Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
In this scenario one friend doesn't go anywhere. The other friend does the travelling. harry On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > I don't see why the "direction" of the 2 friends matter, dialation is an > effect of the velocity wrt C ... no vector is involved, just a trigonmetric > relationship of the spatial plane to another dimensional axis. Bothfriends > slow down the same amount regardless of direction and the only dilation is > between themselves and the outside stationary world they are passing thru > if they have the same velocity.. when they meet up they should however find > their time quite different from that read on a clock at their stationary > meeting place. > > > > *From:* H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2014 2:06 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Eric Walker > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder wrote: > > > > Imagine two friends with synchronized watches. One friend boards a train > and zips away for a time at near c and then gets off and walks back to his > friend > > so that they can compare the time on their watches. Which watch is ahead? > > > > Using the principles of SR I can come up with contradictory answers. > > > > I'm curious what the two scenarios are. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > Each friend should see the other's watch tick more slowly according to > special relativity. Therefore when they meet up again, both watches should > record the same elapsed time, but what happened to the time-dilation effect > on the passage time? SR ends in contradiction when watches are compared > after the travelling. > > > > Dave mentions that acceleration might play role in resolving the > contradiction. I have heard that reason too, but it strikes me as hand > waving. Even if acceleration has to be factored in, the ratio of time spent > accelerating to the time spent travelling at uniform speed near c can be > assumed to be arbrarily small so that the acceleration becomes irrelevant. > > > > Harry > > > >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > I don't see why the "direction" of the 2 friends matter > When it comes to the ability to observe the rate of time the other party is experiencing it is everything. If one friend sees the other as receding, this motion will change each friends view of the time rate of the other, they will appear even more slowed than you would have SR predict. (constantly increasing communication delay) If they were travelling toward each other, this motion would make each see the others rate of time faster than it s actually occuring as each moment the communication delay would be less. If they are passing and perpendicular, then they both have a chance to see how time passes in the other frame relative to their own frame without these distortions. It is now harder to imagine that each is going to see time stalled for the other while they are passing through time, this is taken to extremes (which require some variations) we could have centuries pass for each while observing the other to have no time pass. If while passing the friends suddenly accelerate/decelerate equally to come to a relative stop in an arbitrarily short period of time then the experience of each friend is equal (especially if each was the native to their previous reference frames) and one can't be selected to have objectively experienced less time than the other, so it is a draw, each must see time onboard the other guys ship to suddenly speed up supernaturally as they decelerate so that the other twin has had as much time pass as they have had. Worse yet, this speed up would magically depend on how much time needs to be made up for, if both were natives to their respective initial reference frames then they and the matter they are composed on has a LOT of missing time to make up for! But if they are newer to the reference frame which they are now decelerating from, you would expect less time to pass. , dialation is an effect of the velocity wrt C ... no vector is involved, > just a trigonmetric relationship of the spatial plane to another > dimensional axis. > Saying it like that separates it from reality suddenly you can ignore what one sees of another. It is just math, and things can be done that are physically impossible. > Bothfriends slow down the same amount regardless of direction and the > only dilation is between themselves and the outside stationary world they > are passing thru if they have the same velocity.. when they meet up they > should however find their time quite different from that read on a clock at > their stationary meeting place. > The 'stationary' meeting place is moving to. And as such they see the time on this 'stationary' frame to be stopped, even though if they come to a stop relative to this frame, this frame should suddenly be ahead. Secondly the expectation of which twin is far ahead in time depends on how they meet, if one accelerates suddenly to the speed on the other, in that moment it is finally asymmetric and one twin is suddenly old and the other young, if the other twin accelerates it is the reverse. Or they could met in the middle and be the same age, just imagine them face to face at 99% of *C* passing each other and getting to each make that decision that either of then could be young, aged or middle aged in an instant! Yes, SR makes so much sense and is internally consistent. > > > *From:* H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2014 2:06 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Eric Walker > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder wrote: > > > > Imagine two friends with synchronized watches. One friend boards a train > and zips away for a time at near c and then gets off and walks back to his > friend > > so that they can compare the time on their watches. Which watch is ahead? > > > > Using the principles of SR I can come up with contradictory answers. > > > > I'm curious what the two scenarios are. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > Each friend should see the other's watch tick more slowly according to > special relativity. Therefore when they meet up again, both watches should > record the same elapsed time, but what happened to the time-dilation effect > on the passage time? SR ends in contradiction when watches are compared > after the travelling. > > > > Dave mentions that acceleration might play role in resolving the > contradiction. I have heard that reason too, but it strikes me as hand > waving. Even if acceleration has to be factored in, the ratio of time spent > accelerating to the time spent travelling at uniform speed near c can be > assumed to be arbrarily small so that the acceleration becomes irrelevant. > > > > Harry > > > >
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
I don't see why the "direction" of the 2 friends matter, dialation is an effect of the velocity wrt C ... no vector is involved, just a trigonmetric relationship of the spatial plane to another dimensional axis. Bothfriends slow down the same amount regardless of direction and the only dilation is between themselves and the outside stationary world they are passing thru if they have the same velocity.. when they meet up they should however find their time quite different from that read on a clock at their stationary meeting place. From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 2:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote: Imagine two friends with synchronized watches. One friend boards a train and zips away for a time at near c and then gets off and walks back to his friend so that they can compare the time on their watches. Which watch is ahead? Using the principles of SR I can come up with contradictory answers. I'm curious what the two scenarios are. Eric Each friend should see the other's watch tick more slowly according to special relativity. Therefore when they meet up again, both watches should record the same elapsed time, but what happened to the time-dilation effect on the passage time? SR ends in contradiction when watches are compared after the travelling. Dave mentions that acceleration might play role in resolving the contradiction. I have heard that reason too, but it strikes me as hand waving. Even if acceleration has to be factored in, the ratio of time spent accelerating to the time spent travelling at uniform speed near c can be assumed to be arbrarily small so that the acceleration becomes irrelevant. Harry
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Would they "move" from our perspective or simply expand and contract as they pass thru our 3d plane? From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility But Terry, but are these epo's moving? Do they occur with a random velocity relative to light speed? If so they could be anywhere from stationary to 99.% of the speed of light, with the latter being about as likely as the former. But the evidence seems to point to them being largely stationary relative to the Lab reference frame. Also epo's might be one thing, but are you discounting everything else? John On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: The vacuum is composed of polarized electron positron pairs (epo). http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/05/diracs_equation_and_the_sea_of.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, John Berry wrote: > But Terry, but are these epo's moving? No, unless they are hit by a photon which alters their polarization. Hotson explains it well in the referenced article. Although, it might help to read his first two articles before. www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf Although, we have discussed this ad infinitum about a dozen years ago: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33614.html But I think part 3 offers some aspects not clear in the originals.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
[snip] So it makes far more sense to consider this proof of something that can exist, the aether, than proof of something that can't (all frames being equal and experiencing unequal time dilation equally).[/snip] EXACTLY! Our metrics of time and distance all assume physical objects to limit displacement to 3D.. the Pythagorean basis of Lorentzian formulas is screaming physical displacement 90 degrees to the observers 3D plane. This also ties into the failure of M&M to detect any ether drift because the ether is moving through all 3 spatial dimensions at 90 degrees and therefore contraction normally only occurs when you increase the number of interactions by velocity or gravity well [the Haisch Rhueda analogy of speeding car through a downpour of rain].. I suspect relativistic hydrogen as suggested ny Naudts for the hydrino is actually reducing the rainfall through Casimir suppression and results in less interaction .. from our perspective the contraction would appear symmetrical since we become the near luminal observer as compared to the negative value of "rainfall"/ether in the geometry - that is to say WE are contracting at 90 degrees to a hypothetical nano observer riding the suppressed hydrogen inside the skeletal catalyst or grains of nano powder where of course time and space seems locally normal to the observer. I would guess Lorentzian contraction still obeys the 1 axis rule we have come to accept from the perspective of this nano observer where the entrance to the cavity would seem to shrink farther away increasing the volume of the cavity and allowing more gas atoms to accumulate inside than exterior measurements would seem to indicate possible like a nano TARTUS from DR Who. Since suppression doesn't require near luminal displacement in any spatial dimension the contraction is shared equally in each direction. Just my story and I am sticking to it :_) From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: >Ok, so time dilation must have occurred for the muon, it moved through the >reference frame of the lab and lasted longer because of it. But the Muon was not conscious, carried no instrumentation and surely had no evidence to offer to indicate that it observed time was seeming to occur more swiftly for it than for the lab.< In my model, the muon did not consider that its life time was any different than at complete rest. It was not time dilated as far as it was concerned. You missed my point, I did not say the muon should observe it's own time to slow down, I said that SR would expect the muon to see the lab as moving at near the speed of light, and it would expect (in SR) to see the lab's clock to be running slow. The only ones measuring the muon time dilation are the observers on Earth. Yes, and what is observing the muons view of how time passes in the Lab? frame No one. Unless muons are conscious but it would be dead, perhaps a seance for the muon could be carried out? To make matters worse, you get the right answer if you consider the muon as observing length contraction of the path that it takes. Then, I had time dilation for one observer and length contraction for the other to contend with. Each process gave a valid seeming answer. I was looking for a hole in SR, but came up empty. Only then did I realize that the operation of the LHC also matched these two nasty calculations. Back to ground zero. Only if you want to accept something logically impossible and indefensible. Time dilation and or length contraction are concepts that originally occurred to those considering movement relative to an aether. So it makes far more sense to consider this proof of something that can exist, the aether, than proof of something that can't (all frames being equal and experiencing unequal time dilation equally). John
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
But Terry, but are these epo's moving? Do they occur with a random velocity relative to light speed? If so they could be anywhere from stationary to 99.% of the speed of light, with the latter being about as likely as the former. But the evidence seems to point to them being largely stationary relative to the Lab reference frame. Also epo's might be one thing, but are you discounting everything else? John On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > The vacuum is composed of polarized electron positron pairs (epo). > > http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/05/diracs_equation_and_the_sea_of.html > >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Axil, who are you asking? On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Intense EMF will breakdown the vacuum, electric fields produce > electron/positron particle pairs that do not immediately self-annihilate; > intense magnetic fields produce mesons out of the vacuum. > > > > How do you account for this connection between EMF and the vacuum in the > theories that you are partial to? > > > > >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
The vacuum is composed of polarized electron positron pairs (epo). http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/05/diracs_equation_and_the_sea_of.html
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
John said [snip] This tells us that the substance of the vacuum, the virtual particles are primarily entrained by the laboratory reference frame, so another way to do this would be to try and move the 'space' through a stationary mirror.[/snip] John, That may be the next step after we learn how to extract energy from the motion of this substance through our reactor to instead supply energy to these Rydberg atoms in such a way to push against this substance .. or as you say move space through a stationary target such as your mirror. Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote: Remember this one? http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html Scientists create light from vacuum The speed of light in a vacuum can be effected by EMF based influences such as magnetic fields, spin entanglement, and squeezing. The physicist Moore predicted way back in 1970 that this should happen if the virtual photons are allowed to bounce off a mirror that is moving at a speed that is almost as high as the speed of light. That is interestingly at odds with SR, all mirrors are moving at near the speed of light relative to some reference frame, and if all reference frames are equal then it should not require the mirror to move and differently. This indicates that the quantum particles aren't popping up with a random velocity relative to the Lab reference frame, but that they are relatively stationary relative to the Lab reference frame which requires the mirror to move. This tells us that the substance of the vacuum, the virtual particles are primarily entrained by the laboratory reference frame, so another way to do this would be to try and move the 'space' through a stationary mirror. John
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
I will answer my question as follows: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0365v2.pdf *Spin interactions in mesons in strong magnetic field* quote: It is remarkable, how magnetic field (m/f.) changes the spin-spin forces. First of all, the matrix element of the high frequency (hf) term V (H) 4 (r) ∼ (3)(r), in the strong m.f. is proportional to the 2(0) – the probability of coming together of quark (q) and antiquark (¯q), which in strong m.f. grows as eB The formation of mesons is proportional to the magnetic field strength. This might well be the reason why the LENR reaction is dependent on the strength of the magnetic field. In a weak magnetic field, NI61 does not enter into the LENR reaction whereas the zero spin isotopes of nickel do. However, in a very strong magnetic field, all nuclear spin configurations will enter into a LENR reaction. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Intense EMF will breakdown the vacuum, electric fields produce > electron/positron particle pairs that do not immediately self-annihilate; > intense magnetic fields produce mesons out of the vacuum. > > > > How do you account for this connection between EMF and the vacuum in the > theories that you are partial to? > > > > >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Intense EMF will breakdown the vacuum, electric fields produce electron/positron particle pairs that do not immediately self-annihilate; intense magnetic fields produce mesons out of the vacuum. How do you account for this connection between EMF and the vacuum in the theories that you are partial to?
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Yes - I also consider neo Lorentzian theories the way to go. M&M insisted on the Ether existing upon a spatial axis while a relativistic interpretation assigns the ether to an axis 90 degrees from the spatial plane running parallel to the temporal axis and possibly populating said medium with what we call virtual particles that expand into and then shrink out of our 3D ant farm reality. An ether 90 degree displaced would explain contraction in a Pythagorean relationship between spatial velocity and time along only the axis of displacement which is Lorentzian contraction as we know it, Even more interesting is Naudt's paper suggesting the hydrino to be relativistic hydrogen... contraction without near luminal displacement along a spatial axis and symmetrical on all 3 spatial axii we are looking at decreasing the number of virtual particles winking into and out of existence instead of increasing the number as typically occurs with near C velocity or deep gravity wells. So yes your quandary over whether contraction is real or not is valid but from a relativistic perspective the orientation thwarts any attempt for the contracted spaceship to fly through the eye of a needle - if the hydrino is relativistic maybe it will answer this question - perhaps this be the mechanism that bootstraps the columb reduction allowing the NAE? Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility I looked and found this one, while not the one I read initially, it will do for now: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote: Additionally there are cases where it has failed and these cases are consistent with an entrained aether, apparently GPS satellite systems show such issues. Can you say more about GPS satellite systems an their issues with the aether or provide a reference. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: John, you make a lot of interesting arguments, but special relativity always seems to come through with the right answers. Mostly true, but it gives the same answers as an entrained aether. Remember that SR is largely based of a rehash of an aether theory anyway. Additionally there are cases where it has failed and these cases are consistent with an entrained aether, apparently GPS satellite systems show such issues. When I ponder these same issues I can always bring myself back to earth by considering the behavior of a particle accelerator such as the LHC. It is hard to doubt that the protons are moving at very nearly the speed of light since the time it takes them to complete one revolution around the track is extremely well defined. The distance is accurately measured as well, so it is easy to make the velocity calculation. Sure, but what of those disagrees with the concept that the protons are moving through an aether entrained by the earth reference frame? And that a particle moving through the aether would be limited to less than C? Additionally it could be that electromagnetic acceleration simply does not work past the speed of light, so even if it were possible for a particle to exceed the speed of light through the aether it might be impossible to get it there without a second reference frame to boost it. With the speed limit so well defined, you must ask yourself why this is so? Because it is the speed limit (possibly not for everything though) of movement through the aether. If the aether were entrained by a spaceship, it could exceed the speed of light without exceeding the speed of light locally. Time dilation is something that the observer determines as I have been saying in earlier posts. The particles that are moving at such a fantastic velocity do not believe that they are any different than when at rest. It so happens that they are correct according to their instruments while all the other observers in motion relative to them measure otherwise. If you ramp up from particles to trains, or spaceships I think y
