0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So Einstein said all frames are equally valid. This also means no frame is valid because of relativity of simultaneity.
#433A change of frame is a major reworking of reality, producing a new description of what's happening that's a major distortion of the truth, telling lies about the amount of length-contraction that's applied to different objects and about the speed of light relative to them.
#433In frame A, light moves relative to object B at speeds other than c. It is only when we switch to frame B that light is asserted to be moving relative to object B at c in all directions, but such a change in what the light's doing relative to the objects should not be allowed.
I use an energy model of c occupying space and moving electrons by distance. Time is meaningless in that case. Energy c is what allows motion and motion allows the laws of nature. Time is caused by motion c.
Your points avoid what makes the electron move in the first place so you might as well be arguing with the wind.
Quote#433A change of frame is a major reworking of reality, producing a new description of what's happening that's a major distortion of the truth, telling lies about the amount of length-contraction that's applied to different objects and about the speed of light relative to them.That's magic! Changing frames does not alter the universe, unless you are talking Harry Potter physics, which only requires to know the secret hand shake.
In the SR train scenario, if the passenger dropped a stone, it falls vertically to the floor. The bystander outside would see the stone fall in an arc to the floor (assume a large window). How can each see a different path for the same stone? You would call this a contradiction, SR calls it relative perceptions.
Maybe you don't understand perception. It's what the mind thinks it sees, mental images formed from sensory input, and just as real as anything outside the mind. It explains illusions and drug induced hallucinations, and SR effects. In the train example, the trajectories are real perceived images for the observers, but are not physically real outside the mind. Example; planets have one position for each observation (and corresponding clock event), and when plotted over time, produce an historical record of positions, labeled as an orbit. No one has ever looked into space and seen an orbit. They are not physically real except as lines on paper.
We can move over to your simulations which you claim are dynamic in showing the mechanism for formation of the universe, which SR does not. First, there is no motion on a computer screen, it's just a sequence of pixels turned on and off, like the sequence of still images projected on the movie screen. The mind compares the current image with the previous one and melds them into a continuous stream, another case of perception. In this sense a graph or spacetime drawing is no different, being a history of positions. The relations of moving objects cannot be determined from one position, but requires multiple positions over a period of time.
In a space-time drawing, the ct (vertical) axis is the time of the reference frame A, thus defining it as a rest frame, and exempt from motion induced effects td and lc. A would measure the speed of light as c. A would also measure light speed relative to B in the x direction as cv, with B speed=v. Since B is moving it experiences motion induced effects td and lc. The complementary effects of td and lc scale x' and t' for B by the gamma factor g. Therefore if in A, x/t=c, then in B, x'/t'=c.
Newton was in error when stating there is an absolute state of rest and motion.
Show an instance of event meshing failure, or an event unhappening.
I take their model and run it for them, thereby showing up the failure of the model to do what it says on the tin. I can do that for your model to, and if it works, it will be better than SR.
That's the whole point - changing frame must not make events unhappen, so when two observers at the same place but moving relative to each other theorise about the state of reality elsewhere, they produce conflicting accounts
I can run my model in my head but it is probably to difficult in a simulation.
Changing frames does not make events unhappen. Where did this idea come from? It is not part of LET or SR. It must be your own theory.
but objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future.
Mode 1 is unreal, scrambled fantasy. total distortion.
Refer to the graphic which is based on planets Blue and Green separating at .866c and a rocket (red) launching at t=1 at .99c from each planet to intercept the other planet. The four events of interest are circled.
In mode 1, with frame A the reference, times should be A-times. Both rockets launch at 250 (1 yr) and arrive at intercept location at 490 (2 yr). Both B and G arrive at intercept location at 960 (3.8 yr).
Coordinates from the graphic are noted as (x, t).Rocket B2G moves from (0, 1) to (6.92, 2), at 6.9c.Rocket G2B moves from (1.72, 1) to (0, 2), at 1.7c.B moved from (0, 0) to (0, 3.80) at 0.G moved from (0, 0) to (7.96, 3.80) at 2.1c.1. These are violations of the faster than light restriction.
2. There is no acceleration in 'uniform constant inertial motion'.
B and G are coincident at the origin, then G disappears from B's view on the x axis.Both rockets disappear from the planet's view.
3. Those are violations of the energy conservation law.
Quotebut objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future.Based on what?
They can't have their cake and eat it, no matter how much they try to.
Yes you can because there are two different cakes. You eat one and claim the other one is the one you ate in your arguments.
There is one basis for time as we use it in measurement. That basis is always c. Each frame has a ratio of c for its reaction rate. Its the reaction rate that determines the tick rate of a clock in that frame. All motion through space is counted by c as a reduction in available energy. c being total energy available. Your measuring sticks increase visually as an exact ratio to your tick slowing in your frame. This is why you always measure the same speed of light in a vacuum in all frames. GR does the same thing with dilation of energy available in zero point energy. It expands your measuring stick while increasing the distance traveled for your tick rate.
Words are ambiguous in interpretation. I just interpret them in a way that describes relativity rather than interpret them to invalidate SR or the equivalence of GR.
Many of your sources are interpretations not by Einstein. The scientific community shunned Einstein after his 1920 papers because he once again brought up a medium needed for transfer of information. It was the scientific community that wanted its cake and eat it too.
Why are you making that claim? I'm the one who takes all their different cakes and gives them distinct names to spell out that they are not the same cake, then I show that NONE of those cakes functions properly. They are the ones who try to lump all their incompatible models together into one great mess and claim that it works. I have shown what happens when each model is simulated and what needs to be changed to make some of the models function, but all I get are objections from people who can't show any SR model working but who merely want to believe that it somehow works even though it's impossible.
How does that solve the problems of event-meshing failure and the unhappening of events? All you've done is allow yourself to be taken in by an illusion and to think that the speed of light relative to you is always c in every direction in every frame, but you're just doing magical thinking. If light is passing you at c relative to you and you then accelerate towards it and somehow imagine that it is still passing you at c relative to you, you've gone into the magical world of Narnia.
Why don't you try interpreting them in a way that can produce a functional simulation that doesn't break the rules of the model you're trying to simulate (or work out how such a simulation could be built) - that's all I'm asking you to do, and although it's an impossible task, you don't believe that so you should be more than willing to take on the task. You can call in the world's physicists to help you, and I'm sure some of them must understand how to write programs. Even if you do this, you will fail, because you cannot simulate a broken model and get it to function in such a way as to remove the brokenness
Why don't you stop for a moment and ask yourself this: how can it be that a single individual with no qualifications in physics has managed to show more than one functional relativity simulation using models that aren't SR while the entire Physics establishment has been unable to produce a single functional relativity simulation with SR? The only models they have produced are the same non-SR models as mine, plus the pseudo-functional model zero where they can produce imagined functionality within an eternal static block which they can't generate without switching to the physics of one of my non-SR models.
I'm covering all the interpretations.
Show me a model that I haven't considered and show me how it manages to do what none of the other "SR" models have managed to do. I have shown you models that can actually work as well as the ones that don't. Model 3 has two variants, one of which is LET and the other is Minkowski's 4D non-block SR with a preferred frame added to it. Both fit with experimental results, but one has a superfluous time dimension and has light follow paths which are always of zero distance and zero time (while actually going into storage for in some cases billions of years). All variants of model 2 are dead in the water because they unhappen events when they change the frame of reference they're using to control the unfolding of events. Model 1 is also viable with a block universe so long as it also includes Newtonian time so that event-meshing failures can be tolerated and corrected (meaning that events change over Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations). It's all covered. You and your ilk have yet to propose any other model at all, never mind come up with anything that can enable anything that could deserve to be labelled as "unmofified SR" to function in the way it has to in order to match up with the claims made about SR. What should be clear to anyone of high intelligence by this point is that the simplest of the viable models which fits the facts is LET, and NONE of the viable models are SR. Importantly, LET itself is not SR because it doesn't come with any of SR's dogma which would require the universe to run on magic.
The speed of light is c relative to me only in special occasions. ... Light does not pass you at c in an accelerated frame. That is not what Relativity SR says. That may be what the scientific community says and if they say that they are incorrect. You may be stuck in that belief by listening to incorrect information. Remember when I said words can be ambiguous. Its your interpretation that is at fault not SR. ... In all frames the speed of light is measured to be the same in a vacuum. That is not!!! the same as the speed of light relative to you is the same in every frame.
Its not an impossible task using Einstein's interpretation over some of the less than perfect interpretations. Realizing Einstein's interpretation is a challenge that many who teach relativity fail in his interpretation. You may be a victim and see the failure. That is an important part of progress.
Quote from: David Cooper on 29/07/2017 19:29:04I'm covering all the interpretations.Except the one that is correct.
Every frame you are in is the preferred frame to measure c. No other frame will allow your measurements to be valid.
All frames are equally valid in their measurement of c.
You are using time without understanding time correctly.
If you are using light clocks to measure light distances how can they be any different value when your tick rate is measured as the speed of light in any frame. You use tick rate as your measurement so you use light as your measurement of light. Really what are you expecting? Do you consider that magic?
You are now describing a model with an absolute frame, and that means you're not talking about SR.
You appear to be a victim of it because you can't explain what this model is and show how it relates to the models I've simulated. What magic does it do that can't be turned into a simulation? Why are you incapable of explaining what it does?
Then where is it? Tell me how it works. This magical model has escaped the entire physics community and it's only been found by you through your unique interpretation skills which enable you to understand Einstein's theory better than even he did
Have you any idea just how daft that sounds?
On a round trip
I understand it fine, and I can lock it to process to prove that I understand it correctly and that other people's voodoo-time doesn't work.
How do you imagine that telling me what everyone already knows will help in any way? The issue is how you coordinate events to eliminate the unhappening of events. How do you coordinate the ticking rates of clocks on different paths without using the time of an absolute frame? Address that directly and show me the mechanism that gets around the problem. Why should a clock tick more frequently on one path than another? What controls that? You've filled pages with guff claiming you have a model that works, but you still can't get to the point where you show its mechanism.