[David Cooper]

In the past the qualified people believed if you sailed to far you would fall off the Earth. The qualified people do not understand the reason for gravity and magnetism. I believe I represent Einstein's SR.

You really need to warn people whenever you tell them what SR says, is and does that you are giving them a 3D variant of it which has an absolute frame and which is really a mangled understanding of LET.

Frames are distinguished by the clocks tick rate. At c there is no tick rate. That is the absolute frame just not what you were expecting.

You have an infinite number of such "frames" all moving relative to each other, so it's not a frame.

God's eye is not relativity.

God views are simply representations showing things with the communication delays in seeing the action removed. They can even be taken as photos using referrence-frame cameras. They provide clear views of the action and make it much easier to calculate how relativity relates to everything.

You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations

That is not relativity.

Of course it is. You're not doing relativity but are mistaking communication delay rubbish for it instead! There really isn't any point in discussing relativity with you any further if you still haven't worked out what it is!

It doesn't matter why the electron moves? You fail to include all in your understanding. That is why you misunderstand SR.

It's irrelevant.

There is a base of understanding you are missing if you do not understand fractal. Gulliver's travels is based on fractal views.

I've never read it - heard a few chunks narrated long ago but it wasn't interesting. I shouldn't really ask, but in for a penny, in for a pound: what has fractal got to do with relativity?

and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption

Or you on false understanding. If you do not understand the fractal aspect of the view in a frame than you do not understand relativity.

Hardly - relativity can be understood from the God view (as in standard representations of frames of reference), and communication delays are just a layer of obfuscation on the top which you need to understand how to calculate around. Your understanding of relativity is completely ****ed because you've mistaken something else entirely for it.

This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that.

Which is the basis of relativity.

You've got to stop doing that! It's a diversion away from relativity and it's blinded you to the entire subject.

That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.

Hardly, no view is of the present.

There is a God view of the present for the frame of your choice which shows predictions of the current state of that frame. It can be photographed by a reference-frame camera, so it's a real view.

[GoC (OP)]

You really need to warn people whenever you tell them what SR says, is and does that you are giving them a 3D variant of it which has an absolute frame and which is really a mangled understanding of LET.

I consider main streams understanding as mangled. Their view is no absolute frame. Einstein claimed the possibility of c as an absolute frame. I am just agreeing with Einstein. If your understanding is better than his I might not have your ability.

You have an infinite number of such "frames" all moving relative to each other, so it's not a frame

c would be the absolute frame which all others are tied into. Constant energy in space.

God views are simply representations showing things with the communication delays in seeing the action removed. They can even be taken as photos using referrence-frame cameras. They provide clear views of the action and make it much easier to calculate how relativity relates to everything.

My understanding of a Gods view is of the present which is impossible for mere mortals. We can only view relativity.

Of course it is. You're not doing relativity but are mistaking communication delay rubbish for it instead!

Simultaneity of Relativity? Rubbish?

There really isn't any point in discussing relativity with you any further if you still haven't worked out what it is!

Not if you believe Simultaneity of Relativity is Rubbish.

It's irrelevant.

If you believe the cause of motion of the electron is irrelevant than so is your understanding.

I've never read it - heard a few chunks narrated long ago but it wasn't interesting. I shouldn't really ask, but in for a penny, in for a pound: what has fractal got to do with relativity?

Its the basis for all frames measuring the same speed of light in a vacuum. Our view is distorted fractally in every frame. Expand your understanding you are fairly bright.

 

Hardly - relativity can be understood from the God view (as in standard representations of frames of reference), and communication delays are just a layer of obfuscation on the top which you need to understand how to calculate around. Your understanding of relativity is completely ****ed because you've mistaken something else entirely for it

We all view with an eye to falsify. Try the eye of understanding.

There is a God view of the present for the frame of your choice which shows predictions of the current state of that frame. It can be photographed by a reference-frame camera, so it's a real view.

And no view is valid because of simultaneity of relativity.

[guest4091]

David Cooper;
Mode 2 and mode 3 are the same, same locations and times for each event.
In mode 1, the rockets are moving in time to agree with their dilated readings. That's unreal, and why they arrive before the planet. Your misinterpretation of time dilation affecting the motion of the object, is incorrect, which is the cause of 'event meshing failures'. Time dilation affects internal processes within the moving frame. Remember, time of perception is historical, after the event has occurred, and therefore can’t influence its happening.
Events un-happening, occur in your simulation, not the real world.
End of story.

[David Cooper]

Mode 2 and mode 3 are the same, same locations and times for each event.

Modes 2 and 3 are different, as you should see if you change frame. Mode 3 retains the same control frame of reference whereas mode 2 changes it whenever you change the displayed frame. The reason for the difference is that mode 3 doesn't unhappen events when you change the displayed frame.

In mode 1, the rockets are moving in time to agree with their dilated readings. That's unreal, and why they arrive before the planet. Your misinterpretation of time dilation affecting the motion of the object, is incorrect, which is the cause of 'event meshing failures'. Time dilation affects internal processes within the moving frame. Remember, time of perception is historical, after the event has occurred, and therefore can’t influence its happening.

Mode 1 is one of the SR models and I have represented it correctly. Don't accuse me of misinterpreting things on the basis that I'm showing you a fair version of someone else's model. If you don't like their model, you can simply label that model as wrong, which is fine by me. Event-meshing failures are specific to model 1 and they are not of my making.

Events un-happening, occur in your simulation, not the real world.
End of story.

They happen in the model 2 SR simulation, and as you rightly say, they don't in the real world. Which means you're effectively agreeing that SR doesn't work.

[David Cooper]

My understanding of a Gods view is of the present which is impossible for mere mortals. We can only view relativity.

We can make reference-frame cameras and take God view's as photographs. By alternating the timing of each pixel taking its part of the picture, we can create such photos for any frame of reference. The only limitation is that each pixel must be directly adjacent to the thing it is photographing, so a reference frame camera takes pictures like making a contact print where there is no lens and no delay in the light going from the part of the object being photographed by a pixel and the pixel receiving that light.

Simultaneity of Relativity? Rubbish?

The rubbish is the delays that you're failing to calculate around, and you're mistaking those delays for relativity. They have nothing to do with relativity other than being a complication on the top which you need to correct for.

If you believe the cause of motion of the electron is irrelevant than so is your understanding.

It is utterly unimportant to relativity. Relativity is about how things move relative to each other and it doesn't matter what makes them move.

Its the basis for all frames measuring the same speed of light in a vacuum. Our view is distorted fractally in every frame. Expand your understanding you are fairly bright.

Our distorted view is irrelevant - we should be working with the corrected views, corrected in different ways for analysis using different frames.

And no view is valid because of simultaneity of relativity.

One frame's God view gives the true picture of the underlying reality.

[GoC (OP)]

You can take a picture of the night sky with all the galaxies but they are not where we view them. So in what way is the  picture of our universe a valid representation of positions?

[xersanozgen]

You can take a picture of the night sky with all the galaxies but they are not where we view them. So in what way is the  picture of our universe a valid representation of positions?

We can see an illusion. Each one of the sky objects is not at simultaneous position and their current age. The reason of this illusion is just the finite/limited value of light's velocity. The reason is not their different value of their time tempos because of their relative speeds.

The effective reason of the illusion picture is transparent/indisputable: the value of light's velocity is not infinite.

All analyses on this topic must be reconsidered by the method that co-reference frame will be the most external frame (space/LCS) and  the speeds of other actors (source/observer etc.) must be adapted/considered according to this co-reference frame.

[David Cooper]

You can take a picture of the night sky with all the galaxies but they are not where we view them. So in what way is the  picture of our universe a valid representation of positions?

That isn't the kind of picture I was talking about taking. A reference-frame camera would need to be spread across the entire thing being photographed as each pixel records what is right next to it. In principle you could spread such a camera through the entire universe, but would be more practical just to use one locally. The purpose of the idea though is to show that the conversions are fully valid - if you correct for time delays, you necessarily end up with the same view as would be taken by a reference-frame camera, and different corrections based on different frames would produce different images matching up to the ones taken by a reference-frame camera set to take pictures for the same frame of reference, this being done simply by changing the clock synchronisation for all the pixels. Everything converts to God-view images which show where everything is/was/will-be at a specific moment in time for a specific frame of reference. Such images are the same as the ones used in Spacetime diagrams in that they remove the communication delays.

If you want a God-view picture of the visible universe to show it as it is now by a frame of reference in which we are more or less stationary, that picture would show most of galaxies much further away than where we see them because it would correct for the communication delays and project them to where they must be now instead of putting them where they used to be millions or billions of years ago. The accuracy of such a picture would depend on us knowing how far away each galaxy was when it was where we currently see it, its direction and speed of travel (when it was where we currently see it), and the calculation of the expansion of space in between it and us. There could be a lot of error in all of that. All the same principles apply in a small space too though, such as within a lab - an infinite number of frames of reference apply there and so do communication delays. It should be possible to build a reference-frame camera in a lab to take God-view photos of the action in a 2D plane, though for it to do the job properly, it would need to be able to make nanosecond-long (or should that be short) exposures.

[GoC (OP)]

I do not subscribe to the BB. There are BH way to large for the mere 13.6 billion light years to have been produced. The mechanics of relativity allow both GR and SR red shifts while main stream only uses SR in determining distance. They even chose the Cepheid's to match our galaxy's Cepheid's brightness. That nullifies the variation in expansion. GR red shift is a part of the galaxies lensing and not an expansion of SR. From our position in our galaxy 75% out from the center of course we would view all galaxies as red shifted but by GR and not necessarily SR. 75% of the light from a galaxy is in the most dilated center.

Our sun would compress down to 1.6 miles as a BH and there are some BH;s with a billion solar masses. 13.6 billion light years for the universe to exist becomes a joke. Our suns aging process will take 10 billion light years to complete. Follow the math.

[David Cooper]

Well, it's lucky we don't need anything distant to explore relativity - it can all be done locally.

[GoC (OP)]

David,

   Lets explore the clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level and the MMX results. North and south would be the same distance traveled for light because energy rotates with the Earth. The proof is the rotation with the Earth's path and against the Earth's path around the sun does not affect tick rate. Now we determine East and West. The distance because light is independent of the source changes in the East and West directions by the rotation of the Earth. So the extra distance west to east is exactly auto corrected for east to west. Planets are a specific case of c+v and c-v. The speed of light being constant but the source moving away and moving towards the return point. The energy rotating with the Earth creates a fixed point in space for light to return. This would work for any angle you rotate the MMX experiment. All because clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on the earth locally. You cannot find a fixed point in space. Results would be different.

[David Cooper]

Lets explore the clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level and the MMX results. North and south would be the same distance traveled for light because energy rotates with the Earth. The proof is the rotation with the Earth's path and against the Earth's path around the sun does not affect tick rate.

While all clocks at sea level tick at the same rate in the frame of reference in which the centre of the Earth is stationary (which it cannot always be), they will vary for all other frames, so the rotation does affect tick rate.

Now we determine East and West. The distance because light is independent of the source changes in the East and West directions by the rotation of the Earth. So the extra distance west to east is exactly auto corrected for east to west.

Auto corrected how? It isn't. Light takes longer to complete the trip one way than the other, so we know that on average, light moves faster through that arm of the MMX in one direction than the other, and that would lengthen the total time taken for it to complete the round trip if that arm didn't contract in length.

Planets are a specific case of c+v and c-v. The speed of light being constant but the source moving away and moving towards the return point. The energy rotating with the Earth creates a fixed point in space for light to return. This would work for any angle you rotate the MMX experiment. All because clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on the earth locally. You cannot find a fixed point in space. Results would be different.

The only difference with doing the experiment on the Earth as opposed to in space is that gravity slows light down for both arms, but it slows them both equally and therefore doesn't affect the result.

[GoC (OP)]

While all clocks at sea level tick at the same rate in the frame of reference in which the centre of the Earth is stationary (which it cannot always be), they will vary for all other frames, so the rotation does affect tick rate

Your confusing GR with SR. The SR affect is clocks ticking at the same rate along with the GR rotating the energy stationary to your position.

Auto corrected how? It isn't. Light takes longer to complete the trip one way than the other, so we know that on average, light moves faster through that arm of the MMX in one direction than the other, and that would lengthen the total time taken for it to complete the round trip if that arm didn't contract in length.

Its not faster because energy is stationary with the position on the Earth. Its like the Earth is stationary in the North South direction. The proof is the rotation around the sun with the Earth's direction and against the Earth's direction does not affect the tick rate. You have not fully comprehended the affects this creates with light. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame. Light does not go faster or slower only the distances are changed. All directions are stationary to the point of origin. The MMX had to be a null result. The direction East and west auto correct for distance back to origin.

The only difference with doing the experiment on the Earth as opposed to in space is that gravity slows light down for both arms, but it slows them both equally and therefore doesn't affect the result.

You do not understand the energy issue rotating with the planet.

[David Cooper]

Your confusing GR with SR. The SR affect is clocks ticking at the same rate along with the GR rotating the energy stationary to your position.

I'm not confusing anything - you're failing to factor in the difference between an Earth rotating round a stationary centre and rotating round a moving centre - the former case will have all clocks at sea level ticking in sync while the latter case cannot do so (except on average over multiples of 23 hours 56 minutes).

Its not faster because energy is stationary with the position on the Earth.

Voodoo. Light completes a trip round the Earth faster westwards than eastwards, so there is no weird effect equalising it to make an uncontracted MMX arm produce a null result.

All directions are stationary to the point of origin.

That would lead to light overtaking light if the sources move at different speeds relative to each other.

You do not understand the energy issue rotating with the planet.

I understand that your disproven nonsense doesn't work.

[GoC (OP)]

I'm not confusing anything - you're failing to factor in the difference between an Earth rotating round a stationary centre and rotating round a moving centre - the former case will have all clocks at sea level ticking in sync while the latter case cannot do so (except on average over multiples of 23 hours 56 minutes).

The spectrum Energy moves with mass. North and south directions move light equally in those directions. The distances are the same in either direction. East and West the distances change because you have light chasing and closing on an object. That is not contraction of a physical object!

 

Voodoo. Light completes a trip round the Earth faster westwards than eastwards, so there is no weird effect equalising it to make an uncontracted MMX arm produce a null result.

Of course!!! But you are not doing that in the MMX. You are returning the light counteracting the difference for the Null result. It auto corrects the difference in any angle. There is no physical contraction. The spectrum energy moves with the Earth.

 

I understand that your disproven nonsense doesn't work.

The Null result of the MMX begs to differ.

That would lead to light overtaking light if the sources move at different speeds relative to each other.

The objects are moving the same speed. If an object contracted the distance light traveled to the mirrors would affect the MMX null result mathematically. There is no different speeds that would cause the non null results.

[David Cooper]

The spectrum Energy moves with mass. North and south directions move light equally in those directions. The distances are the same in either direction. East and West the distances change because you have light chasing and closing on an object. That is not contraction of a physical object!

Light moves more quickly (on average) westwards relative to the material of the surface of the Earth that it is passing than it does eastwards. We know that because it takes it longer to complete a circuit eastwards. That means there is no magical equalisation of speed in the two directions relative to the arm of the MMX alligned east-west, and that means it can only produce a null result if that arm contracts.
 

Of course!!! But you are not doing that in the MMX.

Really? How does that work? the arm of the MMX can be directly next to a fibre optic cable going right round the world in which we see the signal taking longer to complete a circuit one way than the other and you say that the light in the MMX isn't bound by the same speeds? You have light in the MMX overtaking light in the cable in one direction and being overtaken by it in the opposite direction, and that just won't work.

[GoC (OP)]

Light moves more quickly (on average) westwards relative to the material of the surface of the Earth that it is passing than it does eastwards. We know that because it takes it longer to complete a circuit eastwards. That means there is no magical equalisation of speed in the two directions relative to the arm of the MMX alligned east-west, and that means it can only produce a null result if that arm contracts.

There is a consequence to clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level you definitely do not understand. The energy level at sea level is the same all over the planet. Your belief is the Earth is a frame where the distance for light is the same for a fixed position of objects. The physical object does not contract to make the Null result. Lets circle the Earth at the equator eight times with fiber optic cable. Your idea suggests the optic wire shrinks in the westward direction. Ok lets explore that idea we have the shrunken optic cable. We have a second optic cable attached right next to it. A double optic cable if you will. So if one shrinks so does the other. We send light in opposite directions. There is still a difference in timing with the two opposite directions. Wrap it 10000 times and the difference accumulates. That is not a Null result and the physical object does not contract more and more with each cycle.

The energy used in eastern direction is less available then in the western direction because of the rotation direction. Either the speed of light changes or the relative speed of light changes. Since light is constant the relative speed changes consistent with the postulate light is independent of the source.

Really? How does that work? the arm of the MMX can be directly next to a fibre optic cable going right round the world in which we see the signal taking longer to complete a circuit one way than the other and you say that the light in the MMX isn't bound by the same speeds? You have light in the MMX overtaking light in the cable in one direction and being overtaken by it in the opposite direction, and that just won't work.

Yes really. The MMX was two way where one direction exactly adjusts for the opposite direction by distance traveled extra in the eastward direction longer and the distance traveled in the westward direction shorter. Its as simple as that and you introduce magical contraction of a physical object.

[David Cooper]

There is a consequence to clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level you definitely do not understand. The energy level at sea level is the same all over the planet. Your belief is the Earth is a frame where the distance for light is the same for a fixed position of objects. The physical object does not contract to make the Null result. Lets circle the Earth at the equator eight times with fiber optic cable. Your idea suggests the optic wire shrinks in the westward direction. Ok lets explore that idea we have the shrunken optic cable. We have a second optic cable attached right next to it. A double optic cable if you will. So if one shrinks so does the other. We send light in opposite directions. There is still a difference in timing with the two opposite directions. Wrap it 10000 times and the difference accumulates. That is not a Null result and the physical object does not contract more and more with each cycle.

If you lay a cable round the Earth, it will go down in ready-contracted form wherever the ground is likewise contracted (and the ground is - you can fit a tiny amount more of it in than pi suggests due to the Earth's rotation). There is no shrinking of any cable for a westward direction that doesn't also apply eastward, just as the arm of the MMX contracts for both directions of travel of the light moving along it. Your understanding of all this is such a mess that I doubt you'll ever manage to untangle it all.

Yes really. The MMX was two way where one direction exactly adjusts for the opposite direction by distance traveled extra in the eastward direction longer and the distance traveled in the westward direction shorter. Its as simple as that and you introduce magical contraction of a physical object.

We've been through all that many times in this thread - if it's longer one way and shorter the other, the extra length one way isn't cancelled out exactly by the shorter length the other way. Any difference in the time taken for light to do one leg of the trip vs. the other leads to a longer total time than if the two legs are equal.

[GoC (OP)]

If you lay a cable round the Earth, it will go down in ready-contracted form wherever the ground is likewise contracted (and the ground is - you can fit a tiny amount more of it in than pi suggests due to the Earth's rotation). There is no shrinking of any cable for a westward direction that doesn't also apply eastward, just as the arm of the MMX contracts for both directions of travel of the light moving along it. Your understanding of all this is such a mess that I doubt you'll ever manage to untangle it all.

We can change the phase in one cable going around the equator say ten times. We can send one phase to the east and one phase to the west simultaneously. I think we agree the westward direction completes a lap before the eastward direction in the same cable. So each lap the difference increases. Not because the physical cable keeps contracting more each time because the phases are in the same cable. So the difference is in the travel distances themselves. In one direction you are chasing the origin and the other direction you are closing the gap. The speed of light being the same in both directions. So its a distance issue for light and not a physical contraction of the cable.

Normally in space the speed of light forward is longer between mirrors with the direction of speed than side ways I will concede that mathematically because it does not come back to origin in open space. I understand this point mathematically. But the Earth does have an origin that light returns in the MMX. All clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Light is confounded with the electron in every frame. So we are dealing with an energy level back and forth to origin unlike being in space. Its like the Earth is stationary in space for the two way direction of light.

We've been through all that many times in this thread - if it's longer one way and shorter the other, the extra length one way isn't cancelled out exactly by the shorter length the other way. Any difference in the time taken for light to do one leg of the trip vs. the other leads to a longer total time than if the two legs are equal.

Yes in space away from mass where tick rate has little to do with GR.

[David Cooper]

We can change the phase in one cable going around the equator say ten times. We can send one phase to the east and one phase to the west simultaneously. I think we agree the westward direction completes a lap before the eastward direction in the same cable. So each lap the difference increases. Not because the physical cable keeps contracting more each time because the phases are in the same cable. So the difference is in the travel distances themselves. In one direction you are chasing the origin and the other direction you are closing the gap. The speed of light being the same in both directions. So its a distance issue for light and not a physical contraction of the cable.

The cable is still contracted on average by a tiny amount, but it's of little relevance there. When you send your light on multiple circuits of the Earth, you magnify the difference in timing, but so what? How is that relevant to the price of fish? It doesn't matter how many circuits are involved, the only important point is that the light completes the trip faster one way than the other, and that means on average over 23 hours and 56 minutes the same speed difference will apply in opposite directions through the MMX which can have one arm running directly alongside this loop of fibre-optic cable going right round the Earth (while light has to travel at the same speeds in the same direction at the same time in both the MMX arm and this cable). And when you have a speed difference, the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

Normally in space the speed of light forward is longer between mirrors with the direction of speed than side ways I will concede that mathematically because it does not come back to origin in open space. I understand this point mathematically. But the Earth does have an origin that light returns in the MMX. All clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Light is confounded with the electron in every frame. So we are dealing with an energy level back and forth to origin unlike being in space. Its like the Earth is stationary in space for the two way direction of light.

I've just shown you (for the n'th time) that the speed of light through the MMX arm aligned with the cable going round the Earth must on average be faster in one direction than the other, and for the "ticks" of that arm to remain in sync with the "ticks" of the perpendicular arm, it has to contract. More importantly though, the main impact on the relative speed of light to the apparatus in opposite directions comes from the Earth's movement round the sun rather than from its rotation, and no amount of voodoo can overcome that either by imagining that the rules out in space don't also apply down on the Earth - anything that adjusts to equalise the speeds would lead to measurable distortions, absolutely trashing GPS system measurements.