QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 8 2007, 11:36 PM)
Well I know why they think it's true, because they believe that the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
There are reasons why 'they' think this, and you do yourself a dis-service not investigating those reasons.
I'm afraid I stick by it; I would liken your stance to me discussing how good a translation 'sous' was of the English word 'under', without knowing any other French words or how 'sous' was used in context.
It's pretty much impossible, you're just suggesting points for discussion which you openly admit that you can't contribute to and don't want to learn about.
There are reasons why 'they' think this, and you do yourself a dis-service not investigating those reasons.
QUOTE
Bm, I think you're being a bit harsh.
I'm afraid I stick by it; I would liken your stance to me discussing how good a translation 'sous' was of the English word 'under', without knowing any other French words or how 'sous' was used in context.
It's pretty much impossible, you're just suggesting points for discussion which you openly admit that you can't contribute to and don't want to learn about.
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 9 2007, 12:12 AM)
you're just suggesting points for discussion which you openly admit that you can't contribute to and don't want to learn about.
I can contribute to discussing the ramifications of the basic premise of what it means for physics, if time dilation is untrue, and I don't need to learn time dilation in it's entirety, in order to do that.
If, on the other hand, I was attempting to disprove time dilation, then yes, I agree that I would need to learn time dilation in it's entirety.
Just like if I alternatively suggested "What if space/space-time is intangible?", I would then discuss with others about how wormholes would therefore not exist, how space-warp would not exist, and also some stuff on black holes not being rips or holes/tunnels even.
In this example, I wouldn't need to know everything about the topic. All one needs, is a simple synopsis, and away you go!
You may disagree and say "To discuss 'anything' in Physics, you must first learn everything about it" - I just don't buy that...
I can contribute to discussing the ramifications of the basic premise of what it means for physics, if time dilation is untrue, and I don't need to learn time dilation in it's entirety, in order to do that.
If, on the other hand, I was attempting to disprove time dilation, then yes, I agree that I would need to learn time dilation in it's entirety.
Just like if I alternatively suggested "What if space/space-time is intangible?", I would then discuss with others about how wormholes would therefore not exist, how space-warp would not exist, and also some stuff on black holes not being rips or holes/tunnels even.
In this example, I wouldn't need to know everything about the topic. All one needs, is a simple synopsis, and away you go!
You may disagree and say "To discuss 'anything' in Physics, you must first learn everything about it" - I just don't buy that...
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 9 2007, 02:14 AM)
I can contribute to discussing the ramifications of the basic premise of what it means for physics, if time dilation is untrue, and I don't need to learn time dilation in it's entirety, in order to do that.
How can you contribute on a subject that you don't even begin to understand?
It's not an issue that you don't know time dilation "in its entirety", you don't know it at all. If you did, you wouldn't even start arguing about its validity. But you don't....this is clear to all the people that challenged you in the last 6 hours.
How can you contribute on a subject that you don't even begin to understand?
It's not an issue that you don't know time dilation "in its entirety", you don't know it at all. If you did, you wouldn't even start arguing about its validity. But you don't....this is clear to all the people that challenged you in the last 6 hours.
How can you contribute to a theory you do not understand
The extracts below provide an answer:
Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980)
It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0
The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained.
“The Elegant Universe”.
Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).
In a similar vein, recently one science correspondent contacted leading academics to ask why Stephen Hawking has not received a Noble Prize for Science. The reply he received was that the award was only given to those whose work can be related to known facts. This puts the work of Hawking on the same footing as the work of string theorist and both are correctly defined as philosophy, not science.
Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.
This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote:
"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".
Beyond measure
Jim Baggott
(2003)
“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.
We are searching for an understanding of why the prediction theory (i.e. QT) works.
The extracts below provide an answer:
Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980)
It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0
The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained.
“The Elegant Universe”.
Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).
In a similar vein, recently one science correspondent contacted leading academics to ask why Stephen Hawking has not received a Noble Prize for Science. The reply he received was that the award was only given to those whose work can be related to known facts. This puts the work of Hawking on the same footing as the work of string theorist and both are correctly defined as philosophy, not science.
Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.
This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote:
"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".
Beyond measure
Jim Baggott
(2003)
“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.
We are searching for an understanding of why the prediction theory (i.e. QT) works.
Good post, elas. The clear picture that is emerging here at physorg is that a gang of juvenile delinquent mathematical philosophers are actively attempting to thwart our efforts to develop a qualitative model of the universe. I noted this:
I think what's particlularly interesting is the psychology we see in physics. I know why "particles" exhibit charge and mass, but people suffer from so much closed-minded conviction and utter disbelief, that they don't want to talk rationally about the subject.
Bryn, I can explain time dilation. It is "true". You perhaps think I cannot and perhaps don't want to talk with me about it. But if you'd like to have another go, please let me know.
QUOTE
"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".
I think what's particlularly interesting is the psychology we see in physics. I know why "particles" exhibit charge and mass, but people suffer from so much closed-minded conviction and utter disbelief, that they don't want to talk rationally about the subject.
Bryn, I can explain time dilation. It is "true". You perhaps think I cannot and perhaps don't want to talk with me about it. But if you'd like to have another go, please let me know.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 9 2007, 08:29 AM)
Bryn, I can explain time dilation. It is "true". You perhaps think I cannot and perhaps don't want to talk with me about it. But if you'd like to have another go, please let me know.
Come on Farsight, let's hear it. Prove my neg feedback wrong...
I predict that your explanation will not provide any provable or dis-provable predictions and that it will not have any underlying foundational theory to support it. Like I said - prove me wrong...
(And I promise to be open-minded about it
)
Come on Farsight, let's hear it. Prove my neg feedback wrong...
I predict that your explanation will not provide any provable or dis-provable predictions and that it will not have any underlying foundational theory to support it. Like I said - prove me wrong...
(And I promise to be open-minded about it
)
Here you go:
TIME EXPLAINED
Read it properly, don't just skim it. Try to find any place where my logic falls down. You will find that you simply cannot. If you really are open-minded, you will realise that what you currently consider to be "foundational theory" has no basis in fact. This is the new foundational theory:
Spacetime is a space.
TIME EXPLAINED
Read it properly, don't just skim it. Try to find any place where my logic falls down. You will find that you simply cannot. If you really are open-minded, you will realise that what you currently consider to be "foundational theory" has no basis in fact. This is the new foundational theory:
Spacetime is a space.
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 9 2007, 05:17 AM)
How can you contribute on a subject that you don't even begin to understand?
It's not an issue that you don't know time dilation "in its entirety", you don't know it at all. If you did, you wouldn't even start arguing about its validity. But you don't....this is clear to all the people that challenged you in the last 6 hours.
The subject is: "The ramifications of the basic premise of what it means for physics, if time dilation is untrue"
Now, to understand the subject, one doesn't need to know time dilation in it's entirety. All one needs to know, is the synopsis of time dilation, that time apparently slows down the faster you go. That's all you need, because then you say "Well, if time doesn't slow down, then these are the following ramifications on other areas of Physics...".
And Dallas, I'm not convinced by your arguement that "If you learnt time dilation, you wouldn't even start arguing about it's validity", because the very reason why I question it, is because it is a theory, and theories can be wrong. Hell, I even question things which are labelled as fact, because I question everything.
Whereas you stopped questioning, and hence, stopped doing science.
It's not an issue that you don't know time dilation "in its entirety", you don't know it at all. If you did, you wouldn't even start arguing about its validity. But you don't....this is clear to all the people that challenged you in the last 6 hours.
The subject is: "The ramifications of the basic premise of what it means for physics, if time dilation is untrue"
Now, to understand the subject, one doesn't need to know time dilation in it's entirety. All one needs to know, is the synopsis of time dilation, that time apparently slows down the faster you go. That's all you need, because then you say "Well, if time doesn't slow down, then these are the following ramifications on other areas of Physics...".
And Dallas, I'm not convinced by your arguement that "If you learnt time dilation, you wouldn't even start arguing about it's validity", because the very reason why I question it, is because it is a theory, and theories can be wrong. Hell, I even question things which are labelled as fact, because I question everything.
Whereas you stopped questioning, and hence, stopped doing science.
Time dilation has been proved (measured) by many experiments ...
Relativity predicts those dilation very accurately ...
A theory is good when it can predicts things ...
So what's the conclusion ?
Nobody's arguing that relativity is the ultimate theory, but you can't prove it to be wrong just with your basic "arguments" ...
Your attitude is not "open minded" ... but not "minded"at all ...
Relativity predicts those dilation very accurately ...
A theory is good when it can predicts things ...
So what's the conclusion ?
Nobody's arguing that relativity is the ultimate theory, but you can't prove it to be wrong just with your basic "arguments" ...
Your attitude is not "open minded" ... but not "minded"at all ...
QUOTE
Time dilation has been proved (measured) by many experiments ...
Various 'effects' have been measured on particles/atoms, which have been accelerated / travel at speed.
Whilst, one 'theory' about these effects, is that they are caused by time being dilated.
So no, it hasn't been proven.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Time dilation has been proved (measured) by many experiments ... |
Various 'effects' have been measured on particles/atoms, which have been accelerated / travel at speed.
Whilst, one 'theory' about these effects, is that they are caused by time being dilated.
So no, it hasn't been proven.
Nobody's arguing that relativity is the ultimate theory, but you can't prove it to be wrong just with your basic "arguments" ...
I'm not attempting to disprove Relativity.
I am merely attempting to 'suggest' that it 'may' be wrong, and that everyone should be more open-minded about it being so, rather than being closed-minded by thinking that it's 100% right and 100% perfect, and never considering possibilities which run contrary to Relativity.
For all you know, something better could come along in coming years, that replaces Relativity. It may even give the same results, but the explanation may be vastly different.
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 9 2007, 08:52 AM)
Come on Farsight, let's hear it. Prove my neg feedback wrong...
I predict that your explanation will not provide any provable or dis-provable predictions and that it will not have any underlying foundational theory to support it. Like I said - prove me wrong...
Come on then, I've given you TIME EXPLAINED, plus MASS and ENERGY thrown in for good measure. But of course, you won't actually read them, and after a while you'll be back here calling me delusional. And then we'll talk some more about this:
I predict that your explanation will not provide any provable or dis-provable predictions and that it will not have any underlying foundational theory to support it. Like I said - prove me wrong...
Come on then, I've given you TIME EXPLAINED, plus MASS and ENERGY thrown in for good measure. But of course, you won't actually read them, and after a while you'll be back here calling me delusional. And then we'll talk some more about this:
QUOTE
(And I promise to be open-minded about it )
)
The relativity theory is fundamental to understand the electromgnetism,mechanics,
and quantum theory.but i think the str and stg are the end of all.but there is a extension of the str,stg and qm to speeds greater than speed of light,and could explain the str,stg and qm by the strings and superstrings.
then we have a called extended relativity theory with complex manifolds to explain the tachyons,with the imaginary part,expling the maximal breakdown of
left-right handness rotations.then the violation of the rotation invariance explain that travel backward in time,means not negative time,as means not positive time.
the restauration of the rotational invariance,is in the conservation of cpt,and
places the induced metrics to the different curvatures of spacetimes.
the multiuniverse generates infinities informations in the neighborhoods of the
future( J+) so as in the past(J-).then the transformations are non-linears,with
unitary and antiunitary operators,depending of signatures of the lorentzian matrices be positive or negative.and have to the rotations of quaternionsbe
non-commutative,or being spacetime coordinates in transformations in 4 or 8
dimensions,discontinuos,and masnifolds of spacetimes are non-commutative,being
non-orientables.
and quantum theory.but i think the str and stg are the end of all.but there is a extension of the str,stg and qm to speeds greater than speed of light,and could explain the str,stg and qm by the strings and superstrings.
then we have a called extended relativity theory with complex manifolds to explain the tachyons,with the imaginary part,expling the maximal breakdown of
left-right handness rotations.then the violation of the rotation invariance explain that travel backward in time,means not negative time,as means not positive time.
the restauration of the rotational invariance,is in the conservation of cpt,and
places the induced metrics to the different curvatures of spacetimes.
the multiuniverse generates infinities informations in the neighborhoods of the
future( J+) so as in the past(J-).then the transformations are non-linears,with
unitary and antiunitary operators,depending of signatures of the lorentzian matrices be positive or negative.and have to the rotations of quaternionsbe
non-commutative,or being spacetime coordinates in transformations in 4 or 8
dimensions,discontinuos,and masnifolds of spacetimes are non-commutative,being
non-orientables.
"Everything is possible" is not a scientist statement ( it can't be disproved ) and is completely useless ...
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 9 2007, 12:34 PM)
Various 'effects' have been measured on particles/atoms, which have been accelerated / travel at speed.
Whilst, one 'theory' about these effects, is that they are caused by time being dilated.
Now , instead of making your own mistakes , you are starting to copy Tony "True Relativity" mistakes.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 9 2007, 08:29 AM)
.
Bryn, I can explain time dilation. It is "true". You perhaps think I cannot and perhaps don't want to talk with me about it.
There is no valid explanation of time dilation in TIME EXPLAINED v3.0.
Yes, please do. Can you give it a try in this thread, without referring us to your "essays"?
Bryn, I can explain time dilation. It is "true". You perhaps think I cannot and perhaps don't want to talk with me about it.
There is no valid explanation of time dilation in TIME EXPLAINED v3.0.
QUOTE
But if you'd like to have another go, please let me know.
Yes, please do. Can you give it a try in this thread, without referring us to your "essays"?
QUOTE (Cédric H.+Aug 9 2007, 01:31 PM)
"Everything is possible" is not a scientist statement ( it can't be disproved ) and is completely useless ...
What about- The existance of universe is impossible because it came out of nothing. Nothing can come out of nothing. So universe is simply non-existant.
If anyone including an empiricist allows a possibility that universe came out of nothing then everything is possible isnt it?
What about- The existance of universe is impossible because it came out of nothing. Nothing can come out of nothing. So universe is simply non-existant.
If anyone including an empiricist allows a possibility that universe came out of nothing then everything is possible isnt it?
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 9 2007, 01:27 PM)
Come on then, I've given you TIME EXPLAINED, plus MASS and ENERGY thrown in for good measure. But of course, you won't actually read them, and after a while you'll be back here calling me delusional.
My reply:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=246212
(And I promise to be open-minded about it )
There's nothing to be open-minded about yet, let's get over this basic technical disagreement first.
My reply:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=246212
QUOTE
And then we'll talk some more about this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And then we'll talk some more about this: |
(And I promise to be open-minded about it
)There's nothing to be open-minded about yet, let's get over this basic technical disagreement first.
My reply, where everubody can see what a jerk you are:
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 9 2007, 09:26 AM)
Bad analogy; put a ball in the ocean and it will simply bob up and down with the waves, no movement perpendicularly at all. Explain that?
The effect in your analogy has nothing to do with the phenomenon you are trying to discuss.
So, it's gone from what you consider to be a "bad analogy" to a "I read as far as the first gross error"? Now that was quick. The swiftness of the hand deceives the eye.
Ah I see what the problem is. The real problem is that you find my ability to actually explain mass to be "quite frankly, repulsive". That's what earned me the negative feedback. You hate the notion so much, that you pretend you'll engage in an open minded enquiry and discussion. But you never intended to at all. And now here we have your ducking and diving excuse for not reading it all, and for dismissing it, because in truth you hate the idea of actually explaining mass. Doubtless in a couple of days you will be spouting about how you took MASS EXPLAINED apart and demolished it step by step. Bah, timewaster.
Listen up: you aren't open minded at all. You are kidding yourself. And I should have known I wouldn't get any sense or honesty out of you.
The effect in your analogy has nothing to do with the phenomenon you are trying to discuss.
So, it's gone from what you consider to be a "bad analogy" to a "I read as far as the first gross error"? Now that was quick. The swiftness of the hand deceives the eye.
Ah I see what the problem is. The real problem is that you find my ability to actually explain mass to be "quite frankly, repulsive". That's what earned me the negative feedback. You hate the notion so much, that you pretend you'll engage in an open minded enquiry and discussion. But you never intended to at all. And now here we have your ducking and diving excuse for not reading it all, and for dismissing it, because in truth you hate the idea of actually explaining mass. Doubtless in a couple of days you will be spouting about how you took MASS EXPLAINED apart and demolished it step by step. Bah, timewaster.
Listen up: you aren't open minded at all. You are kidding yourself. And I should have known I wouldn't get any sense or honesty out of you.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 9 2007, 05:30 PM)
My reply, where everubody can see what a jerk you are:
[snipped]
Listen up: you aren't open minded at all. You are kidding yourself. And I should have known I wouldn't get any sense or honesty out of you.
Sorry if I offended you, maybe I shouldn't have been so sharp. It's very frustrating that I point out a basic error in a very early paragraph of your work and you can't explain it. Your best attempt is to refer me to another essay, to a paragraph which doesn't talk about the same thing. The only way it relates is that there is a wave (ocean wave) in both paragraphs.
The bad analogy turned into a gross error when you didn't realise why it was bad, or understand my explanation of why it didn't work. That becomes a serious lack of understanding.
I see no point reading further and debating more complex issues with you when you don't even grasp a simple point I make about the direction of energy transfer in a water wave.
What I find repulsive is your attitude that you honestly believe that you (and nobody else in the world) truly understand how all these things work.
Now, if you want to try open debating again, please address my first point with a new explanation (not a reference to a different essay) and try to convince me that what you wrote makes sense. If you truly understand mass/energy/and everything else, that should be a simple task.
Thanks
[snipped]
Listen up: you aren't open minded at all. You are kidding yourself. And I should have known I wouldn't get any sense or honesty out of you.
Sorry if I offended you, maybe I shouldn't have been so sharp. It's very frustrating that I point out a basic error in a very early paragraph of your work and you can't explain it. Your best attempt is to refer me to another essay, to a paragraph which doesn't talk about the same thing. The only way it relates is that there is a wave (ocean wave) in both paragraphs.
The bad analogy turned into a gross error when you didn't realise why it was bad, or understand my explanation of why it didn't work. That becomes a serious lack of understanding.
I see no point reading further and debating more complex issues with you when you don't even grasp a simple point I make about the direction of energy transfer in a water wave.
What I find repulsive is your attitude that you honestly believe that you (and nobody else in the world) truly understand how all these things work.
Now, if you want to try open debating again, please address my first point with a new explanation (not a reference to a different essay) and try to convince me that what you wrote makes sense. If you truly understand mass/energy/and everything else, that should be a simple task.
Thanks
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 9 2007, 12:34 PM)
So no, it hasn't been proven.
It has been proven in logical frameworks accepted by most people on the basis of everyday experience.
On Time Dilation
Time Dilation is a natural result which arises from testable intuitive statements of the nature of space and time and physics.
First of all, assuming God doesn't write a physics textbook, man will be forever ignorant of the actual mechanisms of the universe. Even if Professor Y comes up with the mechanistic ONE TRUE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, there will be no way to distinguish the universe of the mechanistic theory from another universe where everything conspires to act just like Y's mechanistic model. That's why physicists (as opposed to philosophers) use mathematical models to avoid talking about the mechanism and only the behavior. Our everyday experience of the universe has taught us a lot of everyday assumptions. The following 4 should be non-controversial when you neglect gravity. They are all statements about observed symmetries of the universe -- so all of them are falsifiable if you found a counter-example.
Four everyday assumptions
Let us assume the laws of physics are translationally invariant in space. Then it follows a statement about a experiment happening in an arbitrary place will work the same if we center our coordinate basis with it. This also implies that we can calculate what's happening in an arbitrary place and apply a translation transform to it, and the physics is the same.
x' = x + T_x ; y' = y + T_y ; z' = z + T_z ;
Let us assume the laws of physics are translationally invariant in time. Then it follows a statement about a experiment happening in an arbitrary time will work the same if we center our basis of "now" with it. This also implies that we can calculate what's happening in an arbitrary time and apply a translation transform to it, and the physics is the same.
t' = t + T_t ;
Let us assume the laws of physics are rotationally invariant. Then it follows a statement about a experiment oriented in an arbitrary direction will work the same if rotate our coordinate basis to be aligned with it. This also implies that we can calculate what's happening in an arbitrary aligned experiment and apply a rotation transform to it, and the physics is the same.
x' = R_xx x + R_xy y + R_xz z ;
y' = R_yx x + R_yy y + R_yz z ;
z' = R_zx x + R_zy y + R_zz z ; Where R is a proper orthogonal matrix, which can be parameterized in various ways by 3 rotation angles.
Let us assume the laws of physics are invariant with respect to inertial frame. Then it follows a statement about a experiment with a freely moving center of mass moving in an arbitrary direction will work the same if set up our coordinate basis to be co-moving with it with it. But clearly any corresponding change-of-frame transform must tie velocity, time and space together. Since we already assumed we are rotationally invariant and translationally invariant, let us work with v in the x direction and just coordinate differences.
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xy Δy + F_xz Δz + F_xt Δt + F_x1 ;
Δy' = F_yx Δx + F_yy Δy + F_yz Δz + F_yt Δt + F_y1 ;
Δz' = F_zx Δx + F_zy Δy + F_zz Δz + F_zt Δt + F_z1 ;
Δt' = F_tx Δx + F_ty Δy + F_tz Δz + F_tt Δt + F_t1 ;
where F is a function of v, which we have agreed to consider in the x direction.
Limiting the form of the velocity transform
Since it makes no sense to talk about (Δx,Δy,Δz,Δt) = (0,0,0,0) which says that the two events happened in the same time and place in one frame transforming into other than (0,0,0,0) in the primed frame, it follows that (F_x1, F_y1, F_z1, F_t1) = (0,0,0,0). Thus F(v) represents a homogeneous transform.
If you think you know of a reason why a v in the x direction should involve displacements in the y or z direction, please let me know. I think that the rotational invariance we assumed earlier means that if v is in the +x direction, then it cannot have a reason to prefer +y or -y, and so the effect on y must be zero, and vice-versa, and the same for z.
Then F_yy = F_zz = 1 and F_xy = F_xz = F_yx = F_yz = F_yt = F_zx = F_zy = F_zt = F_ty = F_tz = 0. So we are over half done.
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xt Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + F_tt Δt ;
Since two events one frame which don't move at all have Δx = 0, but in the other frame Δx'/Δx' = v, then F_xt = v F_tt. Since if two events in one frame are connected by a particle moving at speed -v, and not moving in the other frame then Δx = -v Δt => Δx' = 0 = -F_xx v Δt + F_xt Δt => F_xt = v F_xx => F_xx = F_tt. Let's call that A(v).
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt ;
For the same reason that length-contraction must be in the direction of movement, we expect two observers to experience the same relative time dilation. Since there are no preferred directions, then nothing but convention distinguished -x from +x and so nothing distinguished -v from +v and so we expect that the time dilation to be the same for two observers in relative motion, if there is any time dilation.
Consider a motionless clock. Two tick of the clock are separated by Δt, but Δx = 0.
so Δt' = A(v) Δt . Now let's move the clock at -v so it is motionless for Δx' = 0. So we want to solve Δt = A(v) Δt', Δx = - v Δt, and Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt
So Δx = - v A(v) Δt', Δt' = F_tx Δx + A(v) A(v) Δt' and so
Δt' = - v F_tx A(v) Δt' + A(v) A(v) Δt' and so
F_tx = ( A(v)A(v) - 1 ) / ( v A(v) ) = (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v))
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v)) Δx + A(v) Δt ;
At this point both the Newtonian and the Relativist should be happy. The Newtonian assumes that A(v) is a constant with value 1, while the Relativist sees that our four initial assumptions do not yet force that choice. A(v), based on our four assumptions, is just a number and may yet turn out to be a non-constant function of v.
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16..._appendices.pdf
Working with the velocity transformation
Now with translations or rotations, they form a group. (A group is a mathematical way of talking about symmetries.) So that if you apply T1 and then T2, you get T3 which is also in the form of a translations. (Same for rotations.) This should be the same for two transforms related to velocity.
Δx' = A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ;
Δx'' = A(v2) Δx' + v2 A(v2) Δt' ;
Δy'' = Δy' ;
Δz'' = Δz' ;
Δt''= (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) Δx' + A(v2) Δt' ;
Δx'' = A(v3) Δx + v3 A(v3) Δt = A(v2) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + v2 A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
Δy'' = Δy ;
Δz'' = Δz ;
Δt''= (1/v3) ( A(v3) - 1/A(v3)) Δx + A(v3) Δt = (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
When we equate our expressions of the double-primed coordinates in terms of the unprimed coordinates, we have the following relations in v and A(v):
From equations 1 and 4, we have the important equality:
A(v3) = A(v2) A(v1) + (v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = A(v3) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) + A(v2) A(v1) ;
or
(v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) ;
or
(v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) / A(v1)² = (v1 v2 /v2²) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1 v2/v2²) A(v1) A(v2)/ A(v2)² ;
or, for generic v1 and v2,
(1/v1²) (1 - 1 / A(v1)² ) = (1/v2²) ( 1 - 1 / A(v2)² ) ;
But since this is true for any v, then there is some constant K = (1/(v²)) (1 - 1 / ( A(v)² ) ) for all v. This means A can be written in the form A(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - K v²) ; Using the binomial theorem, we can show that when K v² << 1, A(v) is approximately: 1 + 1/2 K v² + 3/8 (K v²)² + 5/16 (K v²)^3 + 35/128 (K v²)^4 + 63/256 (K v²)^5 + 231/1024 (K v²)^6 + ... ; so the Newtonian will always appear correct as long as |v| is "small," or K << 1/v².
Only at high speed would there be evidence that K is not zero. (If K is zero, then A(v) = 1, just like the Newtonian assumed.)
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
The generic velocity addition law
From equation 2 we see something that with a little algebraic reworking can become our velocity addition law from our four assumptions.
v3 A(v3) = (v2 + v1) A(v2) A(v1) ;
or
v3 / sqrt(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)/( sqrt(1 - K v2²) sqrt(1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² /(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = [ (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ] [ ( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) / ( K(v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ]
or
v3² = (v2 + v1)² / ( K (v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( K v2 ² + 2 K v1 v2 + K v1² + 1 - K v2² - K v1² + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( 1 + 2 K v1 v2 + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) ;
Clearly if K is measured to be zero, then A(v) = 1 and there is no time dilation. However an 1859 experiment (among thousands of others) are inconsistent with K = 0.
Fresnel and Fizeau's measured value of K
In the discredited dragged-ether theory of Fresnel, light is "slowed" and "dragged" by a transparent dielectric with dielectric constant n. It is slowed to V=c/n, but if the medium is moving at speed v, it is dragged and the measured speed is about U = c/n + v(1 - 1/n²). The amount of "ether dragging" by a moving dielectric is measured as the unexplained Frensel drag coefficient, 1 - 1/n². The result eventually help caused the downfall of the dragged-ether model, for where a physical medium can support a wide variety of waves, the phenomenon of dispersion shows that n is a function of wavelength, and so the Fresnel drag coefficient must also be a function of wavelength, and so there must be a different ether to drag for every wavelength of light.
But let's just take V=c/n the experimental velocity of light in stationary medium, and apply our generic velocity addition law to it and see how it predicts an observer moving relative to the medium measure its speed at.
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) = (v + V) / ( 1 + K v V ) = (v + c/n) / ( 1 + K v c/n )
if we assume K v c/n << 1, then we can use the binomial theorem to approximate v3 as (v + c/n) - (K v c/n) (v + c/n) + (K v c/n)² (v + c/n) + ...
= c/n + v - K v² c/n - K v c²/n² + K² v^3 c²/n² + K² v² c^3/n^3 ... or, if you drop the terms which aren't linear in v, v3 = c/n + v (1 - K c²/n²)
If v3 is close to the observed value U, then K c² = 1, or K = 1/c²
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
Epilogue
This was written for Bryn, who hasn't explained why he doesn't believe in time dilation. It was written to show that time dilation, by which I mean that observers who differ in velocity must have A(v) different than 1, is the only physical result if you accept the four assumptions. The other consequences of this idea have been well-developed. K is very close to zero in ordinary units, but we have thousands of experimental results which suggest that it is much closer to 1/c² than to zero.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...05-5/index.html
It has been proven in logical frameworks accepted by most people on the basis of everyday experience.
On Time Dilation
Time Dilation is a natural result which arises from testable intuitive statements of the nature of space and time and physics.
First of all, assuming God doesn't write a physics textbook, man will be forever ignorant of the actual mechanisms of the universe. Even if Professor Y comes up with the mechanistic ONE TRUE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, there will be no way to distinguish the universe of the mechanistic theory from another universe where everything conspires to act just like Y's mechanistic model. That's why physicists (as opposed to philosophers) use mathematical models to avoid talking about the mechanism and only the behavior. Our everyday experience of the universe has taught us a lot of everyday assumptions. The following 4 should be non-controversial when you neglect gravity. They are all statements about observed symmetries of the universe -- so all of them are falsifiable if you found a counter-example.
Four everyday assumptions
Let us assume the laws of physics are translationally invariant in space. Then it follows a statement about a experiment happening in an arbitrary place will work the same if we center our coordinate basis with it. This also implies that we can calculate what's happening in an arbitrary place and apply a translation transform to it, and the physics is the same.
x' = x + T_x ; y' = y + T_y ; z' = z + T_z ;
Let us assume the laws of physics are translationally invariant in time. Then it follows a statement about a experiment happening in an arbitrary time will work the same if we center our basis of "now" with it. This also implies that we can calculate what's happening in an arbitrary time and apply a translation transform to it, and the physics is the same.
t' = t + T_t ;
Let us assume the laws of physics are rotationally invariant. Then it follows a statement about a experiment oriented in an arbitrary direction will work the same if rotate our coordinate basis to be aligned with it. This also implies that we can calculate what's happening in an arbitrary aligned experiment and apply a rotation transform to it, and the physics is the same.
x' = R_xx x + R_xy y + R_xz z ;
y' = R_yx x + R_yy y + R_yz z ;
z' = R_zx x + R_zy y + R_zz z ; Where R is a proper orthogonal matrix, which can be parameterized in various ways by 3 rotation angles.
Let us assume the laws of physics are invariant with respect to inertial frame. Then it follows a statement about a experiment with a freely moving center of mass moving in an arbitrary direction will work the same if set up our coordinate basis to be co-moving with it with it. But clearly any corresponding change-of-frame transform must tie velocity, time and space together. Since we already assumed we are rotationally invariant and translationally invariant, let us work with v in the x direction and just coordinate differences.
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xy Δy + F_xz Δz + F_xt Δt + F_x1 ;
Δy' = F_yx Δx + F_yy Δy + F_yz Δz + F_yt Δt + F_y1 ;
Δz' = F_zx Δx + F_zy Δy + F_zz Δz + F_zt Δt + F_z1 ;
Δt' = F_tx Δx + F_ty Δy + F_tz Δz + F_tt Δt + F_t1 ;
where F is a function of v, which we have agreed to consider in the x direction.
Limiting the form of the velocity transform
Since it makes no sense to talk about (Δx,Δy,Δz,Δt) = (0,0,0,0) which says that the two events happened in the same time and place in one frame transforming into other than (0,0,0,0) in the primed frame, it follows that (F_x1, F_y1, F_z1, F_t1) = (0,0,0,0). Thus F(v) represents a homogeneous transform.
If you think you know of a reason why a v in the x direction should involve displacements in the y or z direction, please let me know. I think that the rotational invariance we assumed earlier means that if v is in the +x direction, then it cannot have a reason to prefer +y or -y, and so the effect on y must be zero, and vice-versa, and the same for z.
Then F_yy = F_zz = 1 and F_xy = F_xz = F_yx = F_yz = F_yt = F_zx = F_zy = F_zt = F_ty = F_tz = 0. So we are over half done.
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xt Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + F_tt Δt ;
Since two events one frame which don't move at all have Δx = 0, but in the other frame Δx'/Δx' = v, then F_xt = v F_tt. Since if two events in one frame are connected by a particle moving at speed -v, and not moving in the other frame then Δx = -v Δt => Δx' = 0 = -F_xx v Δt + F_xt Δt => F_xt = v F_xx => F_xx = F_tt. Let's call that A(v).
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt ;
For the same reason that length-contraction must be in the direction of movement, we expect two observers to experience the same relative time dilation. Since there are no preferred directions, then nothing but convention distinguished -x from +x and so nothing distinguished -v from +v and so we expect that the time dilation to be the same for two observers in relative motion, if there is any time dilation.
Consider a motionless clock. Two tick of the clock are separated by Δt, but Δx = 0.
so Δt' = A(v) Δt . Now let's move the clock at -v so it is motionless for Δx' = 0. So we want to solve Δt = A(v) Δt', Δx = - v Δt, and Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt
So Δx = - v A(v) Δt', Δt' = F_tx Δx + A(v) A(v) Δt' and so
Δt' = - v F_tx A(v) Δt' + A(v) A(v) Δt' and so
F_tx = ( A(v)A(v) - 1 ) / ( v A(v) ) = (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v))
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v)) Δx + A(v) Δt ;
At this point both the Newtonian and the Relativist should be happy. The Newtonian assumes that A(v) is a constant with value 1, while the Relativist sees that our four initial assumptions do not yet force that choice. A(v), based on our four assumptions, is just a number and may yet turn out to be a non-constant function of v.
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16..._appendices.pdf
Working with the velocity transformation
Now with translations or rotations, they form a group. (A group is a mathematical way of talking about symmetries.) So that if you apply T1 and then T2, you get T3 which is also in the form of a translations. (Same for rotations.) This should be the same for two transforms related to velocity.
Δx' = A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ;
Δx'' = A(v2) Δx' + v2 A(v2) Δt' ;
Δy'' = Δy' ;
Δz'' = Δz' ;
Δt''= (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) Δx' + A(v2) Δt' ;
Δx'' = A(v3) Δx + v3 A(v3) Δt = A(v2) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + v2 A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
Δy'' = Δy ;
Δz'' = Δz ;
Δt''= (1/v3) ( A(v3) - 1/A(v3)) Δx + A(v3) Δt = (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
When we equate our expressions of the double-primed coordinates in terms of the unprimed coordinates, we have the following relations in v and A(v):
- A(v3) = A(v2) A(v1) + (v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) ;
- v3 A(v3) = A(v2) v1 A(v1) + v2 A(v2) A(v1) = (v2 + v1) A(v2) A(v1) ;
- (1/v3) ( A(v3) - 1/A(v3)) = (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) A(v1) + A(v2) (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) ;
- A(v3) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) + A(v2) A(v1) ;
From equations 1 and 4, we have the important equality:
A(v3) = A(v2) A(v1) + (v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = A(v3) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) + A(v2) A(v1) ;
or
(v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) ;
or
(v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) / A(v1)² = (v1 v2 /v2²) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1 v2/v2²) A(v1) A(v2)/ A(v2)² ;
or, for generic v1 and v2,
(1/v1²) (1 - 1 / A(v1)² ) = (1/v2²) ( 1 - 1 / A(v2)² ) ;
But since this is true for any v, then there is some constant K = (1/(v²)) (1 - 1 / ( A(v)² ) ) for all v. This means A can be written in the form A(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - K v²) ; Using the binomial theorem, we can show that when K v² << 1, A(v) is approximately: 1 + 1/2 K v² + 3/8 (K v²)² + 5/16 (K v²)^3 + 35/128 (K v²)^4 + 63/256 (K v²)^5 + 231/1024 (K v²)^6 + ... ; so the Newtonian will always appear correct as long as |v| is "small," or K << 1/v².
Only at high speed would there be evidence that K is not zero. (If K is zero, then A(v) = 1, just like the Newtonian assumed.)
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
The generic velocity addition law
From equation 2 we see something that with a little algebraic reworking can become our velocity addition law from our four assumptions.
v3 A(v3) = (v2 + v1) A(v2) A(v1) ;
or
v3 / sqrt(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)/( sqrt(1 - K v2²) sqrt(1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² /(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = [ (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ] [ ( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) / ( K(v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ]
or
v3² = (v2 + v1)² / ( K (v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( K v2 ² + 2 K v1 v2 + K v1² + 1 - K v2² - K v1² + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( 1 + 2 K v1 v2 + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) ;
Clearly if K is measured to be zero, then A(v) = 1 and there is no time dilation. However an 1859 experiment (among thousands of others) are inconsistent with K = 0.
Fresnel and Fizeau's measured value of K
In the discredited dragged-ether theory of Fresnel, light is "slowed" and "dragged" by a transparent dielectric with dielectric constant n. It is slowed to V=c/n, but if the medium is moving at speed v, it is dragged and the measured speed is about U = c/n + v(1 - 1/n²). The amount of "ether dragging" by a moving dielectric is measured as the unexplained Frensel drag coefficient, 1 - 1/n². The result eventually help caused the downfall of the dragged-ether model, for where a physical medium can support a wide variety of waves, the phenomenon of dispersion shows that n is a function of wavelength, and so the Fresnel drag coefficient must also be a function of wavelength, and so there must be a different ether to drag for every wavelength of light.
But let's just take V=c/n the experimental velocity of light in stationary medium, and apply our generic velocity addition law to it and see how it predicts an observer moving relative to the medium measure its speed at.
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) = (v + V) / ( 1 + K v V ) = (v + c/n) / ( 1 + K v c/n )
if we assume K v c/n << 1, then we can use the binomial theorem to approximate v3 as (v + c/n) - (K v c/n) (v + c/n) + (K v c/n)² (v + c/n) + ...
= c/n + v - K v² c/n - K v c²/n² + K² v^3 c²/n² + K² v² c^3/n^3 ... or, if you drop the terms which aren't linear in v, v3 = c/n + v (1 - K c²/n²)
If v3 is close to the observed value U, then K c² = 1, or K = 1/c²
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
Epilogue
This was written for Bryn, who hasn't explained why he doesn't believe in time dilation. It was written to show that time dilation, by which I mean that observers who differ in velocity must have A(v) different than 1, is the only physical result if you accept the four assumptions. The other consequences of this idea have been well-developed. K is very close to zero in ordinary units, but we have thousands of experimental results which suggest that it is much closer to 1/c² than to zero.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...05-5/index.html
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 10 2007, 11:55 AM)
(Absolutely wonderful post snipped for the sake of brevity)
Bravo! *Golf Clap*
Bravo! *Golf Clap*
QUOTE ("rpenner"+)
First of all, assuming God doesn't write a physics textbook,
And if he did personally write Bible 2.0?
And if he did personally write Bible 2.0?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Aug 10 2007, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE ("rpenner"+)
First of all, assuming God doesn't write a physics textbook,
And if he did personally write Bible 2.0?
The I imagine that would be a discussion for another thread, or even another forum.
And if he did personally write Bible 2.0?
The I imagine that would be a discussion for another thread, or even another forum.
Nice post rpenner
I only see my typos after I hit post.
No we don't.
Basic understanding of common time and speed (I'm traveling at 100 mph ) and SR leads to time dilation .
Many posters here always want to deal with "reality" and not with "abstract maths theories".
OK , let's talk about reality !
In my reality I can measure time.
Einstein was used to explain SR with clocks and sticks.
Physics concerns what we can say about nature: at high speed time is dilating and lengths are contracting.
Like rpenner said if god doesn't write textbooks we will never know what reality (or nature) is. But we can say things about it.
How could you think I ll your arguments seriously if you say things like "in essence we are made of light".
At least prove it, develop your idea...
If I'm really THAT WRONG how do you explain physics ( QM, SR, GR, etc.) is sooooo coherent with almost any experiment you can imagine ?
This little difference (almost any experiment ) is what make physicists work hard day after day.
That said you could always express the concept of time uppon things like " a big worm eating eggs " , then you express other concepts ( space, speed , motion ,etc) in terms of "big worm eating eggs" ; and define your model in order it is coherent with every experiments inside his domain of application.
I guess this last thing is quite difficult...
How could you think I ll your arguments seriously if you say things like "in essence we are made of light".
At least prove it, develop your idea...
If I'm really THAT WRONG how do you explain physics ( QM, SR, GR, etc.) is sooooo coherent with almost any experiment you can imagine ?
This little difference (almost any experiment ) is what make physicists work hard day after day.
It's very simple. Look at "pair production":
See details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
A gamma photon is converted into an electron and a positron. A gamma photon is light. An electron is matter. It has mass, and charge. The same principle applies to protons and neutrons. We are made of these things.
Physics is not wrong. The experiments work. But our interpretation and understanding is incomplete. To improve our understanding, we must challenge our assumptions, and strive to improve the models we have and/or develop new models. That's what I'm trying to do. It's early days, and this model is merely a "toy model". It is qualitative but not quantitive. It incorporates aspects of SR/GR and QED. And its name is:
RELATIVITY+
If you say "can be described as " I think I agree with you.
Is the real world a quantum world ? Maybe. Does quantum physics describe very accurately the world ? Experiments prove it does.
( With all those discussions I found myself agreeing with the "copenhagen interpretation" )
===
About time and time dilation, let me say it another way :
If you say something like " I've travelled 60 miles à 60 miles per hour in 1 hour " you can say "at hight speed time is dilating and lenghts are contracting " with the same definition of time lenght and speed ; whatever you think " time really is ".
QUOTE
Since two events one frame which don't move at all have Δx = 0, but in the other frame Δx'/Δx' = v, then F_xt = v F_tt.
Naturally "Δx'/Δt' = v" was meant.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since two events one frame which don't move at all have Δx = 0, but in the other frame Δx'/Δx' = v, then F_xt = v F_tt. |
Naturally "Δx'/Δt' = v" was meant.
sqrt
sqrt
I meant to substitute this with √
QUOTE
However an 1859 experiment (among thousands of others) are inconsistent with K = 0.
... the results of an 1859 experiment ...
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 9 2007, 11:55 PM)
...First of all, assuming God doesn't write a physics textbook, man will be forever ignorant of the actual mechanisms of the universe...
Good post, rpenner. I might challenge some of your assumptions, but that's beside the point. Your sincerity and hard work is a shining example to all.
Good post, rpenner. I might challenge some of your assumptions, but that's beside the point. Your sincerity and hard work is a shining example to all.
rpenner
the non-inertial frames are equivalent to the gravitational fields? the differences
between the inertia and non-inertial frames would be matematicaly equivalent to
the non-linear and linear structures of the non- euclidean and euclidean geometries,respectively.then the motions in non-inertial referential generates the
curvatures of spacetime,that are asymmetrics to lines of spacetime,seen in inertial referentials.
then the correspondence bettwen two bodies in motion;one in non-inertal frames and other in inertial frames generate an asymmetry between the two curvatures
of spacetimes,measured relatively between the frames?
the acceleration,as a property of the gravity,generate an asymmetry in the space
and time;and this assymmetry connect spacetime(in space),and becomes variable
spacetime in relation the changes of speed with spacetime( here curvatures in non-euclidean manifolds) and no with the time( curvatures in euclidean manifolds)
the non-inertial frames are equivalent to the gravitational fields? the differences
between the inertia and non-inertial frames would be matematicaly equivalent to
the non-linear and linear structures of the non- euclidean and euclidean geometries,respectively.then the motions in non-inertial referential generates the
curvatures of spacetime,that are asymmetrics to lines of spacetime,seen in inertial referentials.
then the correspondence bettwen two bodies in motion;one in non-inertal frames and other in inertial frames generate an asymmetry between the two curvatures
of spacetimes,measured relatively between the frames?
the acceleration,as a property of the gravity,generate an asymmetry in the space
and time;and this assymmetry connect spacetime(in space),and becomes variable
spacetime in relation the changes of speed with spacetime( here curvatures in non-euclidean manifolds) and no with the time( curvatures in euclidean manifolds)
Hej rpenner
In order to discuss Time Dilation we need an accurate definition of time - what is dilating?
I would like to say that time does not change, Time as such does not dilate - but the MEASURING of time does change, when the measuring device (observer) is propagated over space.
My definition of time is directly related to CHANGE - .
In order to have time as a concept - we need a change to measure one event from the next, and that is the same as saying that the Time Unit we define, is equivalent to the Change that we define. The time unit one second is a well defined number of oscillations in a caesium crystal, and that is a vast amount of changes - so a second is a very big time unit. Now then, what is the smallest change we can define. That at the same time will be smallest Time Unit - that will be a true UNIT - and such a unit has no "period of time"
I would like to introduce the "3D Pixel Universe", where such smallest change = time unit is defined - I call it "Beat Of Universe".
I imagine that Physical Universe is how Information has expressed itsself into a Physical form. This requires a translation medium, where information can be translated in a one-to-one manner into physical matter. (and I define information in this context as mathematics that is being used in physical definitions - and that is mathematics that probably is characteriized by being discontinued, and where math. points have taken a size. By taking a size, we get a volume - a space - and this is mandatory in ordet to be physical)
So the very definition of Physical is Space - and space must be particulated - in order to express something. There is a lower limit however, for how small a volume can be in physical existance - you cannot infefinitely diminuate - all physical is quantic - and smallest physical volume I call a Pixel.
There exists no such smaller physical beings than Pixel - and nothingness is not an option - consequently, fundamental space must be filled out with Pixels - no void - Pixels shoulder by shoulder. That is what I define as the 3D Pixel Grid - eqivalent to Aether.
Any physical expression - physical matter - is made by wave-interference patterns, and where standing wave-patterns are defining what we call particles.
Any such wave is made by - or expressed by pixels - the pixels being the points that define the wave. The pixels can be ON or OFF on the pixel screen - like a 3-dimensional TV screen. The ON OFF signal is via change in Pixel Tension - they cannot move, but they can change tension.
Whole Physical Universe is an ever changing tensor field - like pictures in a movie - giving us humans the illusion of motion.
And now we come to time-dilation.
Lets start with defining a physical matter (including caesium crystal) as a wave-interference structure. Waves being played by the pixels ON OFF signal, and where smallest change (smallest time unit - Beat Of Universe) is the time delay in the signal from one pixel to the neighboring pixel - the inertia in the waves.
When an "object" (caesium-crystal) is moving in space, it is the same as saying that the wave-interference pattern is being moved over the 3D Pixel Grid. Any outgoing wave- will enter into interference with surrounding wave-patterns, and repulsed, and I imagine this will give rise to a Doppler-like effect, when waves are to be rapidly propagated over the grid - (it is easier to propagate the front than to get the tail with, popularily speaken). The oscillation in the caesium crystal will consequently slow (relatively to the same crystal not beeing moved) and time will be measured as slower.
Of course there is a limit for how rapid any wave-pattern can be propagated over the grid - constrained by the pixel response time (delay time - inertia), and also constrained by the size = complexity = number of pixels involved - in the said physical matter expression. The fastest moving object with a complexity (size) of a photon - is a photon. Smaller particles can be moved with higher speeds. This has been (wrongly) translated into speed of light as being the fastes in Universe. Big structures - like a caeium crystal cannot be moved near to the speed of photon, so time - dilation will never be measured to near zero-speed of time.
In order to discuss Time Dilation we need an accurate definition of time - what is dilating?
I would like to say that time does not change, Time as such does not dilate - but the MEASURING of time does change, when the measuring device (observer) is propagated over space.
My definition of time is directly related to CHANGE - .
In order to have time as a concept - we need a change to measure one event from the next, and that is the same as saying that the Time Unit we define, is equivalent to the Change that we define. The time unit one second is a well defined number of oscillations in a caesium crystal, and that is a vast amount of changes - so a second is a very big time unit. Now then, what is the smallest change we can define. That at the same time will be smallest Time Unit - that will be a true UNIT - and such a unit has no "period of time"
I would like to introduce the "3D Pixel Universe", where such smallest change = time unit is defined - I call it "Beat Of Universe".
I imagine that Physical Universe is how Information has expressed itsself into a Physical form. This requires a translation medium, where information can be translated in a one-to-one manner into physical matter. (and I define information in this context as mathematics that is being used in physical definitions - and that is mathematics that probably is characteriized by being discontinued, and where math. points have taken a size. By taking a size, we get a volume - a space - and this is mandatory in ordet to be physical)
So the very definition of Physical is Space - and space must be particulated - in order to express something. There is a lower limit however, for how small a volume can be in physical existance - you cannot infefinitely diminuate - all physical is quantic - and smallest physical volume I call a Pixel.
There exists no such smaller physical beings than Pixel - and nothingness is not an option - consequently, fundamental space must be filled out with Pixels - no void - Pixels shoulder by shoulder. That is what I define as the 3D Pixel Grid - eqivalent to Aether.
Any physical expression - physical matter - is made by wave-interference patterns, and where standing wave-patterns are defining what we call particles.
Any such wave is made by - or expressed by pixels - the pixels being the points that define the wave. The pixels can be ON or OFF on the pixel screen - like a 3-dimensional TV screen. The ON OFF signal is via change in Pixel Tension - they cannot move, but they can change tension.
Whole Physical Universe is an ever changing tensor field - like pictures in a movie - giving us humans the illusion of motion.
And now we come to time-dilation.
Lets start with defining a physical matter (including caesium crystal) as a wave-interference structure. Waves being played by the pixels ON OFF signal, and where smallest change (smallest time unit - Beat Of Universe) is the time delay in the signal from one pixel to the neighboring pixel - the inertia in the waves.
When an "object" (caesium-crystal) is moving in space, it is the same as saying that the wave-interference pattern is being moved over the 3D Pixel Grid. Any outgoing wave- will enter into interference with surrounding wave-patterns, and repulsed, and I imagine this will give rise to a Doppler-like effect, when waves are to be rapidly propagated over the grid - (it is easier to propagate the front than to get the tail with, popularily speaken). The oscillation in the caesium crystal will consequently slow (relatively to the same crystal not beeing moved) and time will be measured as slower.
Of course there is a limit for how rapid any wave-pattern can be propagated over the grid - constrained by the pixel response time (delay time - inertia), and also constrained by the size = complexity = number of pixels involved - in the said physical matter expression. The fastest moving object with a complexity (size) of a photon - is a photon. Smaller particles can be moved with higher speeds. This has been (wrongly) translated into speed of light as being the fastes in Universe. Big structures - like a caeium crystal cannot be moved near to the speed of photon, so time - dilation will never be measured to near zero-speed of time.
QUOTE
In order to discuss Time Dilation we need an accurate definition of time - what is dilating?
No we don't.
Basic understanding of common time and speed (I'm traveling at 100 mph ) and SR leads to time dilation .
Many posters here always want to deal with "reality" and not with "abstract maths theories".
OK , let's talk about reality !
In my reality I can measure time.
Einstein was used to explain SR with clocks and sticks.
Physics concerns what we can say about nature: at high speed time is dilating and lengths are contracting.
Like rpenner said if god doesn't write textbooks we will never know what reality (or nature) is. But we can say things about it.
QUOTE (Cédric H.+Aug 10 2007, 11:42 AM)
In my reality I can measure time.
Einstein was used to explain SR with clocks and sticks.
Physics concerns what we can say about nature: at high speed time is dilating and lengths are contracting.
Like rpenner said if god doesn't write textbooks we will never know what reality (or nature) is. But we can say things about it.
No, you cannot. In your reality, you measure motion. A clock does not measure time. A clock contains an oscillating spring or crystal, which moves regularly. The motions of this are counted, and displayed to you on the face of the clock. A clock measures motion. Clocks don't run. Time doesn't pass. A year has no length. But all these phrases are so deeply rooted in your thinking that you are unable to see the reality. And you have a conviction that nobody else can, so deep that it prevents you even considering it rationally.
Time is a relative measure of motion. That's why we see time dilation at high speed. Because light moves, and we are in essence made of light, along with our clocks and rulers. You cannot travel through time, just as you cannot travel to a higher temperature. You can only travel through space. Rpenner, whilst an admirable contributor, is wrong. Because if he was right, we might as well give up and go home. Sadly, that's what's been happening to physics, which is where I come in.
Einstein was used to explain SR with clocks and sticks.
Physics concerns what we can say about nature: at high speed time is dilating and lengths are contracting.
Like rpenner said if god doesn't write textbooks we will never know what reality (or nature) is. But we can say things about it.
No, you cannot. In your reality, you measure motion. A clock does not measure time. A clock contains an oscillating spring or crystal, which moves regularly. The motions of this are counted, and displayed to you on the face of the clock. A clock measures motion. Clocks don't run. Time doesn't pass. A year has no length. But all these phrases are so deeply rooted in your thinking that you are unable to see the reality. And you have a conviction that nobody else can, so deep that it prevents you even considering it rationally.
Time is a relative measure of motion. That's why we see time dilation at high speed. Because light moves, and we are in essence made of light, along with our clocks and rulers. You cannot travel through time, just as you cannot travel to a higher temperature. You can only travel through space. Rpenner, whilst an admirable contributor, is wrong. Because if he was right, we might as well give up and go home. Sadly, that's what's been happening to physics, which is where I come in.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 10 2007, 01:03 PM)
No, you cannot. In your reality, you measure motion. A clock does not measure time. A clock contains an oscillating spring or crystal, which moves regularly. The motions of this are counted, and displayed to you on the face of the clock. A clock measures motion. Clocks don't run. Time doesn't pass. A year has no length.
If you could not experience the time difference between the motions starting and stopping, you would experience them as one incoherent event. We don't experience one incoherent event, so what changes as an object moves from point A to point B? Time passes. Otherwise the object would be at A and B together and we wouldn't be able to resolve the difference.
Time is measured and calibrated by watching the motion of objects which we know to move at a constant rate, that much is true, but time doesn't exist? If it didn't exist you wouldn't be able to differentiate between past and future. The fact that we can all recall the same events from the past means that we are all experiencing a VERY similar rate of time, and that time is a reality.
If you could not experience the time difference between the motions starting and stopping, you would experience them as one incoherent event. We don't experience one incoherent event, so what changes as an object moves from point A to point B? Time passes. Otherwise the object would be at A and B together and we wouldn't be able to resolve the difference.
Time is measured and calibrated by watching the motion of objects which we know to move at a constant rate, that much is true, but time doesn't exist? If it didn't exist you wouldn't be able to differentiate between past and future. The fact that we can all recall the same events from the past means that we are all experiencing a VERY similar rate of time, and that time is a reality.
QUOTE
we are in essence made of light, along with our clocks and rulers. You cannot travel through time, just as you cannot travel to a higher temperature. You can only travel through space. Rpenner, whilst an admirable contributor, is wrong. Because if he was right, we might as well give up and go home. Sadly, that's what's been happening to physics, which is where I come in.
How could you think I ll your arguments seriously if you say things like "in essence we are made of light".
At least prove it, develop your idea...
If I'm really THAT WRONG how do you explain physics ( QM, SR, GR, etc.) is sooooo coherent with almost any experiment you can imagine ?
This little difference (almost any experiment ) is what make physicists work hard day after day.
QUOTE
that time is a reality
That said you could always express the concept of time uppon things like " a big worm eating eggs " , then you express other concepts ( space, speed , motion ,etc) in terms of "big worm eating eggs" ; and define your model in order it is coherent with every experiments inside his domain of application.
I guess this last thing is quite difficult...
farsight -the expansion uniform of the universe can be explained as time dilatation?the variable curvatures of the universe explain,through motion,that spacetime curved is sretched ,depending of the ray of curvatures,have its relations with the velocities and with the metrics of spacetime.
STR treat of the motion without relations with forces,just geometrically treat of
inertial and non-inertial.
STR treat of the motion without relations with forces,just geometrically treat of
inertial and non-inertial.
QUOTE (Cédric H.+Aug 10 2007, 01:16 PM)
How could you think I ll your arguments seriously if you say things like "in essence we are made of light".
At least prove it, develop your idea...
If I'm really THAT WRONG how do you explain physics ( QM, SR, GR, etc.) is sooooo coherent with almost any experiment you can imagine ?
This little difference (almost any experiment ) is what make physicists work hard day after day.
It's very simple. Look at "pair production":
See details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
A gamma photon is converted into an electron and a positron. A gamma photon is light. An electron is matter. It has mass, and charge. The same principle applies to protons and neutrons. We are made of these things.
Physics is not wrong. The experiments work. But our interpretation and understanding is incomplete. To improve our understanding, we must challenge our assumptions, and strive to improve the models we have and/or develop new models. That's what I'm trying to do. It's early days, and this model is merely a "toy model". It is qualitative but not quantitive. It incorporates aspects of SR/GR and QED. And its name is:
RELATIVITY+
That's totally useless : if you say " we are all made of light " you can't say anything about our world.
Physics looks at our world : ho look there are photon, nucleus , electrons ,etc. How does it work ?
At least you could say " we are all made of light with many transformations mechanism ".
If you say " we are juste made of light ", why use a well established theory to prove you're right ( if you use it you think it is correct, if it is correct you're wrong - whatever correct and wrong mean ).
Does relativity+ appeared to you when you were sitting in top of Mont Cinaï ?
( I'm not used to talk about god ( whatever it means ), maybe the analogy is as useless as your theories )
Physics looks at our world : ho look there are photon, nucleus , electrons ,etc. How does it work ?
At least you could say " we are all made of light with many transformations mechanism ".
If you say " we are juste made of light ", why use a well established theory to prove you're right ( if you use it you think it is correct, if it is correct you're wrong - whatever correct and wrong mean ).
Does relativity+ appeared to you when you were sitting in top of Mont Cinaï ?
( I'm not used to talk about god ( whatever it means ), maybe the analogy is as useless as your theories )
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 10 2007, 01:37 PM)
A gamma photon is converted into an electron and a positron. A gamma photon is light. An electron is matter. It has mass, and charge. The same principle applies to protons and neutrons. We are made of these things.
I thought an electron was composed of a photon? What is left to form the positron? Does the photon multiply? Or does the photon give up its energy to allow a virtual pair to remain in existence? At the moment The latter option is more convincing...
I thought an electron was composed of a photon? What is left to form the positron? Does the photon multiply? Or does the photon give up its energy to allow a virtual pair to remain in existence? At the moment The latter option is more convincing...
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 10 2007, 01:03 PM)
Because if he was right, we might as well give up and go home. Sadly, that's what's been happening to physics, which is where I come in.
Modest, as always. Move over,rpenner.
What am I saying? Move over, Einstein, make room for Farsight.
Modest, as always. Move over,rpenner.
What am I saying? Move over, Einstein, make room for Farsight.
Cedric H
QUOTE: "Basic understanding of common time and speed (I'm traveling at 100 mph ) and SR leads to time dilation ."
"Basic understanding " ! - Yes - if you believe in anything what have been put forward today in contemporary physics. If you just want to follow in the path of all the others and ignore all and any of those ambiguities one have to face when looking deeper trying to envisage what is beneath the atomic level. Be my quest.
Anyhow I am in agreement with Farsight, and a few more people, who try to understand the nature of time.
I believe that EVERYTHING physically best can be described as wave-interference patterns - or an oscillating tensor field. You and EVERYTHING in the physical world - can best be described as an oscillating existance - departed by the beat of universe -. which is the essence of time.
You as a human is part of this game - (like Farsights analogy - you are essentially made by light) -- so you are wave-patterns yourself - and when you percept the "world" it is via your wave-patterns interfering with the wave-patterns of the world.
QUOTE: "Basic understanding of common time and speed (I'm traveling at 100 mph ) and SR leads to time dilation ."
"Basic understanding " ! - Yes - if you believe in anything what have been put forward today in contemporary physics. If you just want to follow in the path of all the others and ignore all and any of those ambiguities one have to face when looking deeper trying to envisage what is beneath the atomic level. Be my quest.
Anyhow I am in agreement with Farsight, and a few more people, who try to understand the nature of time.
I believe that EVERYTHING physically best can be described as wave-interference patterns - or an oscillating tensor field. You and EVERYTHING in the physical world - can best be described as an oscillating existance - departed by the beat of universe -. which is the essence of time.
You as a human is part of this game - (like Farsights analogy - you are essentially made by light) -- so you are wave-patterns yourself - and when you percept the "world" it is via your wave-patterns interfering with the wave-patterns of the world.
QUOTE
I believe that EVERYTHING physically best can be described as wave-interference patterns - or an oscillating tensor field. You and EVERYTHING in the physical world - can best be described as an oscillating existance - departed by the beat of universe -. which is the essence of time.
If you say "can be described as " I think I agree with you.
Is the real world a quantum world ? Maybe. Does quantum physics describe very accurately the world ? Experiments prove it does.
( With all those discussions I found myself agreeing with the "copenhagen interpretation" )
===
About time and time dilation, let me say it another way :
If you say something like " I've travelled 60 miles à 60 miles per hour in 1 hour " you can say "at hight speed time is dilating and lenghts are contracting " with the same definition of time lenght and speed ; whatever you think " time really is ".
Cedric K
QUOTE: "whatever you think " time really is ".
I would like to say that time does not change, Time as such does not dilate - but the MEASURING of time does change, when the measuring device (observer) is propagated over space.
You have not come up with anything which get me to change this view. And I shall be open minded to consider whatever definition you would like to come up with regarding time - and its so called dilation.
QUOTE: "whatever you think " time really is ".
I would like to say that time does not change, Time as such does not dilate - but the MEASURING of time does change, when the measuring device (observer) is propagated over space.
You have not come up with anything which get me to change this view. And I shall be open minded to consider whatever definition you would like to come up with regarding time - and its so called dilation.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Aug 10 2007, 10:39 AM)
the non-inertial frames are equivalent to the gravitational fields?
No. A frame is just a coordinate system. An inertial frame is a frame which could (at least in principle) be attached to a body moving inertially. A field is something independent of the coordinate system that assigns a value, vector, tensor, etc at every position. A non-inertial frame can be defined even in the absence of gravity.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Aug 10 2007, 10:39 AM)
the differences between the inertia and non-inertial frames would be matematicaly equivalent to the non-linear and linear structures of the non- euclidean and euclidean geometries,respectively.then the motions in non-inertial referential generates the curvatures of spacetime,that are asymmetrics to lines of spacetime,seen in inertial referentials.
There is no requirement for an inertial frame to be "Euclidean." The inertial frames I demonstrated are Euclidean if K=0 and Minkowski if K>0.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Aug 10 2007, 10:39 AM)
then the correspondence bettwen two bodies in motion;one in non-inertal frames and other in inertial frames generate an asymmetry between the two curvatures of spacetimes,measured relatively between the frames?
In general, a lot of gravity effects are asymmetrical. While the time dilation factor A(v)=A(-v) is the same between two inertial observers, the gravitational redshift between two people on different floors of the same building is asymmetric.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Aug 10 2007, 10:39 AM)
the acceleration,as a property of the gravity,generate an asymmetry in the space and time;and this assymmetry connect spacetime(in space),and becomes variable spacetime in relation the changes of speed with spacetime( here curvatures in non-euclidean manifolds) and no with the time( curvatures in euclidean manifolds)
But acceleration is an artifact of the coordinate system you use. The planet-bound and rocket-powered and rotating and freely-falling observers disagree about acceleration. But they all can agree on the tidal- or differential- acceleration a body experiences.
x' = x + T_x ; y' = y + T_y ; z' = z + T_z ;
t' = t + T_t ;
x' = R_xx x + R_xy y + R_xz z ;
y' = R_yx x + R_yy y + R_yz z ;
z' = R_zx x + R_zy y + R_zz z ;
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xy Δy + F_xz Δz + F_xt Δt + F_x1 ;
Δy' = F_yx Δx + F_yy Δy + F_yz Δz + F_yt Δt + F_y1 ;
Δz' = F_zx Δx + F_zy Δy + F_zz Δz + F_zt Δt + F_z1 ;
Δt' = F_tx Δx + F_ty Δy + F_tz Δz + F_tt Δt + F_t1 ;
(Δx,Δy,Δz,Δt) = (0,0,0,0)
(0,0,0,0)
(F_x1, F_y1, F_z1, F_t1) = (0,0,0,0).
Then F_yy = F_zz = 1 and F_xy = F_xz = F_yx = F_yz = F_yt = F_zx = F_zy = F_zt = F_ty = F_tz = 0.
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xt Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + F_tt Δt ;
Δx'/Δx' = v, then F_xt = v F_tt.
Δx = -v Δt => Δx' = 0 = -F_xx v Δt + F_xt Δt => F_xt = v F_xx => F_xx = F_tt.
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt ;
Δt' = A(v) Δt .
Δx' = 0.
Δt = A(v) Δt', Δx = - v Δt, and Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt
So Δx = - v A(v) Δt', Δt' = F_tx Δx + A(v) A(v) Δt'
Δt' = - v F_tx A(v) Δt' + A(v) A(v) Δt'
F_tx = ( A(v)A(v) - 1 ) / ( v A(v) ) = (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v))
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v)) Δx + A(v) Δt ;
Δx' = A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ;
Δx'' = A(v2) Δx' + v2 A(v2) Δt' ;
Δy'' = Δy' ;
Δz'' = Δz' ;
Δt''= (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) Δx' + A(v2) Δt' ;
Δx'' = A(v3) Δx + v3 A(v3) Δt = A(v2) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + v2 A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
Δy'' = Δy ;
Δz'' = Δz ;
Δt''= (1/v3) ( A(v3) - 1/A(v3)) Δx + A(v3) Δt = (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
A(v):
A(v3) = A(v2) A(v1) + (v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) ;
v3 A(v3) = A(v2) v1 A(v1) + v2 A(v2) A(v1) = (v2 + v1) A(v2) A(v1) ;
(1/v3) ( A(v3) - 1/A(v3)) = (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) A(v1) + A(v2) (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) ;
A(v3) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) + A(v2) A(v1) ;
A(v3) = A(v2) A(v1) + (v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = A(v3) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) + A(v2) A(v1) ;
(v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) ;
(v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) / A(v1)² = (v1 v2 /v2²) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1 v2/v2²) A(v1) A(v2)/ A(v2)² ;
(1/v1²) (1 - 1 / A(v1)² ) = (1/v2²) ( 1 - 1 / A(v2)² ) ;
(1/(v²)) (1 - 1 / ( A(v)² ) )
A(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - K v²)
K v² << 1, A(v)
1 + 1/2 K v² + 3/8 (K v²)² + 5/16 (K v²)^3 + 35/128 (K v²)^4 + 63/256 (K v²)^5 + 231/1024 (K v²)^6 + ...
v3 A(v3) = (v2 + v1) A(v2) A(v1) ;
or
v3 / sqrt(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)/( sqrt(1 - K v2²) sqrt(1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² /(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = [ (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ] [ ( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) / ( K(v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ]
or
v3² = (v2 + v1)² / ( K (v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( K v2 ² + 2 K v1 v2 + K v1² + 1 - K v2² - K v1² + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( 1 + 2 K v1 v2 + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) ;
U = c/n + v(1 - 1/n²).
1 - 1/n².
V=c/n
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) = (v + V) / ( 1 + K v V ) = (v + c/n) / ( 1 + K v c/n )
(v + c/n) - (K v c/n) (v + c/n) + (K v c/n)² (v + c/n) + ...
= c/n + v - K v² c/n - K v c²/n² + K² v^3 c²/n² + K² v² c^3/n^3 ... v, v3 = c/n + v (1 - K c²/n²)
K c² = 1, or K = 1/c²
You've gotta be kidding if you think I'm going to read and attempt to understand all that
...And people wonder why I like verbal (word based) explanations!
You've gotta be kidding if you think I'm going to read and attempt to understand all that wacko.gif
...And people wonder why I like verbal (word based) explanations!
That's the problem.
Question everything seems to be a good attitude.
But please read and try to understand the answers ...
Various 'effects' have been measured on particles/atoms, which have been accelerated / travel at speed.
Whilst, one 'theory' about these effects, is that they are caused by time being dilated.
Now , instead of making your own mistakes , you are starting to copy Tony "True Relativity" mistakes.
Yet you do not explain why such logic is wrong. You merely 'state' that it is wrong, again expecting me to accept your word as some kind of authoritative truth, when it is not. Basically you are making an Ipsedixitism.
Yet you do not explain why such logic is wrong. You merely 'state' that it is wrong, again expecting me to accept your word as some kind of authoritative truth, when it is not. Basically you are making an Ipsedixitism.
I'm quite sure Dallas would be happy to explain it again ...
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 10 2007, 05:21 PM)
I would like to say that time does not change,
Well, next time you make a universe you can try that and see how it works for you. Myself, I'm trying to keep my eyes open when I cross the street because I don't want to be hit by a car, because I assume that my eyes are reliable and I assume being hit by a car is bad. These are gross generalizations, based on my past experience, and I confess I am ignorant if that car over there is fueled by petroleum distillates or just the owners sense of self-satisfaction, but until I hear reliable reports that being hit by a car is no longer dangerous, I will stick to my assumptions. I would like to be special and be able to cross the street without looking, but the evidence I have accumulated suggests that this is just not so. In exactly the same way, I have tested my 4 assumptions personally at low precision for decades and rely on others results of testing them at high precision and in circumstances I simply do not have access to. Any of them could be wrong. But none of them are very wrong in any experiment anyone has ever done. Therefore the statement "there is no time dilation" is equivalent to K=0, and this is experimentally wrong since long before we had the ability to construct precise clocks and move them in jet aircraft.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 10 2007, 05:21 PM)
Cedric K
QUOTE: "whatever you think " time really is ".
I would like to say that time does not change, Time as such does not dilate - but the MEASURING of time does change, when the measuring device (observer) is propagated over space.
You have not come up with anything which get me to change this view. And I shall be open minded to consider whatever definition you would like to come up with regarding time - and its so called dilation.
"measuring of time " is OK for me too.
I'm not looking for a special understanding of time, or measuring of time or whatever. I just want to be coherent and use the same "concept of time" when I talk about speed or about time dilation.
QUOTE: "whatever you think " time really is ".
I would like to say that time does not change, Time as such does not dilate - but the MEASURING of time does change, when the measuring device (observer) is propagated over space.
You have not come up with anything which get me to change this view. And I shall be open minded to consider whatever definition you would like to come up with regarding time - and its so called dilation.
"measuring of time " is OK for me too.
I'm not looking for a special understanding of time, or measuring of time or whatever. I just want to be coherent and use the same "concept of time" when I talk about speed or about time dilation.
Cedric H
QUOTE: "Many posters here always want to deal with "reality" and not with "abstract maths theories"
So you are just simply saying that you prefer to do abstract math. sessions ? OK with me -
QUOTE: "Many posters here always want to deal with "reality" and not with "abstract maths theories"
So you are just simply saying that you prefer to do abstract math. sessions ? OK with me -
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 10 2007, 05:49 PM)
Cedric H
QUOTE: "Many posters here always want to deal with "reality" and not with "abstract maths theories"
So you are just simply saying that you prefer to do abstract math. sessions ? OK with me -
No I'm not.
Many posters're saying things like " I deal with reality, not with obscure math ".
So I'm saying " You want to talk about reality ? OK let's talk about basic time, basic speed and other basic concepts " ( see my post about time dilation ).
But I would be happy to do math too.
If you want an example :
Before my " Introductory QP " class I've read wikipedia : QM leads to quantization of energy.
Why (in terms of the model), how, what are the implications ?
When you do the math you see why the model leads to quantization, you can predict other things and you can measure things.
QUOTE: "Many posters here always want to deal with "reality" and not with "abstract maths theories"
So you are just simply saying that you prefer to do abstract math. sessions ? OK with me -
No I'm not.
Many posters're saying things like " I deal with reality, not with obscure math ".
So I'm saying " You want to talk about reality ? OK let's talk about basic time, basic speed and other basic concepts " ( see my post about time dilation ).
But I would be happy to do math too.
If you want an example :
Before my " Introductory QP " class I've read wikipedia : QM leads to quantization of energy.
Why (in terms of the model), how, what are the implications ?
When you do the math you see why the model leads to quantization, you can predict other things and you can measure things.
hej Cedric H
pardoni - but it was unavoidable not to misunderstand what you said -
Now you say (as an example) that when doing the math one can see why the models lead to quantization
You are probably right - but i have been using simple mind exercise to build ideas.
Math. is no doubt very useful - but not a must when you try to imagine how the physical world is put together
and this is even more so the case when you try to think deeper than the subatomic world
You may be interested in looking into the 3D Pixel Universe concept - to get an idea about how the physical universe could be the translation of Informational World into a physical expression.
Most of the ideas have recently been discussed in the thread "Particlse have mass - how?"
Any bright ideas about how math can be applied would be much appreciated---
pardoni - but it was unavoidable not to misunderstand what you said -
Now you say (as an example) that when doing the math one can see why the models lead to quantization
You are probably right - but i have been using simple mind exercise to build ideas.
Math. is no doubt very useful - but not a must when you try to imagine how the physical world is put together
and this is even more so the case when you try to think deeper than the subatomic world
You may be interested in looking into the 3D Pixel Universe concept - to get an idea about how the physical universe could be the translation of Informational World into a physical expression.
Most of the ideas have recently been discussed in the thread "Particlse have mass - how?"
Any bright ideas about how math can be applied would be much appreciated---
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 10 2007, 09:39 PM)
hej Cedric H
pardoni - but it was unavoidable not to misunderstand what you said -
Now you say (as an example) that when doing the math one can see why the models lead to quantization
You are probably right - but i have been using simple mind exercise to build ideas.
Math. is no doubt very useful - but not a must when you try to imagine how the physical world is put together
and this is even more so the case when you try to think deeper than the subatomic world
You may be interested in looking into the 3D Pixel Universe concept - to get an idea about how the physical universe could be the translation of Informational World into a physical expression.
Most of the ideas have recently been discussed in the thread "Particlse have mass - how?"
Any bright ideas about how math can be applied would be much appreciated---
I know my English is not good. I apologies for all the mistakes and the no-sense sentences.
pardoni - but it was unavoidable not to misunderstand what you said -
Now you say (as an example) that when doing the math one can see why the models lead to quantization
You are probably right - but i have been using simple mind exercise to build ideas.
Math. is no doubt very useful - but not a must when you try to imagine how the physical world is put together
and this is even more so the case when you try to think deeper than the subatomic world
You may be interested in looking into the 3D Pixel Universe concept - to get an idea about how the physical universe could be the translation of Informational World into a physical expression.
Most of the ideas have recently been discussed in the thread "Particlse have mass - how?"
Any bright ideas about how math can be applied would be much appreciated---
QUOTE
pardoni - but it was unavoidable not to misunderstand what you said -
I know my English is not good. I apologies for all the mistakes and the no-sense sentences.
hej cedric
cannot retrieve your mail for one reason or another - you can use pm
And BTW Information and communication is a very delicate matter - and that is why the 3D Pixel Screen must be so precise and ordered - one-to one - is the basis for any accurate translation.
cannot retrieve your mail for one reason or another - you can use pm
And BTW Information and communication is a very delicate matter - and that is why the 3D Pixel Screen must be so precise and ordered - one-to one - is the basis for any accurate translation.
I keep comin back to the fact that the wave function, when all is siad and done, represents a probability distribution, and that everything follows from that.
rpenner
QUOTE: "In exactly the same way, I have tested my 4 assumptions personally at low precision for decades and rely on others results of testing them at high precision and in circumstances I simply do not have access to. Any of them could be wrong. But none of them are very wrong in any experiment anyone has ever done. Therefore the statement "there is no time dilation" is equivalent to K=0, and this is experimentally wrong since long before we had the ability to construct precise clocks and move them in jet aircraft."
I do not exactly understand your analogy with the car - but you are saying, that all what you have seen of experimental data do suggest that there is a time-dilation - is that correct?
I think that we can agree that a time-dilation will be "MEASURED" in any and all of such experiments - I am just trying to understand what such measurements essentially reflects.
An "existance" obviously has nothing to do with whether such an existance is being measured / observed or not - but any existance is defined out from the exact context in which it is observed.
All and any of the experiments you are referring to must have been conducted in "The Physical Space" and in this context you will measure time-dilation when objects are being moved relatively to each other. But such an observation is not indicating that the TRUE OBJECTIVE speed of time is changing. I am referring to what I define as the Objective Universal Time Rate - which is being set by the Universal Beat of Universe - which is this inborn rate of change that is characteristic for our Universe.
You may call it semantic - but I think I have a point that you owerview or neglect. OR I simply do not understand what you are saying.
QUOTE: "In exactly the same way, I have tested my 4 assumptions personally at low precision for decades and rely on others results of testing them at high precision and in circumstances I simply do not have access to. Any of them could be wrong. But none of them are very wrong in any experiment anyone has ever done. Therefore the statement "there is no time dilation" is equivalent to K=0, and this is experimentally wrong since long before we had the ability to construct precise clocks and move them in jet aircraft."
I do not exactly understand your analogy with the car - but you are saying, that all what you have seen of experimental data do suggest that there is a time-dilation - is that correct?
I think that we can agree that a time-dilation will be "MEASURED" in any and all of such experiments - I am just trying to understand what such measurements essentially reflects.
An "existance" obviously has nothing to do with whether such an existance is being measured / observed or not - but any existance is defined out from the exact context in which it is observed.
All and any of the experiments you are referring to must have been conducted in "The Physical Space" and in this context you will measure time-dilation when objects are being moved relatively to each other. But such an observation is not indicating that the TRUE OBJECTIVE speed of time is changing. I am referring to what I define as the Objective Universal Time Rate - which is being set by the Universal Beat of Universe - which is this inborn rate of change that is characteristic for our Universe.
You may call it semantic - but I think I have a point that you owerview or neglect. OR I simply do not understand what you are saying.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 8 2007, 10:39 PM)
Even if I made a thread where I posed the question "What if time dilation wasn't true?", I'd instantly get a torrent of abuse.
Actually, that would be an interesting subject to discuss, if it can be kept serious. It would really help to show why it is necessary! What would the universe be like if it wasn't true?
Actually, that would be an interesting subject to discuss, if it can be kept serious. It would really help to show why it is necessary! What would the universe be like if it wasn't true?
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 9 2007, 11:55 PM)
Epilogue
This was written for Bryn, who hasn't explained why he doesn't believe in time dilation. It was written to show that time dilation, by which I mean that observers who differ in velocity must have A(v) different than 1, is the only physical result if you accept the four assumptions. The other consequences of this idea have been well-developed. K is very close to zero in ordinary units, but we have thousands of experimental results which suggest that it is much closer to 1/c² than to zero.
I've paraphrased "Nothing But Relativity" a couple times on this forum, without showing any math -- explaining the 4 postulates in prose.
It doesn't help. This being the Psyche of the Common Crank discussion, it is suitable to reflect on why. I think that simply ignoring facts that contradict pre-existing beliefs is a cornerstone of being a Crank.
This was written for Bryn, who hasn't explained why he doesn't believe in time dilation. It was written to show that time dilation, by which I mean that observers who differ in velocity must have A(v) different than 1, is the only physical result if you accept the four assumptions. The other consequences of this idea have been well-developed. K is very close to zero in ordinary units, but we have thousands of experimental results which suggest that it is much closer to 1/c² than to zero.
I've paraphrased "Nothing But Relativity" a couple times on this forum, without showing any math -- explaining the 4 postulates in prose.
It doesn't help. This being the Psyche of the Common Crank discussion, it is suitable to reflect on why. I think that simply ignoring facts that contradict pre-existing beliefs is a cornerstone of being a Crank.
I made 4 assumptions -- these may or may not be true, but Galileo and Newton seemed to accept them on the basis of their experiments. I calculated on the basis of those assumptions. A number came out, K, which is either zero or not zero. If it is zero, and my assumptions are correct, then there is no time dilation. If it is not zero, and my assumptions are correct. If my assumptions are wrong, then the world is stranger than just time dilation. From the calculations a velocity addition formula arises, where K is a parameter. Every experiment ever done is consistent with my four assumptions AND K is being a very specific value which is not zero. I gave one example from 1859. I linked to a paper where dozens of other tests also give the same value of K, and several tests of the 4 assumptions.
The 1859 experiment used no clocks at all, but the value of K it gives is the same value of K measured when people do direct time dilation measurement. It's not that anyone went looking for time dilation, Nature conspires against us to accept it as fact.
Nature, like the typical automobile driver in California, does not care what we believe about its intentions. If you walk out into traffic, you stand a good chance of being hit by a car and receiving a serious injury. If you fill your pockets with meat an go unescorted through a wild game reserve, you will find the hungrier carnivores (or the reverse). If you test clocks at high relative speed you will find the phenomenon of time dilation. Nature doesn't care what you wish or think or believe. Getting hit by a car can break bones. It's foolish to provoke hungry animals. High speed unstable particles travel much further on average than Newtonian calculations suggest.
There is no evidence that the universe requires a "true objective time" any more than it requires a "true objective rest frame." (If two observers 100 Mpc apart make sure they are at complete rest with respect to the CMB, they will still be in motion with respect to each other.) To demand the universe produce a "true objective time" is pointless. Nature doesn't care about what you think the universe should be any more than Nature cares about your desire to survive decapitation. A correct physics decision to test for the "true objective time" and throw it away when you can't find it.
The 1859 experiment used no clocks at all, but the value of K it gives is the same value of K measured when people do direct time dilation measurement. It's not that anyone went looking for time dilation, Nature conspires against us to accept it as fact.
Nature, like the typical automobile driver in California, does not care what we believe about its intentions. If you walk out into traffic, you stand a good chance of being hit by a car and receiving a serious injury. If you fill your pockets with meat an go unescorted through a wild game reserve, you will find the hungrier carnivores (or the reverse). If you test clocks at high relative speed you will find the phenomenon of time dilation. Nature doesn't care what you wish or think or believe. Getting hit by a car can break bones. It's foolish to provoke hungry animals. High speed unstable particles travel much further on average than Newtonian calculations suggest.
There is no evidence that the universe requires a "true objective time" any more than it requires a "true objective rest frame." (If two observers 100 Mpc apart make sure they are at complete rest with respect to the CMB, they will still be in motion with respect to each other.) To demand the universe produce a "true objective time" is pointless. Nature doesn't care about what you think the universe should be any more than Nature cares about your desire to survive decapitation. A correct physics decision to test for the "true objective time" and throw it away when you can't find it.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 9 2007, 11:55 PM)
x' = x + T_x ; y' = y + T_y ; z' = z + T_z ;
t' = t + T_t ;
x' = R_xx x + R_xy y + R_xz z ;
y' = R_yx x + R_yy y + R_yz z ;
z' = R_zx x + R_zy y + R_zz z ;
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xy Δy + F_xz Δz + F_xt Δt + F_x1 ;
Δy' = F_yx Δx + F_yy Δy + F_yz Δz + F_yt Δt + F_y1 ;
Δz' = F_zx Δx + F_zy Δy + F_zz Δz + F_zt Δt + F_z1 ;
Δt' = F_tx Δx + F_ty Δy + F_tz Δz + F_tt Δt + F_t1 ;
(Δx,Δy,Δz,Δt) = (0,0,0,0)
(0,0,0,0)
(F_x1, F_y1, F_z1, F_t1) = (0,0,0,0).
Then F_yy = F_zz = 1 and F_xy = F_xz = F_yx = F_yz = F_yt = F_zx = F_zy = F_zt = F_ty = F_tz = 0.
Δx' = F_xx Δx + F_xt Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + F_tt Δt ;
Δx'/Δx' = v, then F_xt = v F_tt.
Δx = -v Δt => Δx' = 0 = -F_xx v Δt + F_xt Δt => F_xt = v F_xx => F_xx = F_tt.
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt ;
Δt' = A(v) Δt .
Δx' = 0.
Δt = A(v) Δt', Δx = - v Δt, and Δt'= F_tx Δx + A(v) Δt
So Δx = - v A(v) Δt', Δt' = F_tx Δx + A(v) A(v) Δt'
Δt' = - v F_tx A(v) Δt' + A(v) A(v) Δt'
F_tx = ( A(v)A(v) - 1 ) / ( v A(v) ) = (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v))
Δx' = A(v) Δx + v A(v) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v) ( A(v) - 1/A(v)) Δx + A(v) Δt ;
Δx' = A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ;
Δy' = Δy ;
Δz' = Δz ;
Δt'= (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ;
Δx'' = A(v2) Δx' + v2 A(v2) Δt' ;
Δy'' = Δy' ;
Δz'' = Δz' ;
Δt''= (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) Δx' + A(v2) Δt' ;
Δx'' = A(v3) Δx + v3 A(v3) Δt = A(v2) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + v2 A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
Δy'' = Δy ;
Δz'' = Δz ;
Δt''= (1/v3) ( A(v3) - 1/A(v3)) Δx + A(v3) Δt = (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) (A(v1) Δx + v1 A(v1) Δt ) + A(v2) ( (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) Δx + A(v1) Δt ) ;
A(v):
A(v3) = A(v2) A(v1) + (v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) ;
v3 A(v3) = A(v2) v1 A(v1) + v2 A(v2) A(v1) = (v2 + v1) A(v2) A(v1) ;
(1/v3) ( A(v3) - 1/A(v3)) = (1/v2) ( A(v2) - 1/A(v2)) A(v1) + A(v2) (1/v1) ( A(v1) - 1/A(v1)) ;
A(v3) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) + A(v2) A(v1) ;
A(v3) = A(v2) A(v1) + (v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = A(v3) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) + A(v2) A(v1) ;
(v2/v1) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2/v1) A(v2)/A(v1) = (v1/v2) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1/v2) A(v1)/A(v2) ;
(v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) - (v2 v1/v1²) A(v2) A(v1) / A(v1)² = (v1 v2 /v2²) A(v1) A(v2) - (v1 v2/v2²) A(v1) A(v2)/ A(v2)² ;
(1/v1²) (1 - 1 / A(v1)² ) = (1/v2²) ( 1 - 1 / A(v2)² ) ;
(1/(v²)) (1 - 1 / ( A(v)² ) )
A(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - K v²)
K v² << 1, A(v)
1 + 1/2 K v² + 3/8 (K v²)² + 5/16 (K v²)^3 + 35/128 (K v²)^4 + 63/256 (K v²)^5 + 231/1024 (K v²)^6 + ...
v3 A(v3) = (v2 + v1) A(v2) A(v1) ;
or
v3 / sqrt(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)/( sqrt(1 - K v2²) sqrt(1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² /(1 - K v3²) = (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = [ (v2 + v1)²/( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ] [ ( (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) / ( K(v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ]
or
v3² = (v2 + v1)² / ( K (v2 + v1)² + (1 - K v2²) (1 - K v1²) ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( K v2 ² + 2 K v1 v2 + K v1² + 1 - K v2² - K v1² + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3² = (v1 + v2)² / ( 1 + 2 K v1 v2 + K² v1² v2² ) ;
or
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) ;
U = c/n + v(1 - 1/n²).
1 - 1/n².
V=c/n
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) = (v + V) / ( 1 + K v V ) = (v + c/n) / ( 1 + K v c/n )
(v + c/n) - (K v c/n) (v + c/n) + (K v c/n)² (v + c/n) + ...
= c/n + v - K v² c/n - K v c²/n² + K² v^3 c²/n² + K² v² c^3/n^3 ... v, v3 = c/n + v (1 - K c²/n²)
K c² = 1, or K = 1/c²
You've gotta be kidding if you think I'm going to read and attempt to understand all that
...And people wonder why I like verbal (word based) explanations!
Can I remind everybody that it's only Bryn who believes "time dilation is not true". And such is his belief, that he will not engage on the subject. Interestingly, it isn't just Bryn who exhibits this tendency.
Your post on the previous page noted, bukh. Whilst we don't agree on everything, (and life would be dull if everybody did) when it comes to time we share some common ground.
Your post on the previous page noted, bukh. Whilst we don't agree on everything, (and life would be dull if everybody did) when it comes to time we share some common ground.
QUOTE
You've gotta be kidding if you think I'm going to read and attempt to understand all that wacko.gif
...And people wonder why I like verbal (word based) explanations!
That's the problem.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 11 2007, 10:53 AM)
Can I remind everybody that it's only Bryn who believes "time dilation is not true". And such is his belief, that he will not engage on the subject. Interestingly, it isn't just Bryn who exhibits this tendency.
I do not engage on the subject of 'disproving time dilation', because this is not my intent, especially since it features the kind of mind-boggling math, that I quoted just previously. Instead, what I do on PhysOrg, is suggest "What if time dilation isn't true? What are the ramifications?", and try to establish some kind of debate on the possibility.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
I do not engage on the subject of 'disproving time dilation', because this is not my intent, especially since it features the kind of mind-boggling math, that I quoted just previously. Instead, what I do on PhysOrg, is suggest "What if time dilation isn't true? What are the ramifications?", and try to establish some kind of debate on the possibility.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
QUOTE
what I do on PhysOrg, is suggest "What if time dilation isn't true? What are the ramifications?", and try to establish some kind of debate on the possibility.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
Question everything seems to be a good attitude.
But please read and try to understand the answers ...
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 11:05 AM)
I do not engage on the subject of 'disproving time dilation', because this is not my intent, especially since it features the kind of mind-boggling math, that I quoted just previously. Instead, what I do on PhysOrg, is suggest "What if time dilation isn't true? What are the ramifications?", and try to establish some kind of debate on the possibility.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
I share your questioning ethos, Bryn. My sympathies regarding the abuse. I quite understand.
I have to say however, that IMHO you have not engaged adequately in debate concerning time dilation.
Everybody: please read this chapter on BELIEF. It's rather important.
BELIEF EXPLAINED
It doesn't quite deserve that title, but you'll appreciate why it's called that.
OK, the sun is shining, I'm off down the beach. Ciao.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
I share your questioning ethos, Bryn. My sympathies regarding the abuse. I quite understand.
I have to say however, that IMHO you have not engaged adequately in debate concerning time dilation.
Everybody: please read this chapter on BELIEF. It's rather important.
BELIEF EXPLAINED
It doesn't quite deserve that title, but you'll appreciate why it's called that.
OK, the sun is shining, I'm off down the beach. Ciao.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+)
Various 'effects' have been measured on particles/atoms, which have been accelerated / travel at speed.
Whilst, one 'theory' about these effects, is that they are caused by time being dilated.
QUOTE (Dallas+)
Now , instead of making your own mistakes , you are starting to copy Tony "True Relativity" mistakes.
Yet you do not explain why such logic is wrong. You merely 'state' that it is wrong, again expecting me to accept your word as some kind of authoritative truth, when it is not. Basically you are making an Ipsedixitism.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 04:19 PM)
Yet you do not explain why such logic is wrong. You merely 'state' that it is wrong, again expecting me to accept your word as some kind of authoritative truth, when it is not. Basically you are making an Ipsedixitism.
I'm quite sure Dallas would be happy to explain it again ...
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 11:05 AM)
I do not engage on the subject of 'disproving time dilation', because this is not my intent, especially since it features the kind of mind-boggling math, that I quoted just previously. Instead, what I do on PhysOrg, is suggest "What if time dilation isn't true? What are the ramifications?", and try to establish some kind of debate on the possibility.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
"Mind boggling?" I'm not even scratching the surface of Algebra as it existed in the 830 A.D. work Al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala by Abū ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī.
http://members.aol.com/bbyars1/contents.html
But it's not a total coincidence that the use of Analytic Geometry (1637 by René Descartes in La Géométrie) preceded Newton's invention of physics.
If I wanted to be mind-boggling, I would attempt to parody Nick and state: "FOUR TESTABLE ASSUMPTIONS AND ONE 1859 MEASUREMENT SHOW THERE MUST BE TIME DILATION." Instead, I state what my assumptions and and show each step of the logic. Instead of making oracular claims and then retreating to the fortress of my ego, I have exposed the underbelly of my argument and left it there undefended.
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything.
Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
"Mind boggling?" I'm not even scratching the surface of Algebra as it existed in the 830 A.D. work Al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala by Abū ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī.
http://members.aol.com/bbyars1/contents.html
But it's not a total coincidence that the use of Analytic Geometry (1637 by René Descartes in La Géométrie) preceded Newton's invention of physics.
If I wanted to be mind-boggling, I would attempt to parody Nick and state: "FOUR TESTABLE ASSUMPTIONS AND ONE 1859 MEASUREMENT SHOW THERE MUST BE TIME DILATION." Instead, I state what my assumptions and and show each step of the logic. Instead of making oracular claims and then retreating to the fortress of my ego, I have exposed the underbelly of my argument and left it there undefended.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 11:05 AM)
Instead, what I do on PhysOrg, is suggest "What if time dilation isn't true? What are the ramifications?", and try to establish some kind of debate on the possibility.
There's a number of ways to read those questions:
What if it wasn't true? -- which ignores experiment. If it wasn't true, just plug in K=0 and see that the speed of light is infinite, which lets you suffer the flip side of Olbers' paradox.
I have no problem with suggesting things which are contrary to experiment, as I said, I question everything
Olbers Paradox:
With infinitely many stars, every angular element of the sky should have a star, and the entire heavens should be as bright as the sun. We should have the impression that we live in the center of a hollow black body whose temperature is about 6000 degrees Celsius. This is Olbers' paradox.
There is actually a reason for why we do not see (with the naked eye) all of the light from all the stars in the universe, and the reason is that most stars are really far away from us, which means that they have to travel through interstellar space to get to us, and along their journey, they will collide with stellar radiation, and lose vibrational (wave) energy (frequency reduction), until they dip into infra-red frequency, and so on. Most photons from most stars, will dip into infra-red frequency and beyond, before they even get to us. If they are not within the visible light spectrum, then we will simply not see them with our eyes. If we had eyes like a goldfish or mosquito, then sure, we'd see more stars with our eyes, because we'd be able to see infra-red. It'd also get really annoying when you used your Tv remote.
Also, some of the light won't even reach us, because it will have been absorbed by matter along the way, either in the form of dust, gas, or stellar radiation.
I mean, you've got one photon, travelling say, 1 million light years to us. It has to travel without being deflected at all, in it's journey towards us. Considering the length of time, it is likely that the photon will collide with particles or atoms along the way, and go off course, but a minority of photons may make it to us, and we will finally see the light from the star they originated from.
So you've got two methods here. The first is that they simply lose vibrational energy, and therefore have a reduced frequency that we cannot see. The second is that they are deflected off course by particles/atoms (or gravitational sources) along the way.
I don't know how you came to the idea that light speed would be infinite if time dilation wasn't true. You'll have to explain that to me.
There is actually a reason for why we do not see (with the naked eye) all of the light from all the stars in the universe, and the reason is that most stars are really far away from us, which means that they have to travel through interstellar space to get to us, and along their journey, they will collide with stellar radiation, and lose vibrational (wave) energy (frequency reduction), until they dip into infra-red frequency, and so on. Most photons from most stars, will dip into infra-red frequency and beyond, before they even get to us. If they are not within the visible light spectrum, then we will simply not see them with our eyes. If we had eyes like a goldfish or mosquito, then sure, we'd see more stars with our eyes, because we'd be able to see infra-red. It'd also get really annoying when you used your Tv remote.
Also, some of the light won't even reach us, because it will have been absorbed by matter along the way, either in the form of dust, gas, or stellar radiation.
I mean, you've got one photon, travelling say, 1 million light years to us. It has to travel without being deflected at all, in it's journey towards us. Considering the length of time, it is likely that the photon will collide with particles or atoms along the way, and go off course, but a minority of photons may make it to us, and we will finally see the light from the star they originated from.
So you've got two methods here. The first is that they simply lose vibrational energy, and therefore have a reduced frequency that we cannot see. The second is that they are deflected off course by particles/atoms (or gravitational sources) along the way.
I don't know how you came to the idea that light speed would be infinite if time dilation wasn't true. You'll have to explain that to me.
Because only a child asks an endless series of questions to an authority figure and expects them to be answered. Real questioning is an exercise in observation and logic and is therefore work. Your thoughtless dismissal of a careful post I worked on for some considerable time is based on nothing but laziness.
You aim to trivialize my questions, by first calling me a child, and secondly by insinuating that I do not ask 'real questions aka. questions with logic'.
I just find this so patronizing, especially from you, whom I did not expect such an attack. But I see you are probably annoyed at my dismissal of your maths. Surely you should know better than to swamp me with maths that I have repeatedly stated that I do not care for. Know in future, that I only accept verbal explanations (ie. Explanations in words, with zero maths). Now, you either accept my terms, or you just simply don't talk to me. I leave the decision up to you. It's in your hands whether or not you wish to be tolerant to my handicap.
Do you question yourself about the utility ( or necessity ) of math ? Why are you so angry about math ?
1. Einstein apparently came up with Relativity, after having a dream in which he dreamt he was riding on a beam of light.
First of all this is not true, Einstein explained his idea in mathematical form. You can check it out ]here
Secondly, your inability to use math guarantees that you can not explain your ideas as physicists usually do. Most wannabees on this forum share the same problem.
Thirdly, as pointed out by several of us, your ideas are not progressive, they are regressive in that you deny experimental and theoretical data and you are unsuccessfully trying to take physics backwards (see your theory on the mass of the photon for example)
Lastly, in order to make valid contributions to science, you need to understand the existent state of the art, something that you and the other wannabees don't even bother learning
When one of us takes the time (like rpenner, AN, Learnscience, Trippy,Lalbatros, etc) to explain things to you, you simply shut your years and eyes and you repeat the same incorrect statements. If we use math, you ask for it to be removed. Math is the language employed in physics. Get used to it.
- What if it wasn't true? -- which ignores experiment. If it wasn't true, just plug in K=0 and see that the speed of light is infinite, which lets you suffer the flip side of Olbers' paradox. http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/.../GR/olbers.html
- What if experiments which measure K>0 are showing something different than under my assumptions? -- The answer is different depending on which assumptions you modify or throw out. I strongly suspect that there are no-go theorems here that say you can't even make a physically consistent theory without time dilation. In H.P. Robertson, "Postulate versus Observation in the Special Theory of Relativity" Reviews of Modern Physics 21, 378-382 (1949), Robertson showed that one can unambiguously deduce the Lorentz transform of Special Relativity to an accuracy of ~0.1% from just three experiments: Michelson and Morley (1887), Kennedy and Thorndike (1932), and Ives and Stilwell (1938,1941). Since then other experiments have improved on this result. To the informed physicist, the question "What if time dilation isn't true?" can't mean more than "What if the Lorentz prediction of time dilation isn't exactly true?" http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...xperiments.html
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 11:05 AM)
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything. Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
Because only a child asks an endless series of questions to an authority figure and expects them to be answered. Real questioning is an exercise in observation and logic and is therefore work. Your thoughtless dismissal of a careful post I worked on for some considerable time is based on nothing but laziness.
the time dilatation and the consequent contraction of space isn't due just the relatives measures made in an inertial referential systems in relation the others
inertial referential systems,but the spacetime measured by the oberverin relations
for happenings in others referential,where the absolute measures are made by the
sped of light,that is finite.then the speed of light has one time to itself to measure
the endness and intial point that is seen the observers.this does occur a spend of
time until the two waves alcance the obsever.there is there the interval of spacetime,when the spacetime is broken in time-like and space-like,we could to
observer the reality of the time dilatation and contraction of space.then all the
physical phenomenos in the universe has a "lifetime",that is mesured by the speed of light.
but when the spacetime is distorted by curves non-orientables of the original curvature of spacetime,through of distortion in mirrors,in only in the reversion of the operator T ,but in the imaginary conjugated,here the space,or spatial reversion,the breaks of parity,P.then the antiparticles are originateds of that distortions of spacetime in the mirror,that is parity-time reversal.then as time
run with effect of the time dilatation,that is the antiparticles,running backward in time,and in the same spatial direction.then the time dilatation observed in the
called twin paradox,would be cancelleds.the time whether transform into time
coordinate and viceversa.
then there are manifolds,where the lorentz transformation are non-linear,doing appear the complex vector,that permit minimal surfaces with speeds faster than
c in the vacuum.then the propagations of electromagnetic waves can be observed
as 'discrete packets" ,or warped spacetimes,that permit the visulalizations discontinuos of the waves,where in the differences of these frequences,ocur the time dilatation,and the contraction of space,that are curves distorted of the space.
then
SPACE AND TIME ARE FLUIDS?
inertial referential systems,but the spacetime measured by the oberverin relations
for happenings in others referential,where the absolute measures are made by the
sped of light,that is finite.then the speed of light has one time to itself to measure
the endness and intial point that is seen the observers.this does occur a spend of
time until the two waves alcance the obsever.there is there the interval of spacetime,when the spacetime is broken in time-like and space-like,we could to
observer the reality of the time dilatation and contraction of space.then all the
physical phenomenos in the universe has a "lifetime",that is mesured by the speed of light.
but when the spacetime is distorted by curves non-orientables of the original curvature of spacetime,through of distortion in mirrors,in only in the reversion of the operator T ,but in the imaginary conjugated,here the space,or spatial reversion,the breaks of parity,P.then the antiparticles are originateds of that distortions of spacetime in the mirror,that is parity-time reversal.then as time
run with effect of the time dilatation,that is the antiparticles,running backward in time,and in the same spatial direction.then the time dilatation observed in the
called twin paradox,would be cancelleds.the time whether transform into time
coordinate and viceversa.
then there are manifolds,where the lorentz transformation are non-linear,doing appear the complex vector,that permit minimal surfaces with speeds faster than
c in the vacuum.then the propagations of electromagnetic waves can be observed
as 'discrete packets" ,or warped spacetimes,that permit the visulalizations discontinuos of the waves,where in the differences of these frequences,ocur the time dilatation,and the contraction of space,that are curves distorted of the space.
then
SPACE AND TIME ARE FLUIDS?
QUOTE (rpenner+)
What if it wasn't true? -- which ignores experiment. If it wasn't true, just plug in K=0 and see that the speed of light is infinite, which lets you suffer the flip side of Olbers' paradox.
I have no problem with suggesting things which are contrary to experiment, as I said, I question everything
Olbers Paradox:
QUOTE
With infinitely many stars, every angular element of the sky should have a star, and the entire heavens should be as bright as the sun. We should have the impression that we live in the center of a hollow black body whose temperature is about 6000 degrees Celsius. This is Olbers' paradox.
There is actually a reason for why we do not see (with the naked eye) all of the light from all the stars in the universe, and the reason is that most stars are really far away from us, which means that they have to travel through interstellar space to get to us, and along their journey, they will collide with stellar radiation, and lose vibrational (wave) energy (frequency reduction), until they dip into infra-red frequency, and so on. Most photons from most stars, will dip into infra-red frequency and beyond, before they even get to us. If they are not within the visible light spectrum, then we will simply not see them with our eyes. If we had eyes like a goldfish or mosquito, then sure, we'd see more stars with our eyes, because we'd be able to see infra-red. It'd also get really annoying when you used your Tv remote.
Also, some of the light won't even reach us, because it will have been absorbed by matter along the way, either in the form of dust, gas, or stellar radiation.
I mean, you've got one photon, travelling say, 1 million light years to us. It has to travel without being deflected at all, in it's journey towards us. Considering the length of time, it is likely that the photon will collide with particles or atoms along the way, and go off course, but a minority of photons may make it to us, and we will finally see the light from the star they originated from.
So you've got two methods here. The first is that they simply lose vibrational energy, and therefore have a reduced frequency that we cannot see. The second is that they are deflected off course by particles/atoms (or gravitational sources) along the way.
I don't know how you came to the idea that light speed would be infinite if time dilation wasn't true. You'll have to explain that to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
With infinitely many stars, every angular element of the sky should have a star, and the entire heavens should be as bright as the sun. We should have the impression that we live in the center of a hollow black body whose temperature is about 6000 degrees Celsius. This is Olbers' paradox. |
There is actually a reason for why we do not see (with the naked eye) all of the light from all the stars in the universe, and the reason is that most stars are really far away from us, which means that they have to travel through interstellar space to get to us, and along their journey, they will collide with stellar radiation, and lose vibrational (wave) energy (frequency reduction), until they dip into infra-red frequency, and so on. Most photons from most stars, will dip into infra-red frequency and beyond, before they even get to us. If they are not within the visible light spectrum, then we will simply not see them with our eyes. If we had eyes like a goldfish or mosquito, then sure, we'd see more stars with our eyes, because we'd be able to see infra-red. It'd also get really annoying when you used your Tv remote.
Also, some of the light won't even reach us, because it will have been absorbed by matter along the way, either in the form of dust, gas, or stellar radiation.
I mean, you've got one photon, travelling say, 1 million light years to us. It has to travel without being deflected at all, in it's journey towards us. Considering the length of time, it is likely that the photon will collide with particles or atoms along the way, and go off course, but a minority of photons may make it to us, and we will finally see the light from the star they originated from.
So you've got two methods here. The first is that they simply lose vibrational energy, and therefore have a reduced frequency that we cannot see. The second is that they are deflected off course by particles/atoms (or gravitational sources) along the way.
I don't know how you came to the idea that light speed would be infinite if time dilation wasn't true. You'll have to explain that to me.
Because only a child asks an endless series of questions to an authority figure and expects them to be answered. Real questioning is an exercise in observation and logic and is therefore work. Your thoughtless dismissal of a careful post I worked on for some considerable time is based on nothing but laziness.
You aim to trivialize my questions, by first calling me a child, and secondly by insinuating that I do not ask 'real questions aka. questions with logic'.
I just find this so patronizing, especially from you, whom I did not expect such an attack. But I see you are probably annoyed at my dismissal of your maths. Surely you should know better than to swamp me with maths that I have repeatedly stated that I do not care for. Know in future, that I only accept verbal explanations (ie. Explanations in words, with zero maths). Now, you either accept my terms, or you just simply don't talk to me. I leave the decision up to you. It's in your hands whether or not you wish to be tolerant to my handicap.
QUOTE
But I see you are probably annoyed at my dismissal of your maths. Surely you should know better than to swamp me with maths that I have repeatedly stated that I do not care for.
Do you question yourself about the utility ( or necessity ) of math ? Why are you so angry about math ?
That time slows down is what makes it interesting. Why is timeslow down part of gravity for instance?
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 11 2007, 11:39 PM)
Why is timeslow down part of gravity for instance?
Because by AWT the gravity field is the density gradient of Aether and the increasing of Aether density slows down the energy spreading (between others).
Because by AWT the gravity field is the density gradient of Aether and the increasing of Aether density slows down the energy spreading (between others).
QUOTE (Cédric H.+Aug 11 2007, 08:10 PM)
Do you question yourself about the utility ( or necessity ) of math ? Why are you so angry about math ?
Do not assume that I am 'angry' about maths. For I find it to be quite useful, having worked as a mechanical engineer.
However, I have followed a rejectionist attitude towards maths, such that, when it comes to Physics, I believe that Physics can be done without maths...
Just look at how these epiphanies were first conceptualized:
1. Einstein apparently came up with Relativity, after having a dream in which he dreamt he was riding on a beam of light.
2. When Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, he said: "The scales fell from my eyes"
3. Johannes Gutenberg described the idea of the printing press as coming 'light a beam of light'
4. Newton said he got the idea of gravity, from a falling apple
Did maths come up with these things? - No. They were 'all' flashes of insight; great moments of discovery.
Do not assume that I am 'angry' about maths. For I find it to be quite useful, having worked as a mechanical engineer.
However, I have followed a rejectionist attitude towards maths, such that, when it comes to Physics, I believe that Physics can be done without maths...
Just look at how these epiphanies were first conceptualized:
1. Einstein apparently came up with Relativity, after having a dream in which he dreamt he was riding on a beam of light.
2. When Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, he said: "The scales fell from my eyes"
3. Johannes Gutenberg described the idea of the printing press as coming 'light a beam of light'
4. Newton said he got the idea of gravity, from a falling apple
Did maths come up with these things? - No. They were 'all' flashes of insight; great moments of discovery.
And what did they do after their "flash" ? A lot of math to express their "flash" and to derive other interesting results...
Thinking that there are other valid arguments than math seems good to me. But definitely rejecting math as an argument ( as you did with rpnner ) ...
Thinking that there are other valid arguments than math seems good to me. But definitely rejecting math as an argument ( as you did with rpnner ) ...
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 12 2007, 10:06 AM)
Do not assume that I am 'angry' about maths. For I find it to be quite useful, having worked as a mechanical engineer.
However, I have followed a rejectionist attitude towards maths, such that, when it comes to Physics, I believe that Physics can be done without maths...
Just look at how these epiphanies were first conceptualized:
1. Einstein apparently came up with Relativity, after having a dream in which he dreamt he was riding on a beam of light.
2. When Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, he said: "The scales fell from my eyes"
3. Johannes Gutenberg described the idea of the printing press as coming 'light a beam of light'
4. Newton said he got the idea of gravity, from a falling apple
Did maths come up with these things? - No. They were 'all' flashes of insight; great moments of discovery.
And again, we come back to the fact that you can't do science without maths.
Again, we come back to the fact that Einstein needed maths to describe his theories.
The same maths which you rejected when RPenner took the time to elaborate upon it.
However, I have followed a rejectionist attitude towards maths, such that, when it comes to Physics, I believe that Physics can be done without maths...
Just look at how these epiphanies were first conceptualized:
1. Einstein apparently came up with Relativity, after having a dream in which he dreamt he was riding on a beam of light.
2. When Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, he said: "The scales fell from my eyes"
3. Johannes Gutenberg described the idea of the printing press as coming 'light a beam of light'
4. Newton said he got the idea of gravity, from a falling apple
Did maths come up with these things? - No. They were 'all' flashes of insight; great moments of discovery.
And again, we come back to the fact that you can't do science without maths.
Again, we come back to the fact that Einstein needed maths to describe his theories.
The same maths which you rejected when RPenner took the time to elaborate upon it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 11 2007, 11:25 PM)
And again, we come back to the fact that you can't do science without maths.
Again, we come back to the fact that Einstein needed maths to describe his theories.
The same maths which you rejected when RPenner took the time to elaborate upon it.
Look, if you read anything I said, then you would realise I was pointing out that the original insights came from an 'epiphany', rather than from something derived from mathematics.
Sure, if you want to go and turn your theory into something that will be mass-marketed to the entire scientific community, then you're going to need to do some maths.
But for the abstract purposes of these forums, the former is the kind of thing which is necessary for creating interesting debate.
I'm not saying that everyone needs an epiphany in order to discuss anything. I am saying that if people have ideas/theories which they themselves have created (from epiphanies perhaps), then they should not be forced to provide mathematical workings, unless they state that they intend to run for a nobel, or something.
If I had an epiphany, and it was for some kind of instantaneous-travel device, and it was a really genius idea which, if put into practice, would work. Then would you ignore the idea simply on the basis that I never provided any maths to go with my explanation? - To do so, would be foolish.
Again, we come back to the fact that Einstein needed maths to describe his theories.
The same maths which you rejected when RPenner took the time to elaborate upon it.
Look, if you read anything I said, then you would realise I was pointing out that the original insights came from an 'epiphany', rather than from something derived from mathematics.
Sure, if you want to go and turn your theory into something that will be mass-marketed to the entire scientific community, then you're going to need to do some maths.
But for the abstract purposes of these forums, the former is the kind of thing which is necessary for creating interesting debate.
I'm not saying that everyone needs an epiphany in order to discuss anything. I am saying that if people have ideas/theories which they themselves have created (from epiphanies perhaps), then they should not be forced to provide mathematical workings, unless they state that they intend to run for a nobel, or something.
If I had an epiphany, and it was for some kind of instantaneous-travel device, and it was a really genius idea which, if put into practice, would work. Then would you ignore the idea simply on the basis that I never provided any maths to go with my explanation? - To do so, would be foolish.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 10:06 PM)
1. Einstein apparently came up with Relativity, after having a dream in which he dreamt he was riding on a beam of light.
First of all this is not true, Einstein explained his idea in mathematical form. You can check it out ]here
Secondly, your inability to use math guarantees that you can not explain your ideas as physicists usually do. Most wannabees on this forum share the same problem.
Thirdly, as pointed out by several of us, your ideas are not progressive, they are regressive in that you deny experimental and theoretical data and you are unsuccessfully trying to take physics backwards (see your theory on the mass of the photon for example)
Lastly, in order to make valid contributions to science, you need to understand the existent state of the art, something that you and the other wannabees don't even bother learning
When one of us takes the time (like rpenner, AN, Learnscience, Trippy,Lalbatros, etc) to explain things to you, you simply shut your years and eyes and you repeat the same incorrect statements. If we use math, you ask for it to be removed. Math is the language employed in physics. Get used to it.
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 03:25 AM)
Einstein explained his idea in mathematical form
He "just" derived some extrapolations of constant speed of light concept.
But who will explain us, why the speed of light should remain invariant (in the vacuum) at all?
The usage of postulate in the derivation IS NOT the explanation of postulate. It's just the manifestation of the pure belief in that postulate.
And the pure belief is not enough in the science. We can always ask, WHY the light speed should remain constant and whether some observations (like the gravitational lensing) doesn't violate such assumption.
This is the normal process of science evolution.
He "just" derived some extrapolations of constant speed of light concept.
But who will explain us, why the speed of light should remain invariant (in the vacuum) at all?
The usage of postulate in the derivation IS NOT the explanation of postulate. It's just the manifestation of the pure belief in that postulate.
And the pure belief is not enough in the science. We can always ask, WHY the light speed should remain constant and whether some observations (like the gravitational lensing) doesn't violate such assumption.
This is the normal process of science evolution.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 12:31 AM)
He "just" derived some extrapolations of constant speed of light concept.
"Just"? "Some extrapolations"? This is one of the most abject slurs that you have spouted so far. "He" practically rewrote the whole field of physics.
But who will explain us, why the speed of light should remain invariant (in the vacuum) at all? The usage of postulate in the derivation IS NOT the explanation of postulate.
...it is not meant to be.
...it is not meant to be.
It's just the manifestation of the pure belief in that postulate.
This is why it is called a postulate. This was explained to you many, many times. Why do you have so much difficulty in understanding this simple concept?
This was also explained to you countless times. You can start by learning the difference between speed and velocity. Whe you do that, you may be able to stop mixing apples and oranges
"Just"? "Some extrapolations"? This is one of the most abject slurs that you have spouted so far. "He" practically rewrote the whole field of physics.
QUOTE
But who will explain us, why the speed of light should remain invariant (in the vacuum) at all? The usage of postulate in the derivation IS NOT the explanation of postulate.
...it is not meant to be.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But who will explain us, why the speed of light should remain invariant (in the vacuum) at all? The usage of postulate in the derivation IS NOT the explanation of postulate. |
...it is not meant to be.
It's just the manifestation of the pure belief in that postulate.
This is why it is called a postulate. This was explained to you many, many times. Why do you have so much difficulty in understanding this simple concept?
QUOTE
And the pure belief is not enough in the science. We can always ask, WHY the light speed should remain constant and whether some observations (like the gravitational lensing) doesn't violate such assumption.
This was also explained to you countless times. You can start by learning the difference between speed and velocity. Whe you do that, you may be able to stop mixing apples and oranges
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 12:31 PM)
He "just" derived some extrapolations of constant speed of light concept.
But who will explain us, why the speed of light should remain invariant (in the vacuum) at all?
The usage of postulate in the derivation IS NOT the explanation of postulate. It's just the manifestation of the pure belief in that postulate.
And the pure belief is not enough in the science. We can always ask, WHY the light speed should remain constant and whether some observations (like the gravitational lensing) doesn't violate such assumption.
This is the normal process of science evolution.
I've already explained these things to you, several times.
I've also aske dyou to justify why the speed of light shouldn't be finite and constant, something you have FAILED to do.
But who will explain us, why the speed of light should remain invariant (in the vacuum) at all?
The usage of postulate in the derivation IS NOT the explanation of postulate. It's just the manifestation of the pure belief in that postulate.
And the pure belief is not enough in the science. We can always ask, WHY the light speed should remain constant and whether some observations (like the gravitational lensing) doesn't violate such assumption.
This is the normal process of science evolution.
I've already explained these things to you, several times.
I've also aske dyou to justify why the speed of light shouldn't be finite and constant, something you have FAILED to do.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 12 2007, 11:45 AM)
Look, if you read anything I said, then you would realise I was pointing out that the original insights came from an 'epiphany', rather than from something derived from mathematics.
Sure, if you want to go and turn your theory into something that will be mass-marketed to the entire scientific community, then you're going to need to do some maths.
But for the abstract purposes of these forums, the former is the kind of thing which is necessary for creating interesting debate.
I'm not saying that everyone needs an epiphany in order to discuss anything. I am saying that if people have ideas/theories which they themselves have created (from epiphanies perhaps), then they should not be forced to provide mathematical workings, unless they state that they intend to run for a nobel, or something.
If I had an epiphany, and it was for some kind of instantaneous-travel device, and it was a really genius idea which, if put into practice, would work. Then would you ignore the idea simply on the basis that I never provided any maths to go with my explanation? - To do so, would be foolish.
Oh god.
This discussion is making my head hurt, and not for any good reasons.
So basically what your saying is that you believe that SR, in it's ENTIRETY came to Einstein in a moment of insight, and that everything that came to him in that moment of insight was correct?
Get real.
That's not how epiphanies work.
Once again. Every model requires some maths to make it applicable, even when it comes to describing it in words.
You can not avoid it. Maths is what enables us to use the model to make useful predictions.
And yeah, if you couldn't prove that such an instananeous travel device actually worked, and was safe, both of which eventually would require maths, then I don't think you'd convince anyone to use it.
Sure, if you want to go and turn your theory into something that will be mass-marketed to the entire scientific community, then you're going to need to do some maths.
But for the abstract purposes of these forums, the former is the kind of thing which is necessary for creating interesting debate.
I'm not saying that everyone needs an epiphany in order to discuss anything. I am saying that if people have ideas/theories which they themselves have created (from epiphanies perhaps), then they should not be forced to provide mathematical workings, unless they state that they intend to run for a nobel, or something.
If I had an epiphany, and it was for some kind of instantaneous-travel device, and it was a really genius idea which, if put into practice, would work. Then would you ignore the idea simply on the basis that I never provided any maths to go with my explanation? - To do so, would be foolish.
Oh god.
This discussion is making my head hurt, and not for any good reasons.
So basically what your saying is that you believe that SR, in it's ENTIRETY came to Einstein in a moment of insight, and that everything that came to him in that moment of insight was correct?
Get real.
That's not how epiphanies work.
Once again. Every model requires some maths to make it applicable, even when it comes to describing it in words.
You can not avoid it. Maths is what enables us to use the model to make useful predictions.
And yeah, if you couldn't prove that such an instananeous travel device actually worked, and was safe, both of which eventually would require maths, then I don't think you'd convince anyone to use it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 12 2007, 04:03 AM)
I've already explained these things to you, several times.
I've also asked you to justify why the speed of light shouldn't be finite and constant, something you have FAILED to do.
You never explained, why the light speed should remain constant at all.
Concerning the light speed invariance violation, rhe gravitational lensing is based on the non-constant speed of light in the vacuum.
Or something is deadly wrong with my understanding of laws of optics...
I've also asked you to justify why the speed of light shouldn't be finite and constant, something you have FAILED to do.
You never explained, why the light speed should remain constant at all.
Concerning the light speed invariance violation, rhe gravitational lensing is based on the non-constant speed of light in the vacuum.
Or something is deadly wrong with my understanding of laws of optics...
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 01:13 AM)
You never explained, why the light speed should remain constant at all.
Concerning the light speed invariance violation, rhe gravitational lensing is based on the non-constant speed of light in the vacuum.
You repeat the same errors over and over. What is the difference between speed and velocity?
Hint : speed does not vary in the gravitational lensing effect.
Yes, it is your understandng of the elementary difference between speed and velocity
Concerning the light speed invariance violation, rhe gravitational lensing is based on the non-constant speed of light in the vacuum.
You repeat the same errors over and over. What is the difference between speed and velocity?
Hint : speed does not vary in the gravitational lensing effect.
QUOTE
Or something is deadly wrong with my understanding of laws of optics.
Yes, it is your understandng of the elementary difference between speed and velocity
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 04:18 AM)
... it is your understanding of the elementary difference between speed and velocity
The lensing effect is based on the difference in refraction index, i.e. the difference between the light speed. The phase velocity has nothing to do in light refraction experiments: what is changing here is really the group speed of light. Everybody can see, the dense vacuum behaves here like the common optical lens with the high refractive index, i.e. the ratio of light speed.
The lensing effect is based on the difference in refraction index, i.e. the difference between the light speed. The phase velocity has nothing to do in light refraction experiments: what is changing here is really the group speed of light. Everybody can see, the dense vacuum behaves here like the common optical lens with the high refractive index, i.e. the ratio of light speed.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 01:13 PM)
You never explained, why the light speed should remain constant at all.
Concerning the light speed invariance violation, rhe gravitational lensing is based on the non-constant speed of light in the vacuum.
Or something is deadly wrong with my understanding of laws of optics...
Something is very wrong with your understanding of Optics Zephir.
Velocity is a vector, it has a magnitude and a direction.
Speed is a scalar, it has a magnitude only.
When light is gravitationally lensed it can be said to have been accelerated.
This is because the direction of the vector that represents the velocity of the ray of light has changed. It has curved towards the center of mass.
The SPEED of the light howver has remained constant, because the size of the vector represented by the velocity of the ray of light has remained unchanged.
Do you understand that?
Even though the direction of the motion of the light ray has changed, thus meaning we can describe the light ray as having been accelerated, the size of the motion remains unchanged. The speed remains constant, it is JUST the direction that changes.
And I have explained why the speed of light should remain constant, multiple times, even within this thread.
But, seeing as how you're either blind or ignoring those posts, I'll restate it,
Light consists of an electric field and a magnetic field.
The speed at which light can propogate through space is limited by the speed at which electric and magnetic fields can propogate through space.
This is limited by two fundamental constants which are independendent of the speed of the observer, the permeability and permittivity of a vacuum.
This fact is confirmed everytime someone turns on a particle accelerator.
Because the speed of light is limited by two fundamental constants which are independent of the speed of the observer, and ONLY limited by these two constants, we should expect that the speed of light should be found to be the same, independent of the speed of the observer.
Concerning the light speed invariance violation, rhe gravitational lensing is based on the non-constant speed of light in the vacuum.
Or something is deadly wrong with my understanding of laws of optics...
Something is very wrong with your understanding of Optics Zephir.
Velocity is a vector, it has a magnitude and a direction.
Speed is a scalar, it has a magnitude only.
When light is gravitationally lensed it can be said to have been accelerated.
This is because the direction of the vector that represents the velocity of the ray of light has changed. It has curved towards the center of mass.
The SPEED of the light howver has remained constant, because the size of the vector represented by the velocity of the ray of light has remained unchanged.
Do you understand that?
Even though the direction of the motion of the light ray has changed, thus meaning we can describe the light ray as having been accelerated, the size of the motion remains unchanged. The speed remains constant, it is JUST the direction that changes.
And I have explained why the speed of light should remain constant, multiple times, even within this thread.
But, seeing as how you're either blind or ignoring those posts, I'll restate it,
Light consists of an electric field and a magnetic field.
The speed at which light can propogate through space is limited by the speed at which electric and magnetic fields can propogate through space.
This is limited by two fundamental constants which are independendent of the speed of the observer, the permeability and permittivity of a vacuum.
This fact is confirmed everytime someone turns on a particle accelerator.
Because the speed of light is limited by two fundamental constants which are independent of the speed of the observer, and ONLY limited by these two constants, we should expect that the speed of light should be found to be the same, independent of the speed of the observer.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 01:31 PM)
The lensing effect is based on the difference in refraction index, i.e. the difference between the light speed. The phase velocity has nothing to do in light refraction experiments: what is changing here is really the group speed of light. Everybody can see, the dense vacuum behaves here like the common optical lens with the high refractive index, i.e. the ratio of light speed.
No, gravitational lensing occurs because light obeys the equivalence principle.
It curves, because when it passes through a gravitational field, it responds as if it was being observed by someone in an accelerating refernce frame (a gross over simiplification, but it will suffice for now).
Gravitational lensing was predicted (accurately) because Einstein realized that an observer in an accelerating reference frame, and an observer in a gravitational field were in equivalent situations. We know that when a ray of light passes through an elevator horizontally, and the elevator is accelerating at 1G then the observer in the elevator will measure the ray of light to have curved towards the floor by some amount. The equivalence principle tells us that an observer watching a ray of light pass through a gravitational field of strength 1G should observe the ray of light to bend by the same amount.
This prediction was first experimentally confirmed nearly 100 years ago, and every experiment conducted since then has also confirmed it.
No, gravitational lensing occurs because light obeys the equivalence principle.
It curves, because when it passes through a gravitational field, it responds as if it was being observed by someone in an accelerating refernce frame (a gross over simiplification, but it will suffice for now).
Gravitational lensing was predicted (accurately) because Einstein realized that an observer in an accelerating reference frame, and an observer in a gravitational field were in equivalent situations. We know that when a ray of light passes through an elevator horizontally, and the elevator is accelerating at 1G then the observer in the elevator will measure the ray of light to have curved towards the floor by some amount. The equivalence principle tells us that an observer watching a ray of light pass through a gravitational field of strength 1G should observe the ray of light to bend by the same amount.
This prediction was first experimentally confirmed nearly 100 years ago, and every experiment conducted since then has also confirmed it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 12 2007, 04:40 AM)
The SPEED of the light however has remained constant, because the size of the vector represented by the velocity of the ray of light has remained unchanged.
Do you understand that?
Not at least, because the dense vacuum near massive object is apparently behaving like the area with higher refraction index from outer observer perspective. And the higher refraction index means the lower speed of light undeniably, not just some the "velocity vector". This is simply how the optics works from Huygens's times.
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If something refracts the light like lens, it's a lens.
While I know the arguments of yours quite well, I can tell you for sure, the parroting of textbooks won't help you here... I know exactly, where is your problem in relativity and Aether understanding.
Do you understand that?
Not at least, because the dense vacuum near massive object is apparently behaving like the area with higher refraction index from outer observer perspective. And the higher refraction index means the lower speed of light undeniably, not just some the "velocity vector". This is simply how the optics works from Huygens's times.
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If something refracts the light like lens, it's a lens.
While I know the arguments of yours quite well, I can tell you for sure, the parroting of textbooks won't help you here...
I know exactly, where is your problem in relativity and Aether understanding.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 01:49 PM)
Not at least, because the dense vacuum near massive object is apparently behaving like the area with higher refraction index from outer observer perspective. And the higher refraction index means the lower speed of light undeniably, not just the "velocity vector". This is simply how the optics works
While I know the arguments of your quite well, I can tell you for sure, the parroting of textbooks won't help you here... I know exactly, where is your problem in relativity and Aether understanfing.
I wasn't addressing the optics of a glass lens, I was addressing the gravitational lensing of light around massive objects.
The optics of lenses occurs by a different mechanism, and exactly how the mechanism works depends upon who you talk to.
Some people will tell you that the apprent slowing of light as it enters an optically dense medium is because it interacts with the atoms of that medium, and that interaction gives it the apperance of slowing down.
I'm of the opnion that teh other mechanism is correct, or it's a combination of bothn mechanisms.
Ironically, the mechanism that I favour is the same mechanism by which I have explained teh constancy of the speed of loight in a vacuum.
Most optically dense materials have a permittivity and permeability greater then that of the vacuum, therefore it could be expected that the speed of light in these mediums is intrinsically lower. It is these same properties that give optically dense materials their refractive properties (what, preceisely did you think the refractuve index was measured relative to Zephir?).
So, Zephir, it seems that your argument falls over agin in the face of logic and rationality. Sorry, better luck next time.
While I know the arguments of your quite well, I can tell you for sure, the parroting of textbooks won't help you here...
I know exactly, where is your problem in relativity and Aether understanfing. I wasn't addressing the optics of a glass lens, I was addressing the gravitational lensing of light around massive objects.
The optics of lenses occurs by a different mechanism, and exactly how the mechanism works depends upon who you talk to.
Some people will tell you that the apprent slowing of light as it enters an optically dense medium is because it interacts with the atoms of that medium, and that interaction gives it the apperance of slowing down.
I'm of the opnion that teh other mechanism is correct, or it's a combination of bothn mechanisms.
Ironically, the mechanism that I favour is the same mechanism by which I have explained teh constancy of the speed of loight in a vacuum.
Most optically dense materials have a permittivity and permeability greater then that of the vacuum, therefore it could be expected that the speed of light in these mediums is intrinsically lower. It is these same properties that give optically dense materials their refractive properties (what, preceisely did you think the refractuve index was measured relative to Zephir?).
So, Zephir, it seems that your argument falls over agin in the face of logic and rationality. Sorry, better luck next time.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 12 2007, 04:57 AM)
The optics of lenses occurs by a different mechanism, and exactly how the mechanism works depends upon who you talk to.
This is just a conjecture of yours. How can you prove it?
Furthemore, we aren't disputing the mechanism of lensing at all, just the result.
This is just a conjecture of yours. How can you prove it?
Furthemore, we aren't disputing the mechanism of lensing at all, just the result.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 02:03 PM)
This is just a conjecture of yours. How can you prove it?
Furthemore, we aren't disputing the mechanism of lensing at all, just the result.
By your standards, it's not up to me to prove it, it's up to you to disprove it.
Just like you still haven't answered my question of why should the speed of light not be constant.
Furthemore, we aren't disputing the mechanism of lensing at all, just the result.
By your standards, it's not up to me to prove it, it's up to you to disprove it.
Just like you still haven't answered my question of why should the speed of light not be constant.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 12 2007, 05:14 AM)
Just like you still haven't answered my question of why should the speed of light not be constant.
Like I've told you already by many times, it's because virtually everybody can observe it at the case of gravitational lensing in the telescope. We aren't required to speculate about non-constant speed of light, we can simply see it.
The AWT by the different density of vacuum (and the corresponding difference in refraction index) near the massive objects. The matter is concentrated energy, but the surface phase interface is not strict barrier at the case, the mass/energy density inside of massive objects is very high. We can say, every massive object is surrounded by the graviton "coat".
Like I've told you already by many times, it's because virtually everybody can observe it at the case of gravitational lensing in the telescope. We aren't required to speculate about non-constant speed of light, we can simply see it.
The AWT by the different density of vacuum (and the corresponding difference in refraction index) near the massive objects. The matter is concentrated energy, but the surface phase interface is not strict barrier at the case, the mass/energy density inside of massive objects is very high. We can say, every massive object is surrounded by the graviton "coat".
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 01:31 AM)
The lensing effect is based on the difference in refraction index, i.e. the difference between the light speed.
Nope, this has been explained to you countless times. Even my garden furniture would have understood that by now.
Nope, this has been explained to you countless times. Even my garden furniture would have understood that by now.
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 05:25 AM)
Nope, this has been explained to you countless times. Even my garden furniture would have understood that by now.
The stance just demonstrates, how deeply is the "understanding" of yours based on the religion, memorized from the textbooks. Because you're not understanding the subject in fact, you cannot explain, how the lensing phenomena should be possible just under changing of the velocity, while every lensing requires the change in speed. What are you doing in fact is just the mixing of the inner and the outer observer perspectives. From inner observer point of view it really seems, the light changes just the path of direction in the gravitational lensing, but not the speed of light.
While the experience of outer observer (i.e. those, who remains unaffected by this gravitational field) is exactly as opposite. I repeated this explanation in observer perspective many times.
Or do you really believe, the removal of the observer from the curved space-time will change nothing on his observational experience?
If yes, how it will differ from the common relativity predictions? If not, why to bother with some curvature of spacetime at all?
The stance just demonstrates, how deeply is the "understanding" of yours based on the religion, memorized from the textbooks. Because you're not understanding the subject in fact, you cannot explain, how the lensing phenomena should be possible just under changing of the velocity, while every lensing requires the change in speed. What are you doing in fact is just the mixing of the inner and the outer observer perspectives. From inner observer point of view it really seems, the light changes just the path of direction in the gravitational lensing, but not the speed of light.
While the experience of outer observer (i.e. those, who remains unaffected by this gravitational field) is exactly as opposite. I repeated this explanation in observer perspective many times.
Or do you really believe, the removal of the observer from the curved space-time will change nothing on his observational experience?
If yes, how it will differ from the common relativity predictions? If not, why to bother with some curvature of spacetime at all?
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 02:35 AM)
The stance of yours just demonstrates, how deeply is the "understanding" of yours based on the religion, memorized from the textbooks. Because you're not understanding the subject, you're just mixing the inner and the outer observer perspectives. From inner observer point of view it really seems, the light changes just the path of direction in the gravitational lensing, but not the speed of light.
Despite your pretentious posting, you are still wrong.
While the experience of outer observer (i.e. those, which remains unaffected by this gravitational field) is exactly as opposite. I repeated this explanation in observer perspective many times.
....and every time you repeated the same mistake. So what else is new?
....and every time you repeated the same mistake. So what else is new?
If yes, how it will differ from the common relativity predictions? If not, why to bother with some curvature of spacetime at all?
This was explained to you countless times. Chances are much higher that my lawn furniture will understand before you do.
The lensing is based on the refraction index gradient, i.e. the light speed gradient. It's as easy, as that.
Umm, my lawn furniture still says you are mistaken. Do you read this stuff off a crank site or do you make it up as you go?
Despite your pretentious posting, you are still wrong.
QUOTE
While the experience of outer observer (i.e. those, which remains unaffected by this gravitational field) is exactly as opposite. I repeated this explanation in observer perspective many times.
....and every time you repeated the same mistake. So what else is new?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
While the experience of outer observer (i.e. those, which remains unaffected by this gravitational field) is exactly as opposite. I repeated this explanation in observer perspective many times. |
....and every time you repeated the same mistake. So what else is new?
If yes, how it will differ from the common relativity predictions? If not, why to bother with some curvature of spacetime at all?
This was explained to you countless times. Chances are much higher that my lawn furniture will understand before you do.
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 05:40 AM)
Despite your pretentious posting, you are still wrong.
This doesn't change anything on my arguments... After all, you never explained here anything, I can remember you under the Pupamancur and Manco IDs here as well. You're complete ignorant, concerning the physics.
Can you demonstrate the difference between the glass lensing and the gravitational lensing by experimental way? For example, in the Keck II observations the gravitational lensing is used as a sort of additive optical lens, which increases the magnitude of very distant objects. How the behavior of vacuum differs from the behavior of some glass lens, after then?
This doesn't change anything on my arguments...
After all, you never explained here anything, I can remember you under the Pupamancur and Manco IDs here as well. You're complete ignorant, concerning the physics.Can you demonstrate the difference between the glass lensing and the gravitational lensing by experimental way? For example, in the Keck II observations the gravitational lensing is used as a sort of additive optical lens, which increases the magnitude of very distant objects. How the behavior of vacuum differs from the behavior of some glass lens, after then?
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 02:47 AM)
This doesn't change anything on my arguments... After all, you never explained here anything, I can remember you under the Pupamancur and Manco IDs here as well. You're complete ignorant, concerning the physics.
I have no idea what you are referring to but I can see that they are people that also gave you neg feedbacks . Well deserved.
Can you demonstrate the difference between speed and velocity? Still not? My lawn has learned by now
After all, you never explained here anything, I can remember you under the Pupamancur and Manco IDs here as well. You're complete ignorant, concerning the physics.I have no idea what you are referring to but I can see that they are people that also gave you neg feedbacks . Well deserved.
QUOTE
Can you demonstrate the difference between the glass lensing and the gravitational lensing by experimental way? For example, in the Keck II observations the gravitational lensing is used as a sort of additive optical lens, which increases the magnitude of very distant objects. How the behavior of vacuum differs from the behavior of some glass lens, after then?
Can you demonstrate the difference between speed and velocity? Still not? My lawn has learned by now
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 05:54 AM)
Can you demonstrate the difference between speed and velocity?
The change just in velocity cannot lead to the lensing phenomena. Punctum.
The change just in velocity cannot lead to the lensing phenomena. Punctum.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 02:56 AM)
The change just in velocity cannot lead to the lensing phenomena. Punctum.
Thank you, Zweinstein. My lawn furniture politely disagrees with you. It says that you are wrong
Thank you, Zweinstein. My lawn furniture politely disagrees with you. It says that you are wrong
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 05:58 AM)
My lawn furniture politely disagrees with you
Such dumb comment cannot change anything on my argument.
The lensing is based on the refraction index gradient, i.e. the light speed gradient. It's as easy, as that.
[removed]
Such dumb comment cannot change anything on my argument.
The lensing is based on the refraction index gradient, i.e. the light speed gradient. It's as easy, as that.
[removed]
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 03:05 AM)
The lensing is based on the refraction index gradient, i.e. the light speed gradient. It's as easy, as that.
Umm, my lawn furniture still says you are mistaken. Do you read this stuff off a crank site or do you make it up as you go?
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 06:52 AM)
Umm, my lawn furniture still says you are mistaken.
It's irrelevant, until it doesn't explain, why I'm mistaken.
I've no reason to believe it.
It's irrelevant, until it doesn't explain, why I'm mistaken.
I've no reason to believe it.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 12 2007, 04:06 AM)
It's irrelevant, until it doesn't explain, why I'm mistaken.
Because you don't know the difference between speed and velocity. That is quite clear from your repeated posts. By now, everybody's lawn furniture has learned it. But not you
Because you don't know the difference between speed and velocity. That is quite clear from your repeated posts. By now, everybody's lawn furniture has learned it. But not you
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 12 2007, 07:11 AM)
Because you don't know the difference between speed and velocity.
Technically, the fact I know or I don't understand something cannot become the causal base of anything...
For example, I can guess and claim the correct stance quite accidentally, i.e. without some understanding at all.
If you really want to refute it, the burden of proof still remains on you.
Technically, the fact I know or I don't understand something cannot become the causal base of anything...
For example, I can guess and claim the correct stance quite accidentally, i.e. without some understanding at all.
If you really want to refute it, the burden of proof still remains on you.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
I mean, you've got one photon, travelling say, 1 million light years to us. It has to travel without being deflected at all, in it's journey towards us. Considering the length of time, it is likely that the photon will collide with particles or atoms along the way, and go off course, but a minority of photons may make it to us, and we will finally see the light from the star they originated from.
In our universe, a distance of a mere million light years isn't even far enough to have to invoke cosmological expansion (a GR effect). Star luminosities are measured to be modeled accurately by the 1/r² Euclidean explanation over such a trivial distance. Photon-photon interactions are seriously suppressed at this energy scale, so the couple hundred CMB photons per cubic centimeter are effectively perfectly transparent to visible light. The proof of this is in the sharpness of images out to many billion light years.
The HST can detect Cepheids to about 40 Mpc, over 6 times farther than ground based telescopes.
M32 (about 3 million light years away) has very well-resolved stars.
The HST can detect Cepheids to about 40 Mpc, over 6 times farther than ground based telescopes.
M32 (about 3 million light years away) has very well-resolved stars.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
So you've got two methods here. The first is that they simply lose vibrational energy, and therefore have a reduced frequency that we cannot see.
Not observed over a distance of a mere million light years.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
The second is that they are deflected off course by particles/atoms.
Observed, but not useful in avoiding Olbers' paradox. It's also quite slight over a mere 1 million lightyears.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
(or gravitational sources) along the way.
Not observed. Observed gravitational lensing is not a random scattering process. It produces a clear (but distorted image) and is somewhat useful to use as a cosmological magnifying glass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational...al_applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational...al_applications
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
I don't know how you came to the idea that light speed would be infinite if time dilation wasn't true. You'll have to explain that to me.
Because K = 1/c² and you wanted to talk about a fictional universe where K = 0.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 11 2007, 07:08 PM)
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 11:05 AM)
I simply have the mindset of: Question everything. Yet I am attacked/abused for it.
Because only a child asks an endless series of questions to an authority figure and expects them to be answered. Real questioning is an exercise in observation and logic and is therefore work. Your thoughtless dismissal of a careful post I worked on for some considerable time is based on nothing but laziness.
You aim to trivialize my questions, by first calling me a child, and secondly by insinuating that I do not ask 'real questions aka. questions with logic'.
No. I said you were lazy for not trying to answer your own questions with logic and observation and math, and lazy for not reading answers with trivial amounts of math in them. "Question everything" is not science -- it has no concept of when an answer is "good enough," like my examples of avoiding being hit by a car. It's not healthy skepticism, but pathological distrust of even simple observations. And because of the laziness of asking others before doing your own work, it is in the end an appeal to authority, which is somewhat child-like. But the laziness is demonstrable and the actual criticism intended.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
I just find this so patronizing, especially from you, whom I did not expect such an attack.
If not a patron (il patron!) then just to whom was your question addressed? It was not a rhetorical device because you disdain the effort it requires to answer it.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
But I see you are probably annoyed at my dismissal of your maths.
P=1.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
Surely you should know better than to swamp me with maths that I have repeatedly stated that I do not care for.
I'm an expert on some physics topics, not Bryn Richards. I find the former to be a more worthy topic of study.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
Know in future, that I only accept verbal explanations (ie. Explanations in words, with zero maths).
If you had read you would see that there is no dividing line between logical exposition and math. There are no Arabic Numbers in this work. Logic shades into math. The Metamath project goes from classic logic to Cauchy limits and Hilbert spaces.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
Now, you either accept my terms, or you just simply don't talk to me.
Arrogant ***! By your rules there is no physics. What was the title of Newton's book of physics? Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. You should have known that was the ground rules before you entered the discussion forums.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 11 2007, 07:56 PM)
I leave the decision up to you. It's in your hands whether or not you wish to be tolerant to my handicap.
It's not a handicap you are helpless to remedy. It is what I called it before: laziness.
We are seeeing the surfaces of distant things. I don't think there is dust in the voids so we ought to get a clear view of distant objects IMHO.
Nick
Nick
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.