[guest39538]

By proper scientist, I mean you have qualifications in it, probably a professional scientist  and get paid for it as a job in some section of science.

Then yes. Analytical chemistry.

Your answer to the logic loop was a Donald Trump answer. Meaningless to the question of relativity.

I quite like chemistry, use to know a little about it, chair formations etc.   I think chemistry is more depth than physics.  I never have had an argument about chemistry, I could not find one.

I think I have answered the question of relativity , Einsteins thoughts are not entirely correct.   Maybe I am not  quite understanding the question?

[GoC]

I quite like chemistry, use to know a little about it, chair formations

Yea, I used to sit on the left rather than the right in meetings. I could never figure out why.

[Greylorn]

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite,

Kindly define the speed of time in mathematical terms.   E.g: the speed of a bag of nicely packaged horse droppings flung in your direction or mine might be, let's say, a constant 30 kilometers per hour.  Mathematically, the speed or vectored speed, velocity, would be expressed as v=x/t, or v=30_kilometers/3600_seconds.  That would define the movement of something, typically something definable enough to possess the property of mass (like the aforementioned bag of poo), with respect to time. 

But a mathematical expression for the movement of time would have to be t/t, which = 1.  Makes no sense to me, but hey, I didn't have to pass an exam to get on this forum and neither did anyone else. 

[guest39538]

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite,

Kindly define the speed of time in mathematical terms.   E.g: the speed of a bag of nicely packaged horse droppings flung in your direction or mine might be, let's say, a constant 30 kilometers per hour.  Mathematically, the speed or vectored speed, velocity, would be expressed as v=x/t, or v=30_kilometers/3600_seconds.  That would define the movement of something, typically something definable enough to possess the property of mass (like the aforementioned bag of poo), with respect to time. 

But a mathematical expression for the movement of time would have to be t/t, which = 1.  Makes no sense to me, but hey, I didn't have to pass an exam to get on this forum and neither did anyone else. 

I have defined the speed of time as infinitely fast.  Time passes you by faster than you could ever count or measure.

v_t=Δ∞

That about summons it up.

[GoC]

But a mathematical expression for the movement of time would have to be t/t, which = 1.  Makes no sense to me, but hey, I didn't have to pass an exam to get on this forum and neither did anyone else.

You passed the test. All other speeds are some fraction of one. We usually express 1 as c. If you want to go deeper e=c so time is energy of available motion. E=mcc if we could define a rest state which we cannot would have the fastest completed cycle for the electron. All other frames are a fraction of the fastest cycle of the electron. mc is the cycle of total motion through the sea of c energy. You need to subtract the distance through c for all frames. This means velocity of a frame is counted within the electron cycle for distance with in a cycle. This is necessary for understanding relativity. You can never measure your energy use between at rest and c with a clock. A clock measures energy available but not the energy being used in your frame. An atom at velocity c would = 0 energy and 0 time because there would be no energy left for cycling motion. So c=e=motion.

[Greylorn]

You passed the test. All other speeds are some fraction of one. We usually express 1 as c. If you want to go deeper e=c so time is energy of available motion. E=mcc if we could define a rest state which we cannot would have the fastest completed cycle for the electron. All other frames are a fraction of the fastest cycle of the electron. mc is the cycle of total motion through the sea of c energy. You need to subtract the distance through c for all frames. This means velocity of a frame is counted within the electron cycle for distance with in a cycle. This is necessary for understanding relativity. You can never measure your energy use between at rest and c with a clock. A clock measures energy available but not the energy being used in your frame. An atom at velocity c would = 0 energy and 0 time because there would be no energy left for cycling motion. So c=e=motion.

    There's an interesting mathematical divergence from physics called "dimensional analysis."  Put simply, the dimensions on both sides of an equation must balance.   If when all operations are performed on the left side of an equation, and the dimensions end up being mass x velocity ÷ distance, reduction of all operations on the right side of that equation must come out with the same dimensions. 

E=mcc balances dimensionally; E=c does not, and is therefore meaningless.  Velocity is not equivalent to energy.

I suppose that means I've actually flunked the test.  Alas.

[guest39538]

You passed the test. All other speeds are some fraction of one. We usually express 1 as c. If you want to go deeper e=c so time is energy of available motion. E=mcc if we could define a rest state which we cannot would have the fastest completed cycle for the electron. All other frames are a fraction of the fastest cycle of the electron. mc is the cycle of total motion through the sea of c energy. You need to subtract the distance through c for all frames. This means velocity of a frame is counted within the electron cycle for distance with in a cycle. This is necessary for understanding relativity. You can never measure your energy use between at rest and c with a clock. A clock measures energy available but not the energy being used in your frame. An atom at velocity c would = 0 energy and 0 time because there would be no energy left for cycling motion. So c=e=motion.

    There's an interesting mathematical divergence from physics called "dimensional analysis."  Put simply, the dimensions on both sides of an equation must balance.   If when all operations are performed on the left side of an equation, and the dimensions end up being mass x velocity ÷ distance, reduction of all operations on the right side of that equation must come out with the same dimensions. 

E=mcc balances dimensionally; E=c does not, and is therefore meaningless.  Velocity is not equivalent to energy.

I suppose that means I've actually flunked the test.  Alas.

c is the rate of change of entropy , E= Δt_c

[Greylorn]

 

c is the rate of change of entropy , E=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif Δtc

I'm accustomed to using "c" to represent the velocity of light.  In the equation you provided, I don't see E=c anywhere.  I don't know the equation or the meaning of its right-side terms, except for the Planck constant.  I see a little subscript c that does not tell me squat, relate to, or refute my comment.  What kind of pseudo-scientists am I dealing with here?  Can't anyone either admit a screw-up or honestly explain an element of confusion?   Don't take this personally, but please Help!

BTW, please tell me where to go to construct well-formatted equations as you've done.  Is there a way to use TeX or LaTeX on this site?   Thanks!

[guest39538]

c is the rate of change of entropy , E=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif Δtc

I'm accustomed to using "c" to represent the velocity of light.  In the equation you provided, I don't see E=c anywhere.  I don't know the equation or the meaning of its right-side terms, except for the Planck constant.  I see a little subscript c that does not tell me squat, relate to, or refute my comment.  What kind of pseudo-scientists am I dealing with here?  Can't anyone either admit a screw-up or honestly explain an element of confusion?   Don't take this personally, but please Help!

BTW, please tell me where to go to construct well-formatted equations as you've done.  Is there a way to use TeX or LaTeX on this site?   Thanks!

Don't expect math to be anything you know or have seen on google in a new theory section. 

Imagine a rock, it changes it's entropy at a rate that is equal to gain , it gains hf at c.  E=c is not correct, E is retained and processed in a system, Photons being potential (pE). 

We can say Energy max of a system is hf/S . Which is high frequency divided by the entropy volume.

[GoC]

E=c and the distance energy can travel is ~ 186,000 miles a second. It is a constant in space. Mass is not needed for this constant. You can accept it or not your choice. Just because no one explained it to you does not mean it's not true. This is an observed fact relativity is correct by observation while there is no way for proof.

What are you trying to balance? You need to define the players of that balance you seek.

Here is the balance in terms of fundamental c (energy). Absolute rest is an impossible state. So we have an energy of c in space which in a vacuum does not slow down or speed up. It's a constant. Now lets add Mass. What moves the electrons of mass? c of course. Now lets look at how c balances the electron movement with available energy of c. First we will define maximum rest for mass. That would be the fastest cycle in the least amount of added space used. Ok now we travel through space and here is where the equation of energy use becomes a balancing act. We are balancing the energy c as delivered to the electron. The energy delivered to the electron is a constant c. But with velocity we travel through space which takes more energy per cycle of the electron because of the increase in distance traveled per cycle. Everything is related to distance and the energy of distance c is constant.

We measure time as cycles of the electron. At c an atoms electron would not cycle. So we can add E=time as we measure it.

Most everyone reads with an eye to falsify. It's unusual to find one with an eye to understand first.

[guest39538]

E=c and the distance energy can travel is ~ 186,000 miles a second. It is a constant in space. Mass is not needed for this constant. You can accept it or not your choice. Just because no one explained it to you does not mean it's not true. This is an observed fact relativity is correct by observation while there is no way for proof.

What are you trying to balance? You need to define the players of that balance you seek.

Here is the balance in terms of fundamental c (energy). Absolute rest is an impossible state. So we have an energy of c in space which in a vacuum does not slow down or speed up. It's a constant. Now lets add Mass. What moves the electrons of mass? c of course. Now lets look at how c balances the electron movement with available energy of c. First we will define maximum rest for mass. That would be the fastest cycle in the least amount of added space used. Ok now we travel through space and here is where the equation of energy use becomes a balancing act. We are balancing the energy c as delivered to the electron. The energy delivered to the electron is a constant c. But with velocity we travel through space which takes more energy per cycle of the electron because of the increase in distance traveled per cycle. Everything is related to distance and the energy of distance c is constant.

We measure time as cycles of the electron. At c an atoms electron would not cycle. So we can add E=time as we measure it.

Most everyone reads with an eye to falsify. It's unusual to find one with an eye to understand first.

There is no absolute rest , but there is certainly relative rest and relative retention. 

[guest39538]

My  new abstract, I am going to concentrate my first paper on time rather than trying to have too many ideas in one basket.

Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.


Abstract-

This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics  in a primary respect to time.  Using a dialectic approach and presenting  logical arguments and supporting evidence that opposes the present information.  Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking  at the true values of the  relativity of time that humanity has quantified.  Concluding that some of the content uses of relativity have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.


Is that a reasonable abstract? peer away all opinions welcome.

[guest39538]

Introduction.

Most people from an early age understand the concept of time and that time passes by for all observers.  Whether you are a human, other species or even a rock there is no escaping the passing of time.
Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first heard time slowed down or can speed up and wondered how much of this was fact and how much of this was mythology. The more I looked at the intrinsic details of relativity and time, the more I realised the mythology involved  and the great error that was being made in the semantics of time.
This lead me to researching into the error and looking to explain the error in a way everyone could understand.   Thus  leading into our first discussion of the nature of time.


Does the introduction pass?

[guest39538]

The Nature of time.

For human's , the very need of time is to synchronise our everyday existences.  We believe time can be measured and is quantifiable.  Many years have passed and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts.
Newton believed time was absolute and absolute time exists independently  and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe.
However this was later ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein's notions and that time was relative, who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity and special relativity.  This later being proven to be true by various experiment such as the Hafele–Keating experiment.

To quote Wikipedia: ''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Presently the measure of time is defined as the electronic transitions between the two hyper-fine ground states of caesium-133 atoms at precisely  9,192,631,770 Hz.  That value was chosen to be equal too and replace the previous second's way of measurement. The  Hafele–Keating experiment measuring a change in Hz , effectively a change in time.
Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and indisputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.


Anything else I may need to add?

What do I need to put for my next chapter title?

I want to start explaining the errors.

Does the above show I understand time dilation to the present understanding?

Should I put about the below next before pointing out the errors showing my further understanding. Showing my understanding of the lorentz contractions?

The light clock illusion and illusion of length contraction.

''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''

[guest39538]

The Nature of time.

For human's , the very need of time is to synchronise our everyday existences.  We believe time can be measured and is quantifiable.  Many years have passed and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts.
Newton believed time was absolute and absolute time exists independently  and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe.
However this was later ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein's notions and that time was relative, who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity and special relativity.
To quote: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity
''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time''.

This later being proven to be true by various experiment such as the Hafele–Keating experiment.

To quote : Wikipedia:''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Presently the measure of time is defined as the electronic transitions between the two hyper-fine ground states of caesium-133 atoms at precisely  9,192,631,770 Hz.  That value was chosen to be equal too and replace the previous second's way of measurement. The  Hafele–Keating experiment measuring a change in Hz , effectively a change in time.
Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and indisputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.

In support of this there is also a thought experiment and the Lorentz length contraction which we will look at in a new chapter.

The light clock  and  length contraction.

To quote Wikipedia ''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''


Does that look right?  Not to sure . not much help see what i mean.

[guest39538]

Mr Chemist, Mr Spoon, Kryt

[Bogie_smiles]

I'm peeking in on the thread, and want to offer you some encouragement. It is not only a learning experience, what you are doing, but it keeps your mind active in the the right way.

[guest39538]

The light clock  and  length contraction.

To quote Wikipedia''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''


This thought experiment has been shown to be true, as the quotation suggests, it is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a light clock , would see the light clock to tick relatively slower than their own clock.

Deduction

Hopefully ladies and gentlemen thus far, I have shown you I understand the present information.   However, if we look at some of the more finer details involved in time and time dilation, there is seemingly a problem. 
Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time, how fast does time pass?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between. A continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly passed as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
The reason for my uncertainty being,  when considering the next ''now'' moment being immediately ahead , there quite obviously would be no length/distance to contract.
In respect to this thought,  I then considered the smallest possible conceivable measurements available, which lead me to Max Planck, Planck time and a Planck length.
I then returned to the original thought experiment of the light clock aboard a spaceship and the observer on Earth observing the light clock. I then added time Planck to the thought and did the relative diagrams of the thought that also is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock using time Planck would see it ticking simultaneously in time with their own clock .

In the below diagram we can observe the difference in thought experiment of the Lorentz length contraction if we were to substitute the length of carriage with  a Planck Length.   A ''Photon'' is emitted from point (A) and is reflected by point (B) back to point (A) in a continuous manner while the carriage travels left to right.
We can observe from the diagram that the substitute shows no length contraction or said time dilation.


tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 3924 times)

Quite clearly the observer on Earth would just observe a light dot that travelled in respect with the carriage.

In the below diagram we observe a carriage in relative motion and observe a light beam travelling between two points vertically.  However this diagram differs from the original light clock thought in that our points are a Planck length apart. The observer clearly observes the light  travelling  a linearity, as opposed to the angled paths in the original thought experiment.  Although one might conclude the linearity objectively looked a bit wave like but not perceivable by the eye and negligible when considering time dilation.


tp.jpg (14.7 kB . 985x507 - viewed 3864 times)

This deduction so far shows that the original light clock thought experiment is flawed and does not show with ease a time dilation to people observing on Earth.  However this deductive proof itself does not explain the Caesium clock dilation in which we will look at in the next chapter showing more deductive proofs that show no time dilation.

Anyone wish to argue about anything?

[Bogie_smiles]

To me, it is not about the rate that time passes, its about what the rate that clocks measure the passing of time. That measurement is a constant rate to an observer in the same location as the clock, and the same to an observer who is moving with the clock. That observer with just one clock will not be able to detect any difference in rate of time passing on that clock in either the at rest measurement or in the measurement made when moving together with the clock.


The only time you can detect a difference between clocks is when you have two clocks, and you leave one at home and take the other one traveling with you. Then when you bring the clocks back together and compare the amount of time that has passed on each, the difference in the amount of time that is measured to have passed is the amount of time dilation. It is said to be caused by the fact that there has been relative motion between the two clocks.

However, it does not tell you what the mechanical cause is of the two clocks operating at different velocities due to relative motion. An accelerated clock measures the passing of time at a slower rate, but why? Is it that there is a physical effect on the atoms in the clocks, and in our bodies, in all atoms, that caused them to run slower when they operating in higher energy density environments like those energy densities when being accelerated? I say yes, what do you say?

[guest39538]

An accelerated clock measures the passing of time at a slower rate,

Because it has  a difference of acceleration than the constant acceleration of the clock at rest.