[David Cooper]

Hi Raymond,

I've got your diagram from the email, so here it is along with the text:-

"Here is the diagram about contraction. The acceleration stops at t4 for A and at t5 for B, so the contraction and the speed is stable from t5 to t7, but it is still doppler effect that drives the atoms, and we can imagine that this effect is also producing the motion of their components, providing they are bonded and no energy is lost during the process. If any light succeeds to escape from the components, it has to produce the bonding between the atoms, and if it escapes from the atoms, it has to produce gravity. When we accelerate A, it produces doppler effect on the light issued from B, so it resists to move towards B, and its components do the same thing with regard to one another, so if we add all those resistances, we get the whole mass of the atom. This explains why particles get lighter when they bond, or why mass is equivalent to energy, or the relation between light energy and kinetic energy."

It's late here, so I'll just post this now so that other people can study it too, and I'll get back to it tomorrow.

[GoC (OP)]

In the standard model there should be no Doppler at all. There needs to be resistance to a medium for a Doppler affect.

[David Cooper]

I understand that you attribute time to the distance light travels, as we do for the lightyear. This might be useful if that distance was constant, but your MMx simulation shows that it travels more distance one way than the other, so what would be the true time? Maybe you mean the distance traveled in aether, but then there would be no way to detect the true time, and if there is no way for us, my theory shows that there would be no way for atoms either, so this kind of time would be useless too. Besides, if we assimilate time to aging, to me, the fact that one of the twins gets younger means that his time has slowed down. Visibly, I do not understand yet what you exactly mean.

Our inability to measure absolute time doesn't render it useless - it is a key part of the mechanism by which the universe functions and the universe cannot function without it. Our inability to pin it down and point at a clock which ticks out absolute time doesn't make anything useless - it simply means we can't trust any clock to do anything other than measure an apparent time. The universe operates using a time that runs at the same rate everywhere. Computer simulations do the same, even when they pretend to do SR or GR - they are still fully dependent on a Newtonian time ticking away universally because they can't function without it, although they can obfuscate it by repeatedly switching which frame is tied to that Newtonian time.

I registered six months ago. I can try to register you with your name and give you the password after if you wish.

I'm in now, although I couldn't use my own name because someone has already registered every possible way of writing it.

[David Cooper]

We are not talking about altitude. We are referencing sea level on earth.

Yes, but a clock at sea level at the equator is moving through space more quickly on average than a clock at sea level at the north pole, so the former should tick more slowly unless there's some complication I don't know about which cancels out the difference, which is why I commented on that - if they do tick at the same rate as each other, there must be some factor that I haven't taken into account and I want to know more about it.

You can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.

That is not possible.

Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?

Einstein and relativity.

Incompetent. No method has been found to measure the speed of light in one direction with anything.

It does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.

I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.

That's gone too weird for me.

I am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.

That wasn't what I called voodoo - it's the bit about an aura which I had an issue with because you're trying to do something that would be ruled out in the same way as aether drag. When space probes move from planet to planet they don't find boundaries between "auras".

Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.

Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?

[GoC (OP)]

Yes, but a clock at sea level at the equator is moving through space more quickly on average than a clock at sea level at the north pole, so the former should tick more slowly unless there's some complication I don't know about which cancels out the difference, which is why I commented on that - if they do tick at the same rate as each other, there must be some factor that I haven't taken into account and I want to know more about it.

Yes You are not taking into account the bulge at the equator and the indentation at the poles for where sea level resides. There is a SR GR equivalence sea level balances.

QuoteYou can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.That is not possible.

I would suggest you use the term not probable rather than not possible. Atomic clocks can measure distance on the Earth to prove relativity. Atomic clocks measure rotation of the earths longitude vs. latitude using simultaneity of relativity very well. Atomic clocks accurately measure distances light travels. If c is constant than atomic clocks can measure distance. Einstein thought so. I'm going to side with his understanding.

QuoteQuote from: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 22:50:34Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?Einstein and relativity.Incompetent. No method has been found to measure the speed of light in one direction with anything.

They used atomic clocks in airplanes to prove relativity. The Canadians used a van with 7 atomic clocks to prove relativity driving from NY to SF and registered a 14 ns difference in line with the rotation of the Earth c-v.

QuoteIt does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.That's gone too weird for me.

Being self aware seems weird to me the rest is just mechanics.

QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?

No, but of what is it a contraction? GR has dilation (expansion) SR has a distance change in energy. You contract energy traveling against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks react to velocity of rotation (longitude) but not to Latitude.
Light is independent of the source but latitude is a fixed position North to South for tick rate other than simultaneity of relativity change with distance. The two way distance for east and west exactly correct distance light travels on the Earth. Local is different than non local slightly.
I meant to say the forward and back /2 is the same. One way distance measured by light is not but the physical distance remains the same.

QuoteI am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.That wasn't what I called voodoo - it's the bit about an aura which I had an issue with because you're trying to do something that would be ruled out in the same way as aether drag. When space probes move from planet to planet they don't find boundaries between "auras".

I use aura to describe dilation threshold of the inverse square of the distance. We view this in galaxies as lensing. Aura is not in the spiritual sense when used by me. There is the energy of space being dilated by mass and we view that threshold between dilated space and space without mass around galaxies. All mass carry's its own dilation of lower energy density. Gravity is the attraction to a lower energy density in your local environment. Your size determines your local environment by the inverse square of the distance you affect.

[puppypower]

One conceptual problem with explaining and proving relativity with clocks, are clocks do not simulate time in a way that is consistent with the passage of time. Time is mono-directional; always increases to the future. Whereas clocks cycle and repeat. Cycle and repeat is more like a 2-D wave, whereas time moves more like a 1-D line. Clocks add a second dimension to time that is not consistent with the passage of time. Clock time is more consistent with a measure of energy, which is a 2-D wave. Changes in energy, can impact the performance of clocks.

The reason we have clocks, to make us more efficient with our time. It is about regulating our time in a way that allows us to be more efficient with our cultural and individual energy. This makes money and resources. We allot so much energy, for various tasks, over the day. As the clock repeats, we repeat this process. When you go in vacation, and leave the clock at home, energy output is not as repeatable. Time may appear to speed up when you have fun. And you may need a vacation from vacation due to too much energy expended.

The passage of time is closer to the concept of entropy. A system left to its own accord, will increase entropy over time; second law. Like time, entropy does not cycle and repeat. Energy is 2-D; wavelength and frequency and will cycle and repeat.

An example of an entropy clock would be the dead fish clock. This clock moves forward in time and will not cycle since we cannot un-stink the dead fish. We can speed up or slow the dead fish clock, with heat energy or refrigeration. This is another form of energy, that regulates the rate of entropy. I would conclude the mechanics of relativity is energy. SR has kinetic energy, while GR has mass energy. Clock time misrepresents the nature of time and is therefore something else altogether.

As an analogy, say we say have a tradition that says walking can be simulated by swimming. Swimming is a different motion than walking, and therefore swimming does not accurately simulate the mechanics of walking. You need both arm and leg propulsion to swim; 2-D, whereas walking is mostly legs; 1-D.  But since this is the tradition, you need to use that premise and then reason from there when building the robot. If you follow the traditions, to get along, something never makes sense, but one is required to accept it, memorize and repeat. We end up with robots walking while grabbing, air with their arms and curling their spine, which seems unnatural.

[guest4091]

Davod Cooper #295

I never actually stopped to work out what the values would be, but those sound right - if you add them together and half the answer, you get one beep every two seconds which is what both rockets should work out that they're hearing on average, tying in neatly with what they will expect to hear if they both assume themselves to be stationary while the other rocket moves past them.

Anaut B leaves A at .866c, performs a more realistic reversal from Bt .5 to 1.5.. and returns at .866c. Inspection reveals units of time detected:
A detects 1 in 3..37, then 1 in .63, an average of 2 in 4.
B detects .63 in 1, then 3.37 in 1, an average of 4 in 2.
The detection rates are reciprocal but not equal.

https://app.box.com/s/wmxpgmv7u36z7epio09k8royqbnxvkbv

[guest4091]

Davod Cooper #297

But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass

A clock is a process, like biology, or growth rings of a tree,...etc. Inside the light clock, the speed of light relative to the clock is < c and that is by definition 'time'.. If observer  perception (a process) is altered by motion, like the clock, he is not aware of the slowing clock rate, just as his short ruler does not reveal a change in his short spaceship. If all processes slow by the same proportion, the rules of physical behavior remain constant, and apply anywhere for inertial motion. Perception is that of a common time, therefore a universal time is irrelevant. 

[David Cooper]

Yes You are not taking into account the bulge at the equator and the indentation at the poles for where sea level resides. There is a SR GR equivalence sea level balances.

I did consider that, but thought it unlikely that it should always cancel out the speed effect - having now checked though, I've found lots of stuff stating that it does cancel it out in all cases, so thanks for drawing my attention to this.

I would suggest you use the term not probable rather than not possible.

It is not possible using any method that we currently know of.

Atomic clocks can measure distance on the Earth to prove relativity. Atomic clocks measure rotation of the earths longitude vs. latitude using simultaneity of relativity very well. Atomic clocks accurately measure distances light travels. If c is constant than atomic clocks can measure distance. Einstein thought so. I'm going to side with his understanding.

If the one-way speed of light could be measured, we would be able to identify a preferred frame of reference.

They used atomic clocks in airplanes to prove relativity. The Canadians used a van with 7 atomic clocks to prove relativity driving from NY to SF and registered a 14 ns difference in line with the rotation of the Earth c-v.

That is not a one-way measurement the speed of light - proving relativity merely proves that relativity works, but it doesn't mean that it has to be Einstein's relativity as LET makes the same predictions and does not require the speed of light to be the same in all directions relative to any object.

Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.

Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?

No, but of what is it a contraction?

If it's 14ft less in one direction, how can the light distances be the same?

I meant to say the forward and back /2 is the same. One way distance measured by light is not but the physical distance remains the same.

Right, so the average of two distances is the same as itself.

I use aura to describe dilation threshold of the inverse square of the distance. We view this in galaxies as lensing. Aura is not in the spiritual sense when used by me.

I didn't think you meant it in any spiritual sense, but I couldn't work out what you did mean by it. Thanks for clearing that up. I can't see how that gives you a mechanism to avoid length-contraction.

[David Cooper]

Anaut B leaves A at .866c, performs a more realistic reversal from Bt .5 to 1.5.. and returns at .866c. Inspection reveals units of time detected:
A detects 1 in 3..37, then 1 in .63, an average of 2 in 4.
B detects .63 in 1, then 3.37 in 1, an average of 4 in 2.
The detection rates are reciprocal but not equal.

That's a different case - I was dealing with two rockets passing each other at 0.86c relative to each other and not turning round at all. If you average out the beeps they receive from the other rocket over equal parts of the time before and after the point when they pass each other, they both hear one beep every two seconds by their clock.

In the later thought experiment on my relativity page where I have two planets passing each other and two rockets, I don't discuss beeps being sent between them and make no claims about the rate at which any beeps would be detected.

[David Cooper]

A clock is a process, like biology, or growth rings of a tree,...etc. Inside the light clock, the speed of light relative to the clock is < c and that is by definition 'time'..

I suspect you meant "=" rather than "<". Whatever the case though, clocks can never all the time that is actually passing - they are measuring some of the passage of time, but they miss some of it, and can miss most or all of it depending on where you place them and how fast they're moving.

If observer  perception (a process) is altered by motion, like the clock, he is not aware of the slowing clock rate, just as his short ruler does not reveal a change in his short spaceship. If all processes slow by the same proportion, the rules of physical behavior remain constant, and apply anywhere for inertial motion. Perception is that of a common time, therefore a universal time is irrelevant.

Universal time is not only relevant, but essential for the functionality of the universe. The inability to pin it down from within the universe doesn't negate its vital role. You can program a virtual world in which a universal time is key to the running of events but where again it is impossible to pin it down from within the virtual world, and you cannot run the virtual world without that universal time. The universe depends on universal time for the same reason - it cannot function without it.

[GoC (OP)]

If the one-way speed of light could be measured, we would be able to identify a preferred frame of reference

We can measure the one way speed of light by distance with an atomic clock assuming c is constant. If we do not assume that then we reject relativity. But that does not prove a preferred frame to measure the universe. Just locally on Earth by atomic clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.

That is not a one-way measurement the speed of light - proving relativity merely proves that relativity works, but it doesn't mean that it has to be Einstein's relativity as LET makes the same predictions and does not require the speed of light to be the same in all directions relative to any object.

But the speed of light is the same in all directions of mass less space. What we measure is an issue with the formulas used. All measurements are indirect measurements based on timed events where time has no fixed value. Time and distance are relative but not fixed. Light is relative at sea level with a fixed tick rate of time and distance for light in the North and South directions on Earth. Not fixed in the East and West directions.

Quote from: David Cooper on Today at 02:07:45QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?No, but of what is it a contraction?If it's 14ft less in one direction, how can the light distances be the same?

I miss spoke and meant the physical distance remained the same but the light distances were not the same. Light is contracted not the physical object. The measurement of light cannot contract a physical object but light itself can be manipulated.

I can't see how that gives you a mechanism to avoid length-contraction.

The premise of contracted was wrong in the first place because of the local North South being a fixed position for the clock tick rate. You may not have understood the full ramifications of that. Perpendicular on Earth could be real. That would negate velocity as a different angle (just on a spinning or non spinning planet of course). Outside of the Earth light clocks might not tick at the same rate.

[Le Repteux]

I think I succeeded to insert time dilation in my diagram: whenever contraction occurs, we can consider that time dilation occurs too, which is when acceleration occurs.  While A is accelerated, its components are accelerated millions of times, and at each time, they undergo a small contraction and a small dilation, which are transferred to B progressively by means of its own components' accelerations, so at the end of the acceleration, when B's components make their last acceleration, the dilation A and B suffer is the same, and it thus has no effect on their future motion with regard to one another since we can't detect dilation if we are in the same frame as the source.

[GoC (OP)]

 Le Repteux,

   Lorentz nor Einstein knew clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Lorentz based his conclusions on a false belief about the Aether's qualities. A fixed tick rate at sea level creates a fixed position in space where perpendicular and exact light distances for east and west return to the same position in space because the space dilation energy potential is being carried by the Earth. So contraction may not be a factor after all. Consider the implications of tick rate being the same all over the Earth at sea level. North and South have a fixed point for light. If light is waves on energy and energy rotates with the body (fixed tick rate) its just a change in speed to a fixed point in space locally. The fixed point is the latitude. Doppler would be two different energy dilation's. The one in space without mass and the one with mass. The aura of different energy dilations changes the angle of light as a convex lens would with the Doppler. Energy might rotate with planets locally, solar systems locally and galaxies locally by volume. Might be the universe we view is also rotating. That would create a red shift for every galaxy without expansion or a BB.

[puppypower]

Consider this extrapolated example of Special Relativity. We have two rockets in space approaching each other with relative velocity V. Each rocket will see the other moving at V. Each does their time dilation calculations and clock experiments, based on this velocity.

The first rocket has mass M and the second rocket has mass 2M. Instead of letting the rockets pass, in this experiment, I am going to collide them head on. They are both unmanned so nobody gets hurt.

If the first rocket was moving at velocity V and the second was stationary, the total system kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. If the second rocket was moving and the first was stationary, the total kinetic energy is MV2. If each was moving at a fraction of the total relative velocity, the total system energy will be in the middle somewhere. We cannot tell the system energy from relative velocity. We will not know this energy, until after the collision; based on how the rockets are destroyed. Once we know the energy, our initial assumption of no preferred reference and relative velocity can be misleading. All the calculation might turn out to be an illusion.

The way Special Relativity is usually applied, in examples, specifies velocity, but does not specific the mass. It is usually an unwritten assumption to assume both rockets have the same mass; twins. This special case may work in terns of consistent results, but in hard relative, velocity does not always allow us to do a proper energy balance, since the universe is not made up of twins.

The result is we often add or take away energy. This unknown energy difference, due to the assumption of no preferred reference; no ground state, require and/or causes additional assumption which may not be real. This practical problem with the application of SR, is why Einstein included the relativistic mass term, which is always left out. The relativistic mass define system energy, which then defines the changes in space and time.

I my opinion, dark energy and dark matter is an artifact of not being able to measure relativistic mass, directly. We sort of assume the rocket with M is moving at V. However, other observations seem to imply more energy like rocket 2M is moving. We need to add more energy, so we add dark energy, but we don't change the original first rocket is moving assumption.

I interpret the mechanics of relativity as explaining how it works. In the case of two rockets, once we know the collision, we know the energy and only then absolute velocities appear. Velocity should never come first, or else it can lead to illusions in time and space since you can;t close an energy balance.

[guest39538]

One last attempt to help you see the error in your ways.


A tick of a clock is an ''illusion'', it is an invention of measurement to measure time.  The tick means nothing, it is not important.  If the distance of the tick is constant and the speed of tick is constant, time measured remains constant.  If the distance of the tick is a variate, time measured will be a variate, however it means absolutely nothing.
Why the clock is ticking , time passes at the same rate for the tick that is constant or the tick that is variate.
You are making mountains of mole hills and trying to glamour something into meaning something it is not. 

I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.

[guest39538]

I think I succeeded to insert time dilation in my diagram: whenever contraction occurs, we can consider that time dilation occurs too, which is when acceleration occurs.  While A is accelerated, its components are accelerated millions of times, and at each time, they undergo a small contraction and a small dilation, which are transferred to B progressively by means of its own components' accelerations, so at the end of the acceleration, when B's components make their last acceleration, the dilation A and B suffer is the same, and it thus has no effect on their future motion with regard to one another since we can't detect dilation if we are in the same frame as the source.

You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?

[Le Repteux]

I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.

The way I see it, intelligence would be due to randomness happening in our brains for us to be able to cope with changes happening in our environment, so if I am right, you're completely wrong: we are not relatively stupid, we are absolutely stupid! :0)

[guest39538]

I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.

The way I see it, intelligence would be due to randomness happening in our brains for us to be able to cope with changes happening in our environment, so if I am right, you're completely wrong: we are not relatively stupid, we are absolutely stupid! :0)

Well either way the final result would be stupid. I do not pretend to know where thoughts come from, my thoughts seemingly just pop into my head by observing things and then asking myself about them things.
The problem when explaining time dilation (timing dilation) in the train carriage, outside of the carriage , light travels normally and synchronous.
So if you can imagine the carriage travelling to the Sun from Earth, no matter what happens inside the carriage the light travelling outside the carriage from the sun to earth and vice versus is always synchronous.
The train carriage is a ''parlour trick'' that as created a subjective ''illusion''.
  If you like the carriage is a light clock travelling within a light clock.

[Le Repteux]

You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?

I use the definition of time dilation that says light would take more time between my two atoms if they were moving through aether, of course the atoms need a way to count the tics that I didn't find yet, so I'm still looking for some.