the vacuum energy is of a far higher magnitude than theory suggests.

Yes, all theories are subjective interpretations for the cause of observations.


When you progress through the mathematics and start to understand the concepts you will come to appreciate both points.

A concept based on a non energy space will be completely different when viewing the mathematics through an energy basis. Both are subjective.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #3 on: 21/11/2015 22:44:41 »
You have to take into account what happens to coordinate velocity in a frame moving at relativistic speed. If time is dilating then to a remote observer velocity should also appear to slow. This is exactly what is thought to happen at the event horizon of a black hole. If these situations are to be considered equivalent then coordinate velocity should appear to slow in both situations. I would have expected that this would have become very apparent at the LHC by now. So in the case of a velocity that is not induced by gravity the situation has to be different. This also begs the question as to whether or not an increase in relativistic mass applies to acceleration due to gravity.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #4 on: 21/11/2015 23:54:11 »
You have to take into account what happens to coordinate velocity in a frame moving at relativistic speed.
Of course.

If time is dilating then to a remote observer velocity should also appear to slow.
Time is not dilating for the remote observer if you are suggesting the remote observer is at relative rest. It is only dilating for the object at relativistic speeds. With my understanding of space energy being c with SR the time dilation is an increase in the visual length of the measuring stick and not to be confused with GR dilation of expanded space. The visual length using relativity of simultaneity is also the same relativity of simultaneity change in distance increase that causes the clock to slow.

(If you would like I could give examples of the measuring stick visually increased and distances for the clock to slow by euclidean geometry)

This is exactly what is thought to happen at the event horizon of a black hole.
In an energy of space a black hole would be void of energy (no time since time is motion). This is not to say it has no kinetic potential which would be on the macro scale. Gravity attraction being mass with different energy potentials. The lack of space energy within a black hole causes regular mass into a type of fusion where the attraction is above the speed of light and atoms fuse together like a mega element or an electron in a fractal dimension.

If these situations are to be considered equivalent then coordinate velocity should appear to slow in both situations.
Yes inside a black hole there would be no time because of no motion but again only inside of the black hole. Remember this is subjective reasoning using an energy grid not to be confused with main streams space as a void.

I would have expected that this would have become very apparent at the LHC by now.

The LCH works as fission not fusion. They are distinctly different mechanics.


So in the case of a velocity that is not induced by gravity the situation has to be different.
Of course!

This also begs the question as to whether or not an increase in relativistic mass applies to acceleration due to gravity.
The increase in mass by mathematics is actually relative dilation positions of mass. The more dilated positions closer to the center of mass has the greatest attraction do to a less dense energy position. This attraction increase due to position is mislabeled as an increase in mass

*

Offline krash661

  • First timers
  • *
  • 5
  • [MK6] transitioning sci-fi into reality
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #5 on: 22/11/2015 00:33:58 »
1) You are underestimating the problems involved in deriving an adequate description of time dilation. 2) You cannot remove the energy from mass and obtain a consistent theory. What you are saying is that the vacuum energy is of a far higher magnitude than theory suggests. When you progress through the mathematics and start to understand the concepts you will come to appreciate both points.
it is best to say that vacuum is only a description[used to give an idea of energy's travel rate without barriers] and not an actual element. in reality a vacuum is actually ,basically, non existent. of course it depends on distance and location of any magnitude of mass, and any effect of non-mass[energy, fields, etc.], which does occur in large spaces of the cosmos.
one must understand and keep in mind that book sshit is only an approximate to anything. reality will show more.

edit-
all this code nonsense on this site is massively tiresome. i seriously do not want to post because of such nonsense.
:) shakes head.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2015 00:42:29 by krash661 »
While I am standing still, I prefer the stillness here. I am tired of earth, these people, I'm tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives [Dr. Manhattan]

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #6 on: 22/11/2015 14:18:47 »
The equivalency between GR and SR is in how each measures the speed of light to be the same. The reasons in SR and GR measurements are different causes but both are constant and equivalent with geometry.

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #7 on: 30/11/2015 18:16:21 »
I believe both special and general relativity are "caused" by the way we define space and time in our mathematical representation of the physical universe. There is indisputable mathematical proof of relativity, as it applies to our mathematical representation of the physical universe. This does not prove that the physical universe obeys relativity.

The fact that the physical universe appears to obey relativity is evidence that our limited understanding of it is correct. I don't believe we yet have an adequate conceptual model of the physical universe to explain why the physical universe is so close to our mathematical model of it.

There seems to be a pervasive attitude among mainstream scientists that conceptual models are frivolous pursuits, whereas mathematical models are God.

There are other (not necessarily better) ways to define space and time, in which the speed of light is variable, and in which the path of light is not a straight line in space-time. To avoid contradicting relativity, new names would have to be assigned and defined for the alternative distance-like and time-like units. In the absence of a gravitational field, where space-time is flat, anyway, the alternative units could be equal to meters and seconds; but where Einstein's space time is warped, you could define the space (in the alternative units) to be flat.

I don't know that such an alternative space-time would have practical uses, but it might provide some insights that are not obvious in Einstein space-time.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #8 on: 11/12/2015 16:56:00 »
You cannot flatten spacetime without effects on energy, momentum and other properties. It may however be a way of relating black hole entropy to a quantum of energy.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #9 on: 11/12/2015 19:27:28 »
You cannot flatten spacetime without effects on energy, momentum and other properties. It may however be a way of relating black hole entropy to a quantum of energy.

It is true that those parameters would have different values and obey different laws when expressed in the kind of units that I am postulating. There would have to be different energy-like and momentum-like units, which could be derived from distance-like and time-like units.

There should be a set of transformation formulas to convert flat-space parameters to warped-space parameters and vice versa. This would be analogous to plotting points on rectangular graph paper v. log-log paper. The shape of the graph paper affects the shape of the reality that is illustrated on it.

Some physical realities are best illustrated on log-log paper. I would be surprised if the postulated flat space-time did not yield some insights about cosmology, and perhaps also quantum physics. Or it might turn out to be a useless curiosity.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2015 19:29:01 by Phractality »
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #10 on: 12/12/2015 08:30:42 »
Still a very interesting way of looking at the issue.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #11 on: 12/12/2015 14:03:01 »
. The shape of the graph paper affects the shape of the reality that is illustrated on it.

just like graph paper with different size squares largest in the center of mass. The size of the squares would be a gradient from the center of mass to smaller squares outward. There is no flat spacetime just different size squares in 2d and cubes in 3d. Gravity is the mass attraction to larger squares (dilation).

*

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #12 on: 12/12/2015 14:30:42 »
If the cause of relativity is the invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum. How does that stack up with other wave formations? Does the speed of sound at NTP for instance vary according to the velocity of the observer? If the source is moving relative to the observer then frequency varies as per Doppler, but if I  measured the speed of sound using the same kind of reflection technique as for measuring light would I find the speed of sound to be constant in any direction as long as I was in the medium transmitting the sound. The medium air determining the velocity. Could it therefore be the medium space that determines C and could it be that whereas there isn't a structure that we can see or measure it may be some other form of medium and that that may also be the way entanglement works?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #13 on: 13/12/2015 18:22:37 »
In a local frame of reference c will be constant in vacuum. If your local frame happens to be very close to an event horizon your measurement of c will not aree with a far observer. The medium is the gravitational field and the limiiting factor is the field energy density. It is amazing just how focussed you can be while confined to a hospital bed.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #14 on: 13/12/2015 19:39:56 »
In a local frame of reference c will be constant in vacuum. If your local frame happens to be very close to an event horizon your measurement of c will not aree with a far observer.

Measuring c is like measuring the number 1; its value is fixed by definition in meters per second. A distant observer will see that your meters have shrunk and your seconds have dilated relative to his, but light still travels the same number of your meters in one of your seconds.

The medium is the gravitational field and the limiiting factor is the field energy density. It is amazing just how focussed you can be while confined to a hospital bed.

Today my hat blew off of my head in a strong wind. You could say that my hat followed the lines of the force field of the weather pattern; or you could say that the air pushed my hat off of my head. The force field is not the wind, but a mathematical description of an effect that the wind has upon hats. A field is merely a mathematical description of an effect upon a hypothetical object which is dependent upon the object's location in the field.

You could simplify the game of football to a set of equations describing how the ball is attracted to the goal posts; or you could describe how the ball is carried by the players. If your force field equations are accurate, they might win you more money; but they won't help you to understand how the game was won.

Gravity is a force of attraction between masses, and it can be represented by a field; but the field is not the gravity.

Get well soon.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #15 on: 13/12/2015 20:46:37 »
It would take x amount of energy to create the field. This in practice is infiite in magnitude since the field extends to infinity. If we then take spherical slices through the field with the origin at the COG then we can granularize the energy density. It is best to neglect rotation initially so the Kerr metric should be excluded. Then an energy vector space can be described that can undergo magnification so that orders of magnitude become less of an issue. It is how the vector space is explored that is important.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #16 on: 13/12/2015 21:03:27 »
Measuring c is like measuring the number 1; its value is fixed by definition in meters per second. A distant observer will see that your meters have shrunk and your seconds have dilated relative to his, but light still travels the same number of your meters in one of your seconds.

This makes no sense to me. Dilation and velocity increase distance for the electrons in GR and the visual length in SR due to simultaneity of relativity. So mass increases in visual length in SR and decreases in density with dilation in GR so that mass increases in size. If you understand simultaneity of relativity in SR you understand length appears longer. The distance through space is also longer with speed in SR and dilation in GR.

What we are experiencing is the different distances in space the electron and the photon have to travel. With speed the clock and the measuring distance have the same increase in distance of space. This is why we measure the same speed of light in every frame.

If light is constant in space how can you have a slower clock with a shrinking mass? The measuring stick lengthens to measure a longer distance for a mile in the frame with a faster speed. The light clock expands with dilation (GR) so the light travels further to slow the clocks tick rate. The measuring stick expands to measure a longer distance. That is the crossover where you think you contracted in Relativity.

The ratio is fixed not the actual time or distance.


It would take x amount of energy to create the field. This in practice is infiite in magnitude since the field extends to infinity. If we then take spherical slices through the field with the origin at the COG then we can granularize the energy density. It is best to neglect rotation initially so the Kerr metric should be excluded. Then an energy vector space can be described that can undergo magnification so that orders of magnitude become less of an issue. It is how the vector space is explored that is important.


While the field material might extend to the limits of our detection it is the manipulation of that material (energy) that we describe as a field. Like the dilation of space by mass.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #17 on: 13/12/2015 21:30:09 »
Well I'm going to use vector spaces. We can always compare notes.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #18 on: 14/12/2015 03:36:04 »
The ratio is fixed not the actual time or distance.
That is the one thing in the post that makes sense.

I think you should watch some video illustrations of SR. The fast train is shorter when measured in the "stationary" observer's meters, so meters etched on the side of the train would be shorter than the "stationary" observer's meter sticks. Time on the train is dilated, meaning the train's clocks run slow compared to clocks that are synchronized in the "stationary" observer's coordinates. An observer on the train would see the stationary clocks along the tracks running slow, and stationary observers along the tracks would see the train's clock running slow (after the arrival times at each point along the track are recorded and telegraphed to an observer at the origin).
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #19 on: 14/12/2015 13:35:56 »
That is the one thing in the post that makes sense. I think you should watch some video illustrations of SR. The fast train is shorter when measured in the "stationary" observer's meters, so meters etched on the side of the train would be shorter than the "stationary" observer's meter sticks. Time on the train is dilated, meaning the train's clocks run slow compared to clocks that are synchronized in the "stationary" observer's coordinates. An observer on the train would see the stationary clocks along the tracks running slow, and stationary observers along the tracks would see the train's clock running slow (after the arrival times at each point along the track are recorded and telegraphed to an observer at the origin).

Simultaneity of relativity is the contraction. Your stuck in the non relativistic mentality of observation. You do not view an object at relativistic speeds as a unit. Most scientists don't even understand this distinction. you view the front of the train and follow the image towards the back. Light is finite in vector speed so while the reflection is following the train towards the rear as the rear is moving forward and not being reflected yet as the image that you view. So by simultaneity of relativity the image is contracted. But the distance forward increases the distance electrons and photons have to move through space. With energy being a constant motion forward reduces that available energy we recognize as a slower clock.

   
Well I'm going to use vector spaces. We can always compare notes

Vector space is flexible in GR and causes a Doppler effect in SR. So in GR there is a size increase for the atoms to move. This increases the electron distance we measure mechanical clocks to equal light clock distance through dilated space. That dilation is the mechanism of attraction of mass to a more dilated space. Gravity is self perpetuating.

The SR equivalent is vector motion in space increasing photon and electron distances to the constant energy c.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #20 on: 15/12/2015 14:10:58 »
Proper time can be determined by [tex]\tau\,=\, \sqrt{\frac{2S}{g}}[/tex]. Where S is proper distance. Coordinate time is then [tex]t\,=\, \gamma \sqrt{\frac{2S}{g}}[/tex]. Proper velocity can then be determined by [tex]\frac{\frac{1}{2} g \tau^2}{\sqrt{\frac{2S}{g}}}[/tex], v^2 = [tex]\frac{1}{4} \frac{g^3 \tau^4}{2S}[/tex] and proper kinetic energy = [tex]\frac{1}{2}m \frac{g^3 \tau^4}{8S}[/tex]. This cannot be equal to coordinate velocity since no gamma function is present so that gravity has altered the inertia of the system and can do so only if gravity is a force.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #21 on: 15/12/2015 14:51:50 »
I still have problems with the concept of size reductions with objects travelling faster with respect to my frame of reference. Time dilation is a fact and has been demonstrated many times and distance or space travelled is time times velocity. So the argument is that as velocity is fixed space must shrink. But why cannot velocity be a combination of internal (within an atom) and external (the atom moving) so that space remains space and its velocity that shrinks. If you consider a childs spinning top. As it spins according to SR the top must reduce in size in respect of an observer. Now if you put that top still spinning on a trolley and push it so the trolley moves then the trolley will shrink with respect to the observer. The top should shrink further but it doesn't. The tangential mean velocity of the top does not change. So you have a composite structure where one part shrinks and the other half does not. As they inhabit the same space how can SR explain this? If the source of relativity is within the atom and the invariance of C as energy travels is a result of that. Then space and time become absolute. Gravitational lensing would need explanation as that is another experimental fact but that is possible. Why is this wrong? 

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #22 on: 15/12/2015 15:49:08 »
Well coordinate velocity becomes [tex]V\, =\, \frac{gt^2}{2\gamma^2 \sqrt{\frac{2s}{g}}}[/tex] resulting then in a kinetic energy of

ke = [tex]\frac{1}{2}m \frac{g^3t^4}{4\gamma^4 2s}[/tex]

compare this with the proper energy

Ke = [tex]\frac{1}{2}m \frac{g^3t^4}{8S}[/tex]

Now wouldn't gamma be expected to be in the denominator?

Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #23 on: 15/12/2015 17:57:24 »
I still have problems with the concept of size reductions with objects travelling faster with respect to my frame of reference. Time dilation is a fact and has been demonstrated many times and distance or space travelled is time times velocity. So the argument is that as velocity is fixed space must shrink. But why cannot velocity be a combination of internal (within an atom) and external (the atom moving) so that space remains space and its velocity that shrinks. If you consider a childs spinning top. As it spins according to SR the top must reduce in size in respect of an observer. Now if you put that top still spinning on a trolley and push it so the trolley moves then the trolley will shrink with respect to the observer. The top should shrink further but it doesn't. The tangential mean velocity of the top does not change. So you have a composite structure where one part shrinks and the other half does not. As they inhabit the same space how can SR explain this? If the source of relativity is within the atom and the invariance of C as energy travels is a result of that. Then space and time become absolute. Gravitational lensing would need explanation as that is another experimental fact but that is possible. Why is this wrong?

Gravitational lensing is dilation of space. Mass decreases in density but increases in size while in a dilated state. GR is equivalent in measurement but not in its cause with SR.

Dilation in the center of mass is at its greatest. Your measuring stick is larger in the center of mass.

Lets look at the equivalence of SR and GR in terms of geometry. GR is physical dilation while SR is a visual change due to simultaneity of relativity.

GR the physical change in the energy of space. When mass causes space to dilate energy density decreases in that space. The center of mass is the least dense energy state due to moving electrons. So mass expands to create a longer measuring stick. When your measuring stick becomes longer you measure a smaller distance between objects. Using the half speed of light as half the available energy your stick becomes 1.25 times longer than a stick in relative flat space away from gravity. Light being constant takes longer to traverse the more dilated measuring stick. Mass has physically more volume in dilated space.

SR is Simultaneity of Relativity (SoR) for short and only a visual change in length along the vector line. For an example lets use a light clock with A and B mirrors. Light hits A and is fixed in space for position before traveling to B. From that fixed position (light being independent of the source) it moves to B as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Lets say the clock is traveling at half the speed of light (assume light is constant in a volume of space). We get a 30,60,90 triangle. A^2 + B^2 = C^2 and cos 30 = 0.886025. The Lorentz contraction is sq. rt. (1-1^2/2^2) or 0.886025. So the contraction represents the increased distance light had to travel. or we could say the relative speed of light following that angle through space. So A=1 B=1/2 and C=1.25 Pythagoras would be proud. So the clock is slower by ~13.8%. This is due to a distance light has to travel if you follow relativity postulate.

But what if light is traveling in the same direction as velocity. Light goes forward from the mirror two units of distance while the clock moves one unit of distance in the forward direction. Light is moving with the mirrors for a total of two units forward at half the speed of light. Now the return trip light moves 2/3rds with the mirrors and the rear mirror moves 1/3rd without the light. This is simultaneity of relativity (SoR). The mirrors moved 1/3rd without the photons in the two way cycle so for the one way we have to divide 1/3 by 1/2 to get 1/6th. The total 2 2/3 - 1/6 =2.5. Now we divide 2.5 by 2 we get 1.25 which is the same as Pythagoras. So no matter what orientation of the clock the tick rate is the same by geometry.

Why is SR visual and not physical? Because of (SoR) from the beginning of the image to the end of the image and back is visually increased by SoR. Using geometry and postulates follow relativity mathematics but you cannot combine gravity GR and velocity SR and not consider them apples and oranges.



*

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #24 on: 16/12/2015 19:25:14 »
[attachment=20636][attachment=20636]Thank you for your reply. I am aware how Einstein calculated time dilation and subsequent space dilation. These calculations are entirely based on the speed of light which is invariant and absolute being the posit. Physicists asked what causes C to be so, will answer, nature or because it is so. Now time dilation is indisputably a fact. Experimental evidence confirms it, but I don't see how space dilation can be measured. In addition there are many paradoxes like Bell's that are hard to explain. The title here is possible causes of relativity and I suggested another. I attach a diagram that explains why I think it is possible (I emphasize possible) that particles spinning with a tangential velocity of C within the atom could cause not only relativity with exactly the same mathematics as Einstein's equation but also if the energy spins off at that rate in the photon, would also cause light to travel at C.  As a bonus the mass energy equivalence expression just drops out. What this would mean is that fundamental particles would have fundamental time i.e. they would all have exactly the same elapsed time from the big bang. It would also mean that space would not dilate or curve so a different explanation would be required for light being attracted to large gravitational objects. My question is not what's right with Einstein's interpretation but what have I done wrong? I can see nothing from Lorenz, Clerk Maxwell or newton that makes my diagram wrong

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #25 on: 16/12/2015 22:55:33 »
As a final word on vector spaces it is worth considering Mandelstam variables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelstam_variables

Now what happens to particles scattering in the vicinity of an event horizon where we end up with entanglement? How then can remote 'action at a distance' be preserved when no information is available from within the horizon? How does this then relate to entropy? Interesting questions.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #26 on: 17/12/2015 01:25:34 »
I attach a diagram that explains why I think it is possible (I emphasize possible) that particles spinning with a tangential velocity of C within the atom could cause not only relativity with exactly the same mathematics as Einstein's equation but also if the energy spins off at that rate in the photon, would also cause light to travel at C.

In my model, your "spinning particles with tangential velocity of C" are pairs of photons orbiting a common barycenter.

If the diameter of the particle is close to the wavelength of the photons, then the outer portion of each photon must be traveling faster then the inner portion; or maybe the two photons must be spaghettified due to warping space-time around the particle's horizon limit. Quantum weirdness, too.

Obviously, a force is required to hold two photons in orbit around one another. The force that I have described, in some other posts, is a non-linear force, strongly dependent on their wavelengths phase angles and the relative orientation of planes of polarity.


Consider such a particle in which each of its two photons has the same proper energy E and proper momentum p = ± E/c. (I insert the ± to call attention to the fact that c is a speed; it only becomes a velocity when coordinate axes are specified. The sign of the momentum is the sign of the velocity. If we choose an x-axis parallel to the path of one of the photons, it will be anti-parallel to the path of the other; so the momenta cancel.) In the particle's own rest frame, p = 0.) 

 In inertial frame F, The photons are orbiting in the xy-plane.

Their barycenter is moving slowly, along the x-axis with velocity v.

Let's freeze the particle for an instant with photon A moving in the +x direction, photon B in the -x direction.

At that instant, A is more energetic than B, and A has greater momentum than B. The sum of the momenta of the two photons is the momentum of the particle. (Since the momenta are opposite, they nearly cancel.)

p = p(A) + p(B)

I think it should be easy for a mathematician (which I'm not) to derive E = mc2 from these first principles alone. Whatever force holds a pair of photons in orbit is responsible for converting their energy to the proper mass of a particle. I have no idea whether this is compatible with the concept of a Higgs field or Higgs particle, though.

I'm 70.  :-\ My brain's math coprossessor went into retirement decades ago, but I'll give it a try. See if you can get there first. If I'm even partly right, we'll both be famous posthumously, since no one will believe us in this lifetime. Prove me wrong, please!  ^

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #27 on: 17/12/2015 14:25:52 »
E=c as propagation through space. E does not equal m other than the motion of electrons. What causes electrons to move? When you square c for the motion of electrons, the greater the mass, E seems to be reduced. Logic would suggest mass absorbs energy rather than being energy. It also suggests c is the energy state of space when you recognize the electron and photon are controlled to be constant in every frame. Our current understanding is mass being energy and controlling E. Quite possibly E controls mass and progression of time. Space time continuum.

*

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #28 on: 18/12/2015 17:11:17 »
Great stuff my suggestion/argument is based entirely on the peculiar property of a spinning sphere. When I hit my golf ball and it spins the resultant velocity has two components. The tangential speed of the spinning ball and the forward velocity of the ball (not much in my case). The mean resultant velocity of the ball is always the same as the tangential velocity unless the forward velocity exceeds the tangential velocity. In which case the system breaks down. Now if the particles are spinning at C and the particle given a forward velocity then relativity occurs exactly as Einstein's equation. If it was possible to propel the particle at C or greater then atoms would break down and a mighty bang would happen. Einstein's mass equivalence equation drops out by simply adding up all the kinetic energy of the spinning particles and saying that is the energy that is trying to escape the atom. So there must be an equal amount of energy stopping this,so twice the KE and it comes to E=MC˛. The photon argument is another very interesting debate. It not only has to be shown as having a velocity of C, but must also have duality, be consistent with Rydberg, and behave as shown in a gravitational field by experiment. The argument can be extended to deal with those issues, but only if the original idea is possible. There are probably a million physicists out there one of whom would have thought of the concept and it will have been discarded. Now if it has been discarded because there is a flaw in the argument that's great. What is it? I am dying to know. If it has been ignored because it is just too crackpot. Then tell me why. But if the physics is correct and the only reason for dismissing it is that it disturbs the accepted order, the preference. Then why can't it at least be taken seriously as an alternative?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #29 on: 18/12/2015 20:35:45 »
An alternative is considered a unnecessary complication by mainstream. I agree there is only spin and velocity as motion. A distribution of spinning points cold move electrons and be flexible for dilation of points. I have worked out a pattern that are like a string where electrons rotate around. Two dot lengths is one revolution around the virtual string. This would be why electrons move at a constant similar to the photon. Of course a photon would be a propagation wave on dots and not a virtual particle with its tail waving. You could never go faster than the spin of c. Because that is the limit of propagation energy.

This I all just speculation. But what makes the electrons move?

*

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #30 on: 19/12/2015 12:25:44 »
great, electrons must move (orbit) otherwise there would be no centrifugal balance force to hold the atom together but what causes it to move is a good question. It must be some function of energy when introduced to form the atom in the first place. I don't know I'm reaching.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #31 on: 19/12/2015 16:41:17 »
great, electrons must move (orbit) otherwise there would be no centrifugal balance force to hold the atom together but what causes it to move is a good question. It must be some function of energy when introduced to form the atom in the first place. I don't know I'm reaching.

Its not reaching, its called thinking for yourself. I suspect it is gravity that holds an atom together, even a lone one. Mass creates a dilation of space. This is observed as lensing in galaxies and time differences in GR frames. We have to think completely different about what we think we know. Rather than force observations to fit current theory we must allow observations to construct theory. Dilation of space where mass occupies space is a big observation. The dilation effects space by the inverse square of the distance. A mathematical interpretation of the observation. What we call gravity is also mathematically observed as the inverse square of the distance. Is that a coincidence? I think not. So we can look at the curve in two dimension or the dilation in three dimension as Einstein's cause of gravity. Still no mechanism yet for the dilation causing attraction.

What is being dilated? What we consider space is being dilated of course. Now we must consider, is space something or is it a void? This opens up a path where main stream choses a void and tosses away any material they had to construct Relativity.

Lets imagine another choice from the observation of c and combine it with the necessity of dark mass energy for the spinning disks of galaxies. So lets consider dark mass energy as the item being dilated by mass. Did the MMX rule out dark mass energy? No, the MMX suggested there was no stationary aether and I would agree. But we can indirectly observe there is a rotational flow of (lets call it) dark mass energy rotating with the galaxy disk as dilation different from flatter space outside of the galaxies with a threshold. When galaxies collide we can view the dilation move out (kinetic energy) and the solid material move towards the dilated space.

Dark mass energy, what do we know of space? First it is a constant c. We think of that motion as fast because relative to our synapsis it is very fast. We are just a chemical reaction defined by c. We can only view c indirectly as distance by time. But c is involved in our measure of distance and time relationship. The dilation in GR for mass dilates with space so the electrons move further out and light has to travel further by the same distance as the electron. So we measure the same speed of light in every frame but not the same distance. Space energy has a density locally that determines distances of space locally. Your ruler is smaller between galaxies than within galaxies.

Lets look at dilation with a single atom of hydrogen. Mass causes its own dilation of space by the inverse square of the distance in space. So the electron leaves the proton and travels out into space where the space becomes more dense. The electron is being pushed by c spin but the further from the proton the more dense the dark mass energy. It curves back on itself and returns to the proton at the same speed as the rest of the compact electrons within the proton where another electron is pushed out due to an imbalance in spin states of matter and anti-matter that creates mass. The creation of mass being fusion in suns. Fission is the return of mass to the energy state.

I have a pattern of c dark mass energy that would create a stable connection between matter and anti- matter by complimentary spin states within and out of the proton and neutron.

This is all speculation and should not be taken seriously by professional's in physics because you would be shunned within the community for taking the wrong path in space.

*

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #32 on: 20/12/2015 19:46:51 »
I am a retired civil engineer who has taken to particle physics as a retirement hobby and so can question everything stupid or not. I have found it extremely difficult to find any physic professional to even ask questions of, much less suggest any alternatives. My conclusion is that the answer to the original question must be, that yes there could be other causes of relativity but you would have more chance of selling pornography to the arch bishop of Canterbury than sell any other theory than SF and GF to the physics community. That is until there is indisputable experimental evidence that, either there is a different cause for SF or GF works differently. I am thinking of starting another thread to discuss the physic mainstream's attitude to external ideas but I might be considered a Troll.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4180
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #33 on: 20/12/2015 20:14:37 »
I can't understand this irresistible desire to question relativity. That is not the issue anyway.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 550
    • View Profile
Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #34 on: 21/12/2015 14:51:23 »
I can't understand this irresistible desire to question relativity. That is not the issue anyway.

That is an assumption that is incorrect. I totally agree with relativity. For instance relativity does not explain contraction as either physical or visual because there is no cause for physical contraction. We only have postulates without a cause. Its all geometry following the postulates that makes relativity correct. Most mathematicians recognize formulas and want to stay in the box of math being the cause. No other explanation needed. Does energy come from mass? That is the main stream thinking. Observation of the photon suggests a different explanation. Light slows through a medium (refraction) than increases in its own medium again (space) unencumbered. Energy must be of space for electron flow to be what we observe as relativity. c being constant through space would have entropy if energy was not of space. We are trained to have others do our thinking for us out of respect for their intelligence. Just because something can be imagined does not make it so.
The most intelligent people are the easiest to fool. I am of lesser intelligence but follow the scientific method.