0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I can give you more examples, if you want.
Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.
In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles.
In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles. Our clocks are synchronized with the frequency of Earth's rotation. And as you can probably guess, the lower is the frequency of this cycle, the slower is the time flow in a particular frame. If you distribute a specific number of cycles over the globe along different latitudes, you'll see that the cycle, which is distributed along the equator has the highest wavelenght - since this is where surface of Earth is passing the longest distance during each rotation - but because the difference of surface velocities, frequency of 24h/day cycle remains the same over the entire planet. Of course, the same mechanism can be used for satellites, which are orbiting the Earth with their own specific frequency of orbital cycles.
So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle..
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 23/04/2021 23:57:48I can give you more examples, if you want. No thanks, there is more than enough pseudoscience already.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 23/04/2021 23:57:48Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.Obviously this statement is a lie. You know that every real university in the world teaches time dilation due to relative velocity. There is no disagreement to this except from loonies.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 23/04/2021 23:57:48In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles. You don't have a model. You have a conjecture or a wag. Quote from: CrazyScientist on 23/04/2021 23:57:48In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles. Our clocks are synchronized with the frequency of Earth's rotation. And as you can probably guess, the lower is the frequency of this cycle, the slower is the time flow in a particular frame. If you distribute a specific number of cycles over the globe along different latitudes, you'll see that the cycle, which is distributed along the equator has the highest wavelenght - since this is where surface of Earth is passing the longest distance during each rotation - but because the difference of surface velocities, frequency of 24h/day cycle remains the same over the entire planet. Of course, the same mechanism can be used for satellites, which are orbiting the Earth with their own specific frequency of orbital cycles. Why do insist on making up silly stuff instead of spending some time to learn actual physics?
So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle..Especially when you ignore all of the problems with your idea that have been pointed out to you. Your willful ignorance knows no bounds.
You see, problem is that I've spoken before with couple actual physicists, so I have quite solid foundations as for my statements.
I spoke as well with many people of your kind - those who try to compensate the lack of actual arguments with personal attacks.
I prefer to rely on opinions of people with actual scientific career - those, who you consider as loonies. Here's for example the author of that paper, which I've linked before in my response to youhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rj-BuenkerThis loonie works in a belgian university and has 185 publications on his account - so I don't see no reason to not rely on his statements. And who exactly are you? How many peer-reviewed papers did you published? Well, that's why opinion of that loonie has 1000x more value to me, than your baseless comments. Why should I waste my time on searching for peer-reviewed sources, to back-up my claims, if you will dismiss them anyway, due to their inconsistency with your static worldview? Bye bye...
To be honest, I don't see any sense in our further discussion, since your input doesn't have any value to me anyway.
In your relativity light has a speed of c and is invariant, but additionally an object with mass can go the speed of light or even faster. So that means of I could be in a space ship going the speed of light and as I fly past you, you could fire a laser beam so that the ship and front of the beam and my ship are side by side. So you would say that the laser beam and my ship could cross the light years side by side. However in my ship I would see the laser beam move away from me at c!So how is that possible? How can the light beam and the space ship have no relative velocity in one frame and have relative velocity of c in another frame?So there is this result and the result with the 'Einstein's clock' scenario that give absurd results. Your relativity doesn't work. You seem reasonably intelligent so I am sure that you see the issue. But for some reason you will ignore these facts and continue to tout your fantasy as a 'scientific breakthrough'. Living the fantasy is more important than reality? I just don't get you guys (relativity deniers). I do see that arguing with someone who disregards logic is a waste of time though....
Ok, now you speak science - and I like it First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directions
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 25/04/2021 13:49:00Ok, now you speak science - and I like it First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directionsThat is irrelevant since either of the frames can consider themselves at rest. So let's take the same situation except instead of the spaceship moving at c it is moving at c - 1 km/s. You still have the same nonsensical outcome. In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c. Your relativity still doesn't work.
2.- Head-on collisions.Mass m1 and m2 in a head-on collision (ɵ = 180º).s = (m1·c2)2 + (m2 c2)2 + 2(E1·E2 + 2·p1c·p2c)Take into account that Ei >> mi·c2 and Ei ~ pi·c , we have:s ~ 2(E1·E2·+ E1·E2) à s ~ 4E1·E2√s ~ 2√(E1·E2)For the special case of identicle particles of equal momentum, colliding head-on (like the case of LHC), the COM is at rest in the lab, and:s = (m·c2)2 + (m c2)2 + 2(E·E + 2·pc·pc)s = 2(m·c2)2 + 2·E2 + 2(p·c)2 à s = 4·E2√s = 2·ESo, in the case of p-p collision at LHC, with 7 TeV per proton:√s = 14 TeVThat is the energy available for new particle production in LHC collision.
"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 25/04/2021 21:55:21"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?Yes, I find it beyond strange. Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities. So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it. From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives. This is not strange to you?Edited for clarification.
You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 10:30:29You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid.Not true. I don't actually have to measure the speed of light in my scenario.Here is the scenario again. Notice at no point do I state we are measuring the speed of light, I am simply using your postulates that the speed of light is invariant, t' = t and L' = L.Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities. So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it. From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.
And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 13:56:30And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...Nope. The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship. So let's assume the laser is on earth and it is aimed at a photoreceptor 4 ly away in the same frame as the earth. As the ship flies by the earth the laser is fired at the target.So.....From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.
But wait a second - from your description it seems, that this ship is moving at 100%c. Am I right?