Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
John I agree with you, and I think the crux of the issue is that there are other experiments that have been misinterpreted as well. SR is a convenient way of explaining things away around the perceived absence of the aether. I have been working on a model that I think explains things better. I have recently been putting together a model of a so-called Black Hole. It's not a singularity as most would think. It is a massive torroidal aether waveform, currently physics wants to call the aether dark matter, but that is simply aether in motion at a rate that makes it appear close to matter. I have finally figured out after decades of thought, how to prove my point, and that is that a black hole can be described mathematically under my model, in such a way, as to account for ALL matter/energy entering the structure without being collected into some fictitious singularity It is being converted into inertia and ejectile. There is nothing lost and the equations will balance! So I feel that is proof enough to begin with, and encourage me to further my study. But that is another matter off discussion. Poor Einstein went too far with the Doppler effect thinking that it could modify matter, or space for that matter. In fact, as you suggest, it's an illusion. When the second twin returns, his clock appears to run faster (the other side of the signal coming towards the train as you so elegantly point out), and in the end, the two differences cancel each other out. The twins remain the same age, poof! No time dilation. Physics is simply mired in explaining things in ridiculous terms that explain what we see is really happening to the aether. Different terms are used to describe the same thing that is all. It still works without SR and the broken rules of quantum physics. Remember Super Symmetry has been proven a failure already, this is not unexpected. When they can collect a Higgs Boson naturally occurring, and not as a result of being manufactured artificially then I might buy into that as well. For now, the Higgs Field is yet another end run on what we already know about aether. With respect, Gibson From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson 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 you will have a hard time envisioning this. Consider the example of a train on a circular track. If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on the train, and their clocks. initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you see their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you can use a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock. Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
David? I really am anxiously waiting for evidence. Not trying to rush you, but just don't forget ok? Assuming you are still talking to me. Yeah, patience isn't my strong suit. John On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, it is great that we are now in agreement concerning my example of the two parallel moving charges. It comes as a complete surprise to me that you now accept the fact that the field observed by the stationary lab due to one of the moving charges can influence the motion of the second moving charge as seen by that same lab. The whole time I stressed that I was talking about how SR would demand it is seen, and was not necessarily my personal belief as I reject SR. This is at total odds with SR. And I would not use the term 'seen' either, rather the charge moving through the aether of the Earth/Lab frame would create a magnetic field that would be seen by all observers in all frames essentially the same however they are moving. Otherwise you have huge Paradoxes appear. You made quite a point initially that this could not happen. If SR is correct, which clearly I do not believe, read my posts I did mention that. If I recall correctly, you very clearly stated that there was no magnetic field present as seen by each ball in the frame of reference that moves with the balls so there could not be one seen in any other moving frame. According to SR, which I still hold as true IF SR were true, which it isn't. Also I am not saying definitively either way, other than to say I prefer a model with absolute motion relative to a locally entrained aether. You said there is experimental evidence to back up this view, please share it and you may take me from favouring the view to being certain of it. Seriously I would appreciate ALL evidence that a moving charge seems to effect things in a magnetic manner even when that thing being effected is moving with the charge, and hence is subject to no relative motion. Help me be certain! If you believed the way I did all along then why did you attack my position in the first post? 1: I was stating from an SR perspective, and from an SR perspective that is still true. And to me proving SR wrong on electrodynamics is a big thing. 2: I had not formulated an opinion as to what should happen in a non-SR view at the time, it could be the same or different, I have since looked at the subject and find some evidence for thinking that it is not related to relative motion between the charge and anything that responds to the charge. 3: I still can in no way agree (ever) with the view that each frame sees what they expect from their relative motion to the charge (if any) to be seen to occur in other frames, that is paradox city. If you are moving with the electric charge you would not see a magnetic field and insist that no other frames act that way, but if you do have relative motion, then you expect to see other frames respond to the magnetic field you see and not the field you would expect to see if you occupied that other frame. Also you must admit that if we transferred this argument to magnets and coils inducing voltage, a coil with no motion to a magnetic field will get no induction, ever. That there is such an asymmetry between electric and magnetic induction surprises and delights me, symmetry is overrated. There is nothing wrong with changing ones understanding, but there is something strange about pretending to believe the other way all along when the evidence is clearly otherwise. Please show me this clear evidence, I am still only aware of vague evidence I have sighted in the Homopolar thread. The only explanation that I can come up with as to how we could have been in agreement all along as you now imply is that there has been some kind of misunderstanding. If this is true please explain what you found wrong with my example in the first place. If a charged object moves through aether (from wire, or a lab frame) and generates a magnetic field that can be seen by all observers in any state of motion essentially identically, I have no problems with that at all. Now I am not utterly convinced of it, but I like it and can see some evidence for it. And I want more. However if an electron/charged tennis ball sits still in a void, and fails to deflect a compass (c1) that is not moving relative to, but does defect a second compass that it is moving relative too it, and an observer is moving with that compass (c2) now expects the stationary compass (c1) to be also deflected to agree with the magnetic field the moving frame sees? And yet an observer stationary relative to stationary compass (c1) demands that neither compass is deflected... That is the problem, I hope you understand this. That is what I was and am still arguing with IF you believe
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
John, I am pursuing other goals at the moment and have little time left to go into this further. You should read about SR at your leisure and will find the answers by yourself. I also realize that apparently we were not able to communicate earlier since I must have misunderstood your points badly. You had me convinced that you were on the other side of my arguments only to find out later that you agreed. I can not overcome such an obstacle. From time to time I will make other posts about various calculations concerning SR that you are welcome to question. Now is not the time to continue that process. Have you tried Moletrap yet? Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 23, 2014 5:31 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility David? I really am anxiously waiting for evidence. Not trying to rush you, but just don't forget ok? Assuming you are still talking to me. Yeah, patience isn't my strong suit. John On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, it is great that we are now in agreement concerning my example of the two parallel moving charges. It comes as a complete surprise to me that you now accept the fact that the field observed by the stationary lab due to one of the moving charges can influence the motion of the second moving charge as seen by that same lab. The whole time I stressed that I was talking about how SR would demand it is seen, and was not necessarily my personal belief as I reject SR. This is at total odds with SR. And I would not use the term 'seen' either, rather the charge moving through the aether of the Earth/Lab frame would create a magnetic field that would be seen by all observers in all frames essentially the same however they are moving. Otherwise you have huge Paradoxes appear. You made quite a point initially that this could not happen. If SR is correct, which clearly I do not believe, read my posts I did mention that. If I recall correctly, you very clearly stated that there was no magnetic field present as seen by each ball in the frame of reference that moves with the balls so there could not be one seen in any other moving frame. According to SR, which I still hold as true IF SR were true, which it isn't. Also I am not saying definitively either way, other than to say I prefer a model with absolute motion relative to a locally entrained aether. You said there is experimental evidence to back up this view, please share it and you may take me from favouring the view to being certain of it. Seriously I would appreciate ALL evidence that a moving charge seems to effect things in a magnetic manner even when that thing being effected is moving with the charge, and hence is subject to no relative motion. Help me be certain! If you believed the way I did all along then why did you attack my position in the first post? 1: I was stating from an SR perspective, and from an SR perspective that is still true. And to me proving SR wrong on electrodynamics is a big thing. 2: I had not formulated an opinion as to what should happen in a non-SR view at the time, it could be the same or different, I have since looked at the subject and find some evidence for thinking that it is not related to relative motion between the charge and anything that responds to the charge. 3: I still can in no way agree (ever) with the view that each frame sees what they expect from their relative motion to the charge (if any) to be seen to occur in other frames, that is paradox city. If you are moving with the electric charge you would not see a magnetic field and insist that no other frames act that way, but if you do have relative motion, then you expect to see other frames respond to the magnetic field you see and not the field you would expect to see if you occupied that other frame. Also you must admit that if we transferred this argument to magnets and coils inducing voltage, a coil with no motion to a magnetic field will get no induction, ever. That there is such an asymmetry between electric and magnetic induction surprises and delights me, symmetry is overrated. There is nothing wrong with changing ones understanding, but there is something strange about pretending to believe the other way all along when the evidence is clearly otherwise. Please show me this clear evidence, I am still only aware of vague evidence I have sighted in the Homopolar thread. The only explanation that I can come up with as to how we could have been in agreement all along as you now imply is that there has been some kind of misunderstanding. If this is true please explain what you found wrong with my example in the first place. If a charged object moves through aether (from wire, or a lab frame
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Hi David, I am very aware of SR, and I was not asking about that, conversely if you have evidence of what you claim, I would consider that strong evidence against SR. I was asking about magnetic fields existing between 2 mutually stationary electric charges that are in motion together though a laboratory frame, which is very much not SR, but absolute motion through an aether, or possibly a beyond paradoxical many worlds Schroedinger's magnetic field effect as you may see it. But evidence for the latter is very unlikely to not apply equally well as evidence for absolute motion through an entrained aether. So while I can wait if you have other things right now, I am very interested in such evidence, even if you just tell me what to Google. Thank you, John On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, I am pursuing other goals at the moment and have little time left to go into this further. You should read about SR at your leisure and will find the answers by yourself. I also realize that apparently we were not able to communicate earlier since I must have misunderstood your points badly. You had me convinced that you were on the other side of my arguments only to find out later that you agreed. I can not overcome such an obstacle. From time to time I will make other posts about various calculations concerning SR that you are welcome to question. Now is not the time to continue that process. Have you tried Moletrap yet? Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 23, 2014 5:31 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility David? I really am anxiously waiting for evidence. Not trying to rush you, but just don't forget ok? Assuming you are still talking to me. Yeah, patience isn't my strong suit. John On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, it is great that we are now in agreement concerning my example of the two parallel moving charges. It comes as a complete surprise to me that you now accept the fact that the field observed by the stationary lab due to one of the moving charges can influence the motion of the second moving charge as seen by that same lab. The whole time I stressed that I was talking about how SR would demand it is seen, and was not necessarily my personal belief as I reject SR. This is at total odds with SR. And I would not use the term 'seen' either, rather the charge moving through the aether of the Earth/Lab frame would create a magnetic field that would be seen by all observers in all frames essentially the same however they are moving. Otherwise you have huge Paradoxes appear. You made quite a point initially that this could not happen. If SR is correct, which clearly I do not believe, read my posts I did mention that. If I recall correctly, you very clearly stated that there was no magnetic field present as seen by each ball in the frame of reference that moves with the balls so there could not be one seen in any other moving frame. According to SR, which I still hold as true IF SR were true, which it isn't. Also I am not saying definitively either way, other than to say I prefer a model with absolute motion relative to a locally entrained aether. You said there is experimental evidence to back up this view, please share it and you may take me from favouring the view to being certain of it. Seriously I would appreciate ALL evidence that a moving charge seems to effect things in a magnetic manner even when that thing being effected is moving with the charge, and hence is subject to no relative motion. Help me be certain! If you believed the way I did all along then why did you attack my position in the first post? 1: I was stating from an SR perspective, and from an SR perspective that is still true. And to me proving SR wrong on electrodynamics is a big thing. 2: I had not formulated an opinion as to what should happen in a non-SR view at the time, it could be the same or different, I have since looked at the subject and find some evidence for thinking that it is not related to relative motion between the charge and anything that responds to the charge. 3: I still can in no way agree (ever) with the view that each frame sees what they expect from their relative motion to the charge (if any) to be seen to occur in other frames, that is paradox city. If you are moving with the electric charge you would not see a magnetic field and insist that no other frames act that way, but if you do have relative motion, then you expect to see other frames respond to the magnetic field you see and not the field you would expect to see if you occupied that other frame. Also you must admit that if we transferred this argument to magnets
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 hohlr...@gmail.commailto: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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder 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
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 eric.wal...@gmail.commailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.commailto: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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Absolutely Harry! Another thing is that if acceleration changes anything, then you end up in a even weirder paradox. Let's propose that when travelling at near C the twin that accelerated picks up a hitch-hiker alien that has always been in this reference frame. Then when the twins are passing each other, they can each communicate in real time, they can each see the other's frames time rate. Now if as the twins are checking out each others time rate (communicating perpendicular to direction of travel as they are passing each other) they each accelerate/decelerate equally until they occupy the same reference frame. Now SR would argue that since the experience of the twin that accelerated initially is asymmetrical to the experience of the other twin who didn't that we should expect to see that the expectations of the non-accelerating twin would win out. But because the experience of the hitch-hiking alien and the non accelerating twins are symmetrical, then we have a draw! This would mean that as the non accelerating twin sees the other twin as they are moving, he would see the watch belonging to the alien to tick at a normal rate, but the watch of his brother to tick more slowly! OR he would see the watch of both the alien and his bro tick more slowly than his, but when the 2 ships come to a relative stop he would need to see in an instant all that time the alien missed out on would need to be seen to occur at a greatly accelerated rate while the brother would be unaffected! John On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:05 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder 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
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 eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Harry, I am currently supporting the idea that acceleration is the main reason for the clock differences because it would not appear reasonble to expect a difference in clock readings if both observers continued to move at constant velocities. They need to eventually come to rest at the same location to make an accurate comparison. Some might argue that a signal could be sent between then, but I prefer to have a solid legitimate measurement that can not be faked. My visualization of the system is fairly simple to follow. Initially, both brothers are at rest and can synchronize their watches. In this state, we can assign the location as 0,0,0,0. The 3 space dimensions are zeroed out as well as the clocks synchronized to read zero time. From this initial state everything concerning their velocity, position and of course instantaneous acceleration can be totally determined by one measurement, which is acceleration. This parameter can be measured relatively easily and also is not influenced by any relative motion of the remainder of the universe. In other words, the spaceman on the ship knows exactly what his acceleration is at every point in time. Now, the first integral of acceleration is velocity. The magnitude of the instantaneous velocity as well as its direction can be accurately calculated by the space guy. Next, he can perform a second integration of the acceleration to obtain an accurate reading of his position with respect to the initial coordinate system reference point where his brother is located. This collection of data representing his instantaneous velocity and position can then be used to calculate any time dilation or distance contraction effects that he expects to measure. If the spaceman controls his acceleration carefully, he can pass very close to his brother at a high velocity. If no additional acceleration is applied, then we would expect the balanced time dilation effect that we have been considering a paradox. But keep in mind that there had to be quite a bit of behind the scenes acceleration applied in order to get to this condition. So far I have not pursued an exact calculation of this type of case and therefore can not speak with authority that the numbers add up. Others claim that they have done this and you might wish to locate some of their proofs. If I recall, there was an article in Scientific American a few years ago where they claimed to have done that. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 2:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I am currently supporting the idea that acceleration is the main reason for the clock differences because it would not appear reasonble to expect a difference in clock readings if both observers continued to move at constant velocities. Ok, so let's propose that 2 very long parallel space trains exist, both were built and neither has begun moving, except they were built in different reference frames by beings that existed naturally in this state of motion/stillness, the relative speed between the train is 99.9% of *C*. Each occupant of each train can look at the clocks and occupants in the other train, according to SR each would expect to see that in the tiny window of time they have to inspect the rate of time in each cabin, then the rate of time in the other train would appear slowed, this is odd as they would both need to agree despite the fact that high speed real time communication between the cabins would be possible. Anyway the real paradox is this, each sees that almost no time has passed for the occupants of the opposite train, if both trains accelerate evenly to come to a relative stop SR would declare a tie, and demand that in the instant it takes to equalize speeds that each would see time in the other train to accelerate dramatically to have it experience all the missing time. If one matches the other however it is asymmetrical and the accelerated train should be found to have less time having passed. And of course visa versa. In case you missed it let me point that out again, our 'twins' can look at each other face to face (at velocity), both see the other an younger, but then how they equalize speeds will effect the age each twin is when they meet! They could both be middle age if they meet in the middle, or either one could be young and the other old depending on who changes speed to come to a relative stop! And if a passenger on one of these trains was from another reference frame, they would age differently. Objections can be raised for say twins existing in different reference frames, and there are issues with synchronization, but these issues are solvable with slight variations such as a slightly curved path than lead to the trains actually being in counter-rotating loops. If a slight curve changed time dilation dramatically from what it would be straight line then time dilation would never exist since all paths are curved in practice as we are orbiting stars, galaxies etc... John They need to eventually come to rest at the same location to make an accurate comparison. Some might argue that a signal could be sent between then, but I prefer to have a solid legitimate measurement that can not be faked. My visualization of the system is fairly simple to follow. Initially, both brothers are at rest and can synchronize their watches. In this state, we can assign the location as 0,0,0,0. The 3 space dimensions are zeroed out as well as the clocks synchronized to read zero time. From this initial state everything concerning their velocity, position and of course instantaneous acceleration can be totally determined by one measurement, which is acceleration. This parameter can be measured relatively easily and also is not influenced by any relative motion of the remainder of the universe. In other words, the spaceman on the ship knows exactly what his acceleration is at every point in time. Now, the first integral of acceleration is velocity. The magnitude of the instantaneous velocity as well as its direction can be accurately calculated by the space guy. Next, he can perform a second integration of the acceleration to obtain an accurate reading of his position with respect to the initial coordinate system reference point where his brother is located. This collection of data representing his instantaneous velocity and position can then be used to calculate any time dilation or distance contraction effects that he expects to measure. If the spaceman controls his acceleration carefully, he can pass very close to his brother at a high velocity. If no additional acceleration is applied, then we would expect the balanced time dilation effect that we have been considering a paradox. But keep in mind that there had to be quite a bit of behind the scenes acceleration applied in order to get to this condition. So far I have not pursued an exact calculation of this type of case and therefore can not speak with authority that the numbers add up. Others claim that they have done this and you might wish to locate some of their proofs. If I recall, there was an article in Scientific American a few years ago where they claimed to have done that. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 2:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19
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 eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
I do not follow your description of the trains. What is the purpose of the relative speed being 99.9%c during construction? You should be asking about the muon lifetime dilation which has been proven. Use that one for your example if you want to understand how SR works. I fail to see why you insist upon such weird thought experiments that can not be tested when we have actual examples to analyze. I came to the conclusion earlier that it is not productive to discuss these issues with you since you fail to accept normal electromagnetic phenomenon. Do you still insist that a moving charge does not generate a magnetic field in a stationary lab? And do you still believe that every observer at different relative velocities to that charged particle must see the exact same magnetic field? If you do not accept something as simple as these examples then I can not make any headway. A person needs to learn to walk before he expects to run. You also need to realize that SR is king and we are tiny insects attempting to take it on. Our chances are tiny at best. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I am currently supporting the idea that acceleration is the main reason for the clock differences because it would not appear reasonble to expect a difference in clock readings if both observers continued to move at constant velocities. Ok, so let's propose that 2 very long parallel space trains exist, both were built and neither has begun moving, except they were built in different reference frames by beings that existed naturally in this state of motion/stillness, the relative speed between the train is 99.9% of C. Each occupant of each train can look at the clocks and occupants in the other train, according to SR each would expect to see that in the tiny window of time they have to inspect the rate of time in each cabin, then the rate of time in the other train would appear slowed, this is odd as they would both need to agree despite the fact that high speed real time communication between the cabins would be possible. Anyway the real paradox is this, each sees that almost no time has passed for the occupants of the opposite train, if both trains accelerate evenly to come to a relative stop SR would declare a tie, and demand that in the instant it takes to equalize speeds that each would see time in the other train to accelerate dramatically to have it experience all the missing time. If one matches the other however it is asymmetrical and the accelerated train should be found to have less time having passed. And of course visa versa. In case you missed it let me point that out again, our 'twins' can look at each other face to face (at velocity), both see the other an younger, but then how they equalize speeds will effect the age each twin is when they meet! They could both be middle age if they meet in the middle, or either one could be young and the other old depending on who changes speed to come to a relative stop! And if a passenger on one of these trains was from another reference frame, they would age differently. Objections can be raised for say twins existing in different reference frames, and there are issues with synchronization, but these issues are solvable with slight variations such as a slightly curved path than lead to the trains actually being in counter-rotating loops. If a slight curve changed time dilation dramatically from what it would be straight line then time dilation would never exist since all paths are curved in practice as we are orbiting stars, galaxies etc... John They need to eventually come to rest at the same location to make an accurate comparison. Some might argue that a signal could be sent between then, but I prefer to have a solid legitimate measurement that can not be faked. My visualization of the system is fairly simple to follow. Initially, both brothers are at rest and can synchronize their watches. In this state, we can assign the location as 0,0,0,0. The 3 space dimensions are zeroed out as well as the clocks synchronized to read zero time. From this initial state everything concerning their velocity, position and of course instantaneous acceleration can be totally determined by one measurement, which is acceleration. This parameter can be measured relatively easily and also is not influenced by any relative motion of the remainder of the universe. In other words, the spaceman on the ship knows exactly what his acceleration is at every point in time. Now, the first integral of acceleration is velocity. The magnitude of the instantaneous velocity as well as its direction can be accurately calculated by the space guy. Next, he can perform
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I am currently supporting the idea that acceleration is the main reason for the clock differences because it would not appear reasonble to expect a difference in clock readings if both observers continued to move at constant velocities. This is similar to the explanation I have heard. It is something like this -- the commonly known rules of relativity apply two observers in different *inertial* frames. When one of the parties accelerates, the situation changes. The act of accelerating appears to decrease the rate at which time progresses for the friend who accelerates, and then to speed it back up when he decelerates later on. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img27.gif For the curious, following is an equation from Einstein's 1905 paper that relates time for two bodies in motion relative to one another. Here I believe the coordinates of the two inertial frames are set up so that only x and x' differ, such that *x' = x - vt*. I think one of the bodies is understood to be at velocity *v*=0. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not follow your description of the trains. What is the purpose of the relative speed being 99.9%c during construction? Because the reason given for which twin in the classic twin paradox is younger comes down to acceleration, the acceleration is asymmetrical giving as answer that one twin is younger due to experiencing time differently. If the moving train is 'native' to the near light speed frame, and if the other train is likewise native to it's frame, then we have a symmetrical situation. This removes SR's ability to pick which twin should be younger, and it allows us in the final moments of the experiment to continue with the symmetry, or let one twin be younger and one older by creating an asymmetry, which depends on how the trains match velocity! The biggest issue is that we can't have twins in the 2 reference frames 'naturally'. The solution to this is for the 2 non twin observers to quickly establish the rate of times passage and the current 'time' on the other train as they are momentarily aligned (actually with a train you can observe times rates in multiple carriages and read the time on multiple clocks) and before they undergo almost instantaneous velocity changes. Changes that would decide, (in twin speak) if one is old and one is young, or both are middle aged. You should be asking about the muon lifetime dilation which has been proven. Muons are not conscious, do not carry clocks (besides that of their demise). And have no control over their velocity. Interestingly this makes them immune to time dilation if you insist that time dilation only applies in twin paradox conditions, then didn't accelerate, leave, stop, turn around, accelerate again, stop again. They just flew through, and yet they are 'yonger' on account of not having decayed when expected. As for how I explain it, they are experiencing absolute time dilation due to movement through the aether that is entrained to the Earth Laboratory frame. Use that one for your example if you want to understand how SR works. I fail to see why you insist upon such weird thought experiments that can not be tested when we have actual examples to analyze. As I said, you can't get muons to do anything interesting, lazy bastards. All they do is decay. Almost the solution to cold fusion, but no, again they are too lazy to even get that right! Also the thought experiments CAN be tested, even easily at walking speeds if we had precise enough clocks! Remember electrons create magnetic fields with relativistic length contraction from moving at the dizzying speeds of a snail. Now that is not as dramatic for thought experiment purposes, hey thought experiments have unlimited imaginary budgets and vaguely possible technology from the distant future. Why think small. I came to the conclusion earlier that it is not productive to discuss these issues with you since you fail to accept normal electromagnetic phenomenon. Um, you fail to accept glaring paradoxes. But please, tell me what normal electromagnetic phenomena I do not accept? I am genuinely interested because before I was arguing about electromagnetism from a SR point of view, and you may have notices I do not agree with SR. In other words I was not talking about what I believed. Do you still insist that a moving charge does not generate a magnetic field in a stationary lab? I have never argued to the contrary, and still do not. The only argument I have made is that if the observer is moving with the charge, then according to SR he should not see a magnetic field from that charge. But according to my own beliefs, if the charge is moving through the lab/earth entrained aether, then it would create a magnetic field even for an observer moving with the charge. However while I want to believe this last one, I merely think it is more likely and not certain. If you tried the same with magnetism you would not see and voltage induced in the coil if it moves with the magnet, not from any reference frame. And do you still believe that every observer at different relative velocities to that charged particle must see the exact same magnetic field? If you read our long discussion, you will see I always argues the exact opposite! This is creepy dude, seriously. Bill Beaty has a page on this sort of thing. That is essentially what you were arguing, not what I was arguing! I argued that each observer would see a different strength, polarity and axis of the magnetic field from the particle including none. You 'appeared' to the arguing the same, except that you expect every other frame to appear to act as though it is seeing the same magnetic field as any/every possible observer, even though it sees a different magnetic field. But I would not be certain because much of what you said was contradictory. If you do not accept something as simple as these examples then I can not make any headway.
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
John, it is great that we are now in agreement concerning my example of the two parallel moving charges. It comes as a complete surprise to me that you now accept the fact that the field observed by the stationary lab due to one of the moving charges can influence the motion of the second moving charge as seen by that same lab. You made quite a point initially that this could not happen. If I recall correctly, you very clearly stated that there was no magnetic field present as seen by each ball in the frame of reference that moves with the balls so there could not be one seen in any other moving frame. If you believed the way I did all along then why did you attack my position in the first post? There is nothing wrong with changing ones understanding, but there is something strange about pretending to believe the other way all along when the evidence is clearly otherwise. The only explanation that I can come up with as to how we could have been in agreement all along as you now imply is that there has been some kind of misunderstanding. If this is true please explain what you found wrong with my example in the first place. Go back to the first post you made and point out how it matches your present position. It is important for me to uncover the wording problem that lead to the long painful discussions so that I will not have to go through that again. Unless we figure out how to communicate with the same language it is fruitless to continue any discussions. I await your explanation. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 10:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not follow your description of the trains. What is the purpose of the relative speed being 99.9%c during construction? Because the reason given for which twin in the classic twin paradox is younger comes down to acceleration, the acceleration is asymmetrical giving as answer that one twin is younger due to experiencing time differently. If the moving train is 'native' to the near light speed frame, and if the other train is likewise native to it's frame, then we have a symmetrical situation. This removes SR's ability to pick which twin should be younger, and it allows us in the final moments of the experiment to continue with the symmetry, or let one twin be younger and one older by creating an asymmetry, which depends on how the trains match velocity! The biggest issue is that we can't have twins in the 2 reference frames 'naturally'. The solution to this is for the 2 non twin observers to quickly establish the rate of times passage and the current 'time' on the other train as they are momentarily aligned (actually with a train you can observe times rates in multiple carriages and read the time on multiple clocks) and before they undergo almost instantaneous velocity changes. Changes that would decide, (in twin speak) if one is old and one is young, or both are middle aged. You should be asking about the muon lifetime dilation which has been proven. Muons are not conscious, do not carry clocks (besides that of their demise). And have no control over their velocity. Interestingly this makes them immune to time dilation if you insist that time dilation only applies in twin paradox conditions, then didn't accelerate, leave, stop, turn around, accelerate again, stop again. They just flew through, and yet they are 'yonger' on account of not having decayed when expected. As for how I explain it, they are experiencing absolute time dilation due to movement through the aether that is entrained to the Earth Laboratory frame. Use that one for your example if you want to understand how SR works. I fail to see why you insist upon such weird thought experiments that can not be tested when we have actual examples to analyze. As I said, you can't get muons to do anything interesting, lazy bastards. All they do is decay. Almost the solution to cold fusion, but no, again they are too lazy to even get that right! Also the thought experiments CAN be tested, even easily at walking speeds if we had precise enough clocks! Remember electrons create magnetic fields with relativistic length contraction from moving at the dizzying speeds of a snail. Now that is not as dramatic for thought experiment purposes, hey thought experiments have unlimited imaginary budgets and vaguely possible technology from the distant future. Why think small. I came to the conclusion earlier that it is not productive to discuss these issues with you since you fail to accept normal electromagnetic phenomenon. Um, you fail to accept glaring paradoxes. But please, tell me what normal electromagnetic phenomena I do not accept? I am genuinely interested because before I was arguing about electromagnetism from
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, it is great that we are now in agreement concerning my example of the two parallel moving charges. It comes as a complete surprise to me that you now accept the fact that the field observed by the stationary lab due to one of the moving charges can influence the motion of the second moving charge as seen by that same lab. The whole time I stressed that I was talking about how SR would demand it is seen, and was not necessarily my personal belief as I reject SR. This is at total odds with SR. And I would not use the term 'seen' either, rather the charge moving through the aether of the Earth/Lab frame would create a magnetic field that would be seen by all observers in all frames essentially the same however they are moving. Otherwise you have huge Paradoxes appear. You made quite a point initially that this could not happen. If SR is correct, which clearly I do not believe, read my posts I did mention that. If I recall correctly, you very clearly stated that there was no magnetic field present as seen by each ball in the frame of reference that moves with the balls so there could not be one seen in any other moving frame. According to SR, which I still hold as true IF SR were true, which it isn't. Also I am not saying definitively either way, other than to say I prefer a model with absolute motion relative to a locally entrained aether. You said there is experimental evidence to back up this view, please share it and you may take me from favouring the view to being certain of it. Seriously I would appreciate ALL evidence that a moving charge seems to effect things in a magnetic manner even when that thing being effected is moving with the charge, and hence is subject to no relative motion. Help me be certain! If you believed the way I did all along then why did you attack my position in the first post? 1: I was stating from an SR perspective, and from an SR perspective that is still true. And to me proving SR wrong on electrodynamics is a big thing. 2: I had not formulated an opinion as to what should happen in a non-SR view at the time, it could be the same or different, I have since looked at the subject and find some evidence for thinking that it is not related to relative motion between the charge and anything that responds to the charge. 3: I still can in no way agree (ever) with the view that each frame sees what they expect from their relative motion to the charge (if any) to be seen to occur in other frames, that is paradox city. If you are moving with the electric charge you would not see a magnetic field and insist that no other frames act that way, but if you do have relative motion, then you expect to see other frames respond to the magnetic field you see and not the field you would expect to see if you occupied that other frame. Also you must admit that if we transferred this argument to magnets and coils inducing voltage, a coil with no motion to a magnetic field will get no induction, ever. That there is such an asymmetry between electric and magnetic induction surprises and delights me, symmetry is overrated. There is nothing wrong with changing ones understanding, but there is something strange about pretending to believe the other way all along when the evidence is clearly otherwise. Please show me this clear evidence, I am still only aware of vague evidence I have sighted in the Homopolar thread. The only explanation that I can come up with as to how we could have been in agreement all along as you now imply is that there has been some kind of misunderstanding. If this is true please explain what you found wrong with my example in the first place. If a charged object moves through aether (from wire, or a lab frame) and generates a magnetic field that can be seen by all observers in any state of motion essentially identically, I have no problems with that at all. Now I am not utterly convinced of it, but I like it and can see some evidence for it. And I want more. However if an electron/charged tennis ball sits still in a void, and fails to deflect a compass (c1) that is not moving relative to, but does defect a second compass that it is moving relative too it, and an observer is moving with that compass (c2) now expects the stationary compass (c1) to be also deflected to agree with the magnetic field the moving frame sees? And yet an observer stationary relative to stationary compass (c1) demands that neither compass is deflected... That is the problem, I hope you understand this. That is what I was and am still arguing with IF you believe that. But if you want to believe such a paradox, then go ahead, I just want you to furnish experimental evidence for your view since it should suit my purposes anyway. Both models predict the same thing for an observer that occupies the lab frame. Go back to the first post you made and point out how it matches
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 MM 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 dlrober...@aol.commailto: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
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Let's take a pulse of light, some observers on the ground measuring the time this pulse takes to traverse 2 detectors 1 meter apart, they get a speed of 299,292.458 meters a second. I don't think I've ever seen such an experiment. Do you have a reference? I've only seen experiments that use much more indirect means to measure the speed of light. Then we have have this pulse run along train tracks past a train, they detect this light pulse which they are moving with, and they are meant to detect the same speed. This is an impossibility, except for length contraction and time dilation, only it is still impossible! No. Special relativity talks about what instruments will tell us about the speed of light, independent of internal frame. Whatever experiment is used to measure the speed of light provides the same result, within a small error, no matter in what inertial frame the experiment is tried out. Length contraction and time dilation are ideas that follow from this assumption rather than being ideas that are used to explain it. Special relativity says that when you measure the speed of light using instruments from an inertial frame, you will get c, the speed of light. You've introduced time dilation and length contraction to explain this assumption, and in so doing you've gotten things backwards. It is the Doppler effect, consider that if I was shooting at you and moving towards you, each bullet would have less travel time causing an increase in the rate at which I seem to be firing bullets, this is the same effect as pitch changes in horns as cars go by. In the context of relativity, the doppler effect usually refers to the observation of redshift or blueshift, but I don't think that's what you have in mind here. Can you please clarify? Next let's go back to our train and light pulses, if the train is seen to shrink from the earth frame, then the distance of the meter shrinks so even though they are moving with the light pulse the stationary observer could expect their speed of light measure to agree. But now what if we send another pulse in the other direction??? I think you're mixing velocity with proper velocity [1], but I can't tell for sure from your description. The observer on the train, which in order to be in an inertial frame must be moving at constant velocity, measures the speed of light to be the same whether the beam is aimed in the direction of the train or against it. This is about measurements. The observer on earth measures light coming from the train to be at the speed of light. All light, measured at the speed of light, *c*. Now the earth measures the expected rate, sure. But the train is travelling against the direction, this would cause them to expect to find the light to be, ahem, superluminal. No. We would not expect to find the light to be superluminal. We would expect to find it to be at the speed of light, c, because this is the fundamental assumption of special relativity. All of the other stuff, regarding time dilation, length contraction, and so on, flow from this assumption rather than being used to explain it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Let's take a pulse of light, some observers on the ground measuring the time this pulse takes to traverse 2 detectors 1 meter apart, they get a speed of 299,292.458 meters a second. I don't think I've ever seen such an experiment. Do you have a reference? I've only seen experiments that use much more indirect means to measure the speed of light. Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. Then we have have this pulse run along train tracks past a train, they detect this light pulse which they are moving with, and they are meant to detect the same speed. This is an impossibility, except for length contraction and time dilation, only it is still impossible! No. No to what? Special relativity talks about what instruments will tell us about the speed of light, independent of internal frame. Which are? What is wrong with the instrument I suggested, how could you discount them as impossible? Whatever experiment is used to measure the speed of light provides the same result So why ask about the instrument if all are the same? , within a small error, no matter in what inertial frame the experiment is tried out. So? You see you say 'what ever frame' but can you point out an experiment that measures 2 different inertial frames for the same light at the same time? The fact is that small differences are observed and small differences are all that would occur with an aether that is entrained. But we do not need to bother ourselves with what has and has not been observed. We can concern ourselves with what is possible and what is impossible due to being logicically consistent or inconsistent. Length contraction and time dilation are ideas that follow from this assumption rather than being ideas that are used to explain it. It is used to explain it in every book I have read on Special Relativity. It would be odd to say that the speed of light is always the same from all reference frames despite it being illogical and impossible. If you are saying that this in not explained by length contraction and or time dilation then you are saying it happens without any established explanation. Would an explanation that it isn't the same speed if a detector does not drag the reference frame make more sense than it is the same with no possible way of reconciling this with logic? Fact is that Special Relativity is based entirely on the idea that the speed of light is constant based on distortions of space and time. That was it's selling point, it explained the consistency of the measured speed of light. Special relativity says that when you measure the speed of light using instruments from an inertial frame, you will get c, the speed of light. You've introduced time dilation and length contraction to explain this assumption, and in so doing you've gotten things backwards. No, I do not! First the speed of light was measured more constant than expected in the earth were moving through the aether. Then length contraction and time dilation were considered in these specific experiments due to motion through the aether. Finally Einstein proposed that length contraction and time dilation as a transformation of space and time in a given reference frame could explain the difference, and it does for half the problem, just not the other half. It is the Doppler effect, consider that if I was shooting at you and moving towards you, each bullet would have less travel time causing an increase in the rate at which I seem to be firing bullets, this is the same effect as pitch changes in horns as cars go by. In the context of relativity, the doppler effect usually refers to the observation of redshift or blueshift, but I don't think that's what you have in mind here. Can you please clarify? It is the same thing, it does not matter if the shift is the shift or light colour, or the shift for frequency of sound, the frequency of firing a bullet or many other examples. In all cases it has to do with the distance from a source and a receiver increasing or decreasing causing an apparent change in the rate of that thing being recieved. There is however a big difference in that the slower the object (bullets, sound, light) travels the greater the shift with a given velocity. Lets say I throw slow balls at you as I move towards you, I throw one a second, but it takes several seconds for each ball to get to you, if I am half a second closer to you each ball I throw, then you receive one ball every half second despite that I am only throwing one every second, this can't continue of course because I will eventually pass you. If I now throw balls at you as I move
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Yes - I also consider neo Lorentzian theories the way to go. MM 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 janap...@gmail.commailto: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 berry.joh...@gmail.commailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto: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
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
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 janap...@gmail.com 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. According to SR, no we wouldn't. But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at almost the speed of light. If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like arguments for belief in God. I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at *c*, no matter the reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the question of what would happen if this observation was turned into a fixed point, i.e., made into an axiom. He then derived a bunch of weird stuff about length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz invariance, etc. These were conclusions that were based on the earlier assumption (and other assumptions). I'm not arguing that he was correct. I'm arguing that if we're to show that he was incorrect, we should stick to SR and not something that is different from SR. It's a question of logical reasoning, not faith. If we start talking about how time dilation and length contraction show how the speed of light will not be measured to be *c* in a vacuum traveling in an inertial frame, we've either come across a trivial logical inconsistency (unlikely, but possible I suppose), or we've misunderstood one or two applications of the basic assumptions in SR. You cannot say that R is illogical, describe R,' pick apart R' (or attempt to pick it apart), and then transfer any conclusions back to R. I'm trying to help you to help me to better understand why SR is incorrect by helping you to avoid setting up a straw man argument. I'm pessimistic that this is going to go anywhere. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Guys, it might be wise to choose one main concept to analyze closely first as a basis. When many different ideas are introduced into a discussion it is entirely too easy to wander off into regions that confuse the issues. Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start by making your cases either for or against. I harbor the expectation that the speed of light as measured in any inertial reference frame with the instruments moving along at that observational velocity will be constant and c. This of course only applies within a vacuum. The measured velocity does not depend upon motion of the source of the waves since that type of motion shows up as Doppler shifting of the frequency. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 10:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. According to SR, no we wouldn't. But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at almost the speed of light. If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like arguments for belief in God. I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at c, no matter the reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the question of what would happen if this observation was turned into a fixed point, i.e., made into an axiom. He then derived a bunch of weird stuff about length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz invariance, etc. These were conclusions that were based on the earlier assumption (and other assumptions). I'm not arguing that he was correct. I'm arguing that if we're to show that he was incorrect, we should stick to SR and not something that is different from SR. It's a question of logical reasoning, not faith. If we start talking about how time dilation and length contraction show how the speed of light will not be measured to be c in a vacuum traveling in an inertial frame, we've either come across a trivial logical inconsistency (unlikely, but possible I suppose), or we've misunderstood one or two applications of the basic assumptions in SR. You cannot say that R is illogical, describe R,' pick apart R' (or attempt to pick it apart), and then transfer any conclusions back to R. I'm trying to help you to help me to better understand why SR is incorrect by helping you to avoid setting up a straw man argument. I'm pessimistic that this is going to go anywhere. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
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. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Guys, it might be wise to choose one main concept to analyze closely first as a basis. When many different ideas are introduced into a discussion it is entirely too easy to wander off into regions that confuse the issues. Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start by making your cases either for or against. I harbor the expectation that the speed of light as measured in any inertial reference frame with the instruments moving along at that observational velocity will be constant and c. This of course only applies within a vacuum. The measured velocity does not depend upon motion of the source of the waves since that type of motion shows up as Doppler shifting of the frequency. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 10:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. According to SR, no we wouldn't. But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at almost the speed of light. If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like arguments for belief in God. I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at *c*, no matter the reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the question of what would happen if this observation was turned into a fixed point, i.e., made into an axiom. He then derived a bunch of weird stuff about length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz invariance, etc. These were conclusions that were based on the earlier assumption (and other assumptions). I'm not arguing that he was correct. I'm arguing that if we're to show that he was incorrect, we should stick to SR and not something that is different from SR. It's a question of logical reasoning, not faith. If we start talking about how time dilation and length contraction show how the speed of light will not be measured to be *c* in a vacuum traveling in an inertial frame, we've either come across a trivial logical inconsistency (unlikely, but possible I suppose), or we've misunderstood one or two applications of the basic assumptions in SR. You cannot say that R is illogical, describe R,' pick apart R' (or attempt to pick it apart), and then transfer any conclusions back to R. I'm trying to help you to help me to better understand why SR is incorrect by helping you to avoid setting up a straw man argument. I'm pessimistic that this is going to go anywhere. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. If it is reasonably and obviously possible, then it is valid. If you wanted to do this experiment, there would be no great difficulty in doing so. The separation and velocity of the of the moving platform may or may not be beyond practical implementation. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. I have read that photon detectors can be put in double slit experiments and while the wave function will be collapsed by knowing which slit the photon went through, the photon wasn't absorbed. Of course this is another ridiculous objection that makes it seem like you would rather have a tooth pulled than accept an obvious truth. There could be many photons released in a single pulse, each detector only absorbs a small number of photons. According to SR, no we wouldn't. But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at almost the speed of light. If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like arguments for belief in God. I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at *c*, no matter the reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the question of what would happen if this observation was turned into a fixed point, i.e., made into an axiom. He then derived a bunch of weird stuff about length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz invariance, etc. These were conclusions that were based on the earlier assumption (and other assumptions). Do you see the problem in your own statement? The speed of something being the same no matter how your position and velocity may differ from other observers is by default an utter impossibility. The 'bunch of weird stuff' is the only thing that could possibly help it make sense, only there is no way it can as I have shown. SR only works if that weird stuff can make the speed of light look the same to all observers, well it can't as I have shown. The fact that you have taken on faith that this 'weird stuff' can make it all make sense is the problem. Science isn't a religion, you aren't meant to take things that are illogical on faith, not examine them and get dogmatic in your defence of that thing. You are acting like we shouldn't bother our pretty little heads with how this impossibility can occur. If you think that I am misrepresenting how SR argues the speed of light may be measured to be the same, then please read how it makes these arguments. I have read such books long ago and recall the arguments. I'm not arguing that he was correct. I'm arguing that if we're to show that he was incorrect, we should stick to SR and not something that is different from SR. What? You are saying that if Einstein was incorrect we should still keep his incorrect theory Special Relativity? Keeping a theory known to be incorrect makes no sense at all. Keeping it when it is incorrect and impossible when better theories fit all the evidence, honestly I can't believe what I am reading. It's a question of logical reasoning, not faith. If we start talking about how time dilation and length contraction show how the speed of light will not be measured to be *c* in a vacuum traveling in an inertial frame, we've either come across a trivial logical inconsistency You consider it being illogical 'trivial'? It means that it is not possible for it to be true. That is not trivial. (unlikely, but possible I suppose), or we've misunderstood one or two applications of the basic assumptions in SR. You cannot say that R is illogical, describe R,' pick apart R' (or attempt to pick it apart), and then transfer any
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Axil Axil 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
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 janap...@gmail.commailto: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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
John, Eric is right about the constancy of c being a *postulate* from which time-dilation and length contraction are derived. However, that doesn't discount your thought experiments as a way of probing the coherence of SR. 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. harry Harry On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:45 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. If it is reasonably and obviously possible, then it is valid. If you wanted to do this experiment, there would be no great difficulty in doing so. The separation and velocity of the of the moving platform may or may not be beyond practical implementation. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. I have read that photon detectors can be put in double slit experiments and while the wave function will be collapsed by knowing which slit the photon went through, the photon wasn't absorbed. Of course this is another ridiculous objection that makes it seem like you would rather have a tooth pulled than accept an obvious truth. There could be many photons released in a single pulse, each detector only absorbs a small number of photons. According to SR, no we wouldn't. But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at almost the speed of light. If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like arguments for belief in God. I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at *c*, no matter the reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the question of what would happen if this observation was turned into a fixed point, i.e., made into an axiom. He then derived a bunch of weird stuff about length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz invariance, etc. These were conclusions that were based on the earlier assumption (and other assumptions). Do you see the problem in your own statement? The speed of something being the same no matter how your position and velocity may differ from other observers is by default an utter impossibility. The 'bunch of weird stuff' is the only thing that could possibly help it make sense, only there is no way it can as I have shown. SR only works if that weird stuff can make the speed of light look the same to all observers, well it can't as I have shown. The fact that you have taken on faith that this 'weird stuff' can make it all make sense is the problem. Science isn't a religion, you aren't meant to take things that are illogical on faith, not examine them and get dogmatic in your defence of that thing. You are acting like we shouldn't bother our pretty little heads with how this impossibility can occur. If you think that I am misrepresenting how SR argues the speed of light may be measured to be the same, then please read how it makes these arguments. I have read such books long ago and recall the arguments. I'm not arguing that he was correct. I'm arguing that if we're to show that he was incorrect, we should stick to SR and not something that is different from SR. What? You are saying that if Einstein was incorrect we should still keep his incorrect theory Special Relativity? Keeping a theory known to be incorrect makes no sense at all. Keeping it when it is incorrect and impossible when better theories fit all the evidence, honestly I can't believe what I
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Eric is right about the constancy of c being a *postulate* from which time-dilation and length contraction are derived. However, that doesn't discount your thought experiments as a way of probing the coherence of SR. 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. Yes, but the difficulty with arguing this point is that SR argues that the experience of the 2 friends is asymmetric, and the 2 friends can't communicate the rate of passage of time in an effective manner while travelling (since there is no instantaneousness communication) and if they do try to communicate while the distance between them grows there will be an apparent distortion of time as each second that passes the time it takes for any message to be sent between them grows slowing the apparent rate of time. This muddies the water enough that it can just be called a paradox, and confusing but move on.. But if there is communication that is orthogonal to the direction of travel, this is not effected by such concerns, and near instantaneous constant delay communication is possible. And time dilation simply can not be reconciled in this manner. To repeat the thought experiment, let's say there is a 3rd friend, he is on the ground to the side of the track, he can see the watch of both the friend on the train and the one at the station. And they can all see his watch too. If the chap on the train really has time slow, then this 3rd friend would see it, and he would notice that train guys watch almost stopped ticking. But if this is so the friend on the train would have to notice the 3rd friends watch tick faster than his since they are able to easily observe each other without distortion. They can't both watch the other stay fresh faced while they grow old because the train could stop (or the 3rd friend could hop on) in an instant, both can't see the other suddenly age rapidly. If the friend on the train looked back at the friend on the platform he would find SR prediction met, the watch of his platform friend would appear to have almost stopped and visa versa, and the platform friend would see train friends watch almost stop ticking. But if there is no preferred reference frame, both would have to agree that the 3rd friends time piece is keeping sync with theirs. With the orthogonal communication (which can be for a longer time the further the 3rd friend if from the track, or forever if he is in the centre of a circular track) this ruse can not be continued. Time dilation without a preferred frame is not possible, and time dilation with a preferred reference frame is not SR. John
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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Harry, I have battled with that issue many times attempting to make sense of it. The best that I can come up with is that it actually is the acceleration which leads to the difference in clocks. Since velocity is the integral of acceleration, you can always determine it by having access to the acceleration that the object is subjected to. I admit that I have not pursued this far enough for a proof, but at least it has some traction. If my suspicion is correct, once the acceleration has had an opportunity to operate upon the object then the instantaneous velocity can be used as a short way to figure the total time differences. I can only speculate that this holds true at this point. I will only defend the concept weakly. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility John, Eric is right about the constancy of c being a *postulate* from which time-dilation and length contraction are derived. However, that doesn't discount your thought experiments as a way of probing the coherence of SR. 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. harry Harry On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:45 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. If it is reasonably and obviously possible, then it is valid. If you wanted to do this experiment, there would be no great difficulty in doing so. The separation and velocity of the of the moving platform may or may not be beyond practical implementation. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. I have read that photon detectors can be put in double slit experiments and while the wave function will be collapsed by knowing which slit the photon went through, the photon wasn't absorbed. Of course this is another ridiculous objection that makes it seem like you would rather have a tooth pulled than accept an obvious truth. There could be many photons released in a single pulse, each detector only absorbs a small number of photons. According to SR, no we wouldn't. But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at almost the speed of light. If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like arguments for belief in God. I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at c, no matter the reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the question of what would happen if this observation was turned into a fixed point, i.e., made into an axiom. He then derived a bunch of weird stuff about length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz invariance, etc. These were conclusions that were based on the earlier assumption (and other assumptions). Do you see the problem in your own statement? The speed of something being the same no matter how your position and velocity may differ from other observers is by default an utter impossibility. The 'bunch of weird stuff' is the only thing that could possibly help it make sense, only there is no way it can as I have shown. SR only works if that weird stuff can make the speed of light look the same to all observers, well it can't as I have shown. The fact that you have taken on faith that this 'weird stuff' can make it all make
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:49 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have battled with that issue many times attempting to make sense of it. The best that I can come up with is that it actually is the acceleration which leads to the difference in clocks. Since velocity is the integral of acceleration, you can always determine it by having access to the acceleration that the object is subjected to. I admit that I have not pursued this far enough for a proof, but at least it has some traction. If my suspicion is correct, once the acceleration has had an opportunity to operate upon the object then the instantaneous velocity can be used as a short way to figure the total time differences. I can only speculate that this holds true at this point. I will only defend the concept weakly. Here are some thoughts that may weaken that further. Acceleration can be extremely rapid, indeed arbitrarily so, there are many accelerations that happen very suddenly. Next, it is possible to have both observers accelerate equally, consider 2 trains that go around the earth on parallel tracks, but in opposite directions, before they start moving the clocks in all carriages can be synchronized from a pulse from the center of the earth. The clocks could be made for easy observation even at high speed. And with a stroboscopic light, it would even be possible to see the person in one of the carriages, write notes on paper to each other, make faces. And the same for an observer on the earth frame. John Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility John, Eric is right about the constancy of c being a *postulate* from which time-dilation and length contraction are derived. However, that doesn't discount your thought experiments as a way of probing the coherence of SR. 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. harry Harry On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:45 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. If it is reasonably and obviously possible, then it is valid. If you wanted to do this experiment, there would be no great difficulty in doing so. The separation and velocity of the of the moving platform may or may not be beyond practical implementation. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. I have read that photon detectors can be put in double slit experiments and while the wave function will be collapsed by knowing which slit the photon went through, the photon wasn't absorbed. Of course this is another ridiculous objection that makes it seem like you would rather have a tooth pulled than accept an obvious truth. There could be many photons released in a single pulse, each detector only absorbs a small number of photons. According to SR, no we wouldn't. But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at almost the speed of light. If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like arguments for belief in God. I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at *c*, no matter the reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the question of what would happen if this observation was turned
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
BTW, I have a means that can allow measuring the speed of light without interacting with it. If you have a series of shutters that block the transmission of all light except for light moving in one direction at the expected speed of light. (if it is faster or slower it won't make it). If a photon does hit a shutter it is detected and we now the shutter speed does not match the speed of light, so the experiment is repeated with a different shutter sequence rate until the light makes it out the other end and is not interacted with. 2 or 3 such devices could be placed in the path of (if you like) a single photon with different relative velocities to each other, one could be stationary relative to the photon source (and laboratory reference frame) and the other 2 could move toward and away from the source. An observer to the side can observe all this, they could see the wave of the the shutters open and close exposing the speed and path the photon must be taking in that reference frame. And he would obviously note that there is no way that any one photon could get through all of these shutters. The only possibility that could allow all 3 to pass a photon (assuming they are all identical) is if each one interacts with a photon that occurs only in their reference frame. But this idea has problems as a photon could be avoided, or 'met' twice (or more) with changes in velocity. John On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:15 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Eric is right about the constancy of c being a *postulate* from which time-dilation and length contraction are derived. However, that doesn't discount your thought experiments as a way of probing the coherence of SR. 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. Yes, but the difficulty with arguing this point is that SR argues that the experience of the 2 friends is asymmetric, and the 2 friends can't communicate the rate of passage of time in an effective manner while travelling (since there is no instantaneousness communication) and if they do try to communicate while the distance between them grows there will be an apparent distortion of time as each second that passes the time it takes for any message to be sent between them grows slowing the apparent rate of time. This muddies the water enough that it can just be called a paradox, and confusing but move on.. But if there is communication that is orthogonal to the direction of travel, this is not effected by such concerns, and near instantaneous constant delay communication is possible. And time dilation simply can not be reconciled in this manner. To repeat the thought experiment, let's say there is a 3rd friend, he is on the ground to the side of the track, he can see the watch of both the friend on the train and the one at the station. And they can all see his watch too. If the chap on the train really has time slow, then this 3rd friend would see it, and he would notice that train guys watch almost stopped ticking. But if this is so the friend on the train would have to notice the 3rd friends watch tick faster than his since they are able to easily observe each other without distortion. They can't both watch the other stay fresh faced while they grow old because the train could stop (or the 3rd friend could hop on) in an instant, both can't see the other suddenly age rapidly. If the friend on the train looked back at the friend on the platform he would find SR prediction met, the watch of his platform friend would appear to have almost stopped and visa versa, and the platform friend would see train friends watch almost stop ticking. But if there is no preferred reference frame, both would have to agree that the 3rd friends time piece is keeping sync with theirs. With the orthogonal communication (which can be for a longer time the further the 3rd friend if from the track, or forever if he is in the centre of a circular track) this ruse can not be continued. Time dilation without a preferred frame is not possible, and time dilation with a preferred reference frame is not SR. John
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Axil, who are you asking? On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:25 PM, H Veeder 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
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 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:45 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: But if you think that we should keep a theory shown to be incorrect, in favour of theories that fit the evidence and are logical, then i am afraid your thinking is too twisted and far from truth for there to be any meaningful exchange. I will defer to your superior knowledge on this subject and not bother you anymore with my questions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
The muon experiments show time dilation in operation. Once I calculated the equivalent velocity of the muon assuming that time dilation did not exist. I obtained a velocity of IIRC about 10 times the speed of light. Every thing fit into place regarding the distance traveled in a standard lifetime of a muon. Only one factor could not be made to fit. That happened to be the measured velocity of the muons. The distance was known but the time did not match with the calculated velocity. A similar problem arises when one looks closely at an accelerator. The LHC is a perfect example where the time required to make a revolution is well known. I again could calculate an assumed velocity based upon the energy. I came to the conclusion that time dilation must be real according to what each observer determines. I continue to probe for errors to this factor that can be exposed. Just for reference, the time dilation is the same regardless of the direction the measured object heads. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 7:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Eric is right about the constancy of c being a *postulate* from which time-dilation and length contraction are derived. However, that doesn't discount your thought experiments as a way of probing the coherence of SR. 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. Yes, but the difficulty with arguing this point is that SR argues that the experience of the 2 friends is asymmetric, and the 2 friends can't communicate the rate of passage of time in an effective manner while travelling (since there is no instantaneousness communication) and if they do try to communicate while the distance between them grows there will be an apparent distortion of time as each second that passes the time it takes for any message to be sent between them grows slowing the apparent rate of time. This muddies the water enough that it can just be called a paradox, and confusing but move on.. But if there is communication that is orthogonal to the direction of travel, this is not effected by such concerns, and near instantaneous constant delay communication is possible. And time dilation simply can not be reconciled in this manner. To repeat the thought experiment, let's say there is a 3rd friend, he is on the ground to the side of the track, he can see the watch of both the friend on the train and the one at the station. And they can all see his watch too. If the chap on the train really has time slow, then this 3rd friend would see it, and he would notice that train guys watch almost stopped ticking. But if this is so the friend on the train would have to notice the 3rd friends watch tick faster than his since they are able to easily observe each other without distortion. They can't both watch the other stay fresh faced while they grow old because the train could stop (or the 3rd friend could hop on) in an instant, both can't see the other suddenly age rapidly. If the friend on the train looked back at the friend on the platform he would find SR prediction met, the watch of his platform friend would appear to have almost stopped and visa versa, and the platform friend would see train friends watch almost stop ticking. But if there is no preferred reference frame, both would have to agree that the 3rd friends time piece is keeping sync with theirs. With the orthogonal communication (which can be for a longer time the further the 3rd friend if from the track, or forever if he is in the centre of a circular track) this ruse can not be continued. Time dilation without a preferred frame is not possible, and time dilation with a preferred reference frame is not SR. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start by making your cases either for or against. I'm at a loss in this instance. I have not taken the time to do the measurements, so I am at the mercy of the experimentalists. My understanding of what they're saying, as conveyed through the popular press and in history books, is that in whatever context the speed of light has been measured, it has been measured to be constant within a small margin of error. Further, I've heard that the theorists will claim that when you assume that light is constant, we're able to do things like calculate the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. I trust that the experimentalists believe what has been claimed on their behalf, and I trust the theorists that the calculations become tractable. In this context I'm willing to assume that the speed of light is constant, and follow this assumption to where it leads, despite the fact that my everyday intuition tells me that light should slow down and speed up in a vacuum if you approach it or recede away from it. My everyday intuition tells me that electricity is made of blue fire, but that's also incorrect. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The muon experiments show time dilation in operation. Once I calculated the equivalent velocity of the muon assuming that time dilation did not exist. I obtained a velocity of IIRC about 10 times the speed of light. Every thing fit into place regarding the distance traveled in a standard lifetime of a muon. Only one factor could not be made to fit. That happened to be the measured velocity of the muons. The distance was known but the time did not match with the calculated velocity. A similar problem arises when one looks closely at an accelerator. The LHC is a perfect example where the time required to make a revolution is well known. I again could calculate an assumed velocity based upon the energy. I came to the conclusion that time dilation must be real according to what each observer determines. 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. Imagine 2 Muons, one moving at a high percentage of the speed of light around another. If you move with the orbiting muon SR would have us believe that this muon would die before the one in the center. If you sit with the muon in the center, it should be seen to die first. Of course no researcher has been willing to hop into the LHC and settle this time dilation dilemma, pussies. Time dilation is expected, I misnamed this thread, this is not the impossibility of time dilation in a gravitational field, or the impossibility of time dilation due to movement through a preferred frame. It addresses the impossibility of equal opportunity time dilation. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start by making your cases either for or against. I'm at a loss in this instance. I have not taken the time to do the measurements, so I am at the mercy of the experimentalists. My understanding of what they're saying, as conveyed through the popular press and in history books, is that in whatever context the speed of light has been measured, it has been measured to be constant within a small margin of error. Further, I've heard that the theorists will claim that when you assume that light is constant, we're able to do things like calculate the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. I trust that the experimentalists believe what has been claimed on their behalf, and I trust the theorists that the calculations become tractable. In this context I'm willing to assume that the speed of light is constant, and follow this assumption to where it leads, despite the fact that my everyday intuition tells me that light should slow down and speed up in a vacuum if you approach it or recede away from it. My everyday intuition tells me that electricity is made of blue fire, but that's also incorrect. You must realize though that you are now expressing faith (in the beliefs, work, assumptions and integrity of others) and holding it above logic. The problem is compounded because that is what they did too! Now an entrained aether, and LET give about the same predictions for all these experiments that are used as evidence for SR. The advantage is that it isn't logically indefensible without intimidating someone or just saying it is because we say so. Please understand that it isn't just you, no one has ever answered these questions. If they could be answered, I'm sure they would have by now, I am not the only one to make these arguments. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Thanks for some issues to ponder. I have not been happy with the paradox at any time but others who are more into relativity say that one does not really exist. Perhaps they are correct, but so far I have not been able to come to that conclusion. Like I said, I can not defend any good solution to that problem. My thoughts about the trains equally accelerating around the earth is that both should calculate the same time changes due to symmetry. When they meet, a stationary observer would determine that they are both moving at the same velocity but in opposite directions. I would think that he finds their clocks reading the same slow rate. It seems also that each train rider would measure a different time dilation for passengers on the other which is the original paradox modified. Each passenger would come to the conclusion that everything is normal regarding his measure of time. Other observers may not agree. One day I hope that all of us will understand how this works. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:49 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have battled with that issue many times attempting to make sense of it. The best that I can come up with is that it actually is the acceleration which leads to the difference in clocks. Since velocity is the integral of acceleration, you can always determine it by having access to the acceleration that the object is subjected to. I admit that I have not pursued this far enough for a proof, but at least it has some traction. If my suspicion is correct, once the acceleration has had an opportunity to operate upon the object then the instantaneous velocity can be used as a short way to figure the total time differences. I can only speculate that this holds true at this point. I will only defend the concept weakly. Here are some thoughts that may weaken that further. Acceleration can be extremely rapid, indeed arbitrarily so, there are many accelerations that happen very suddenly. Next, it is possible to have both observers accelerate equally, consider 2 trains that go around the earth on parallel tracks, but in opposite directions, before they start moving the clocks in all carriages can be synchronized from a pulse from the center of the earth. The clocks could be made for easy observation even at high speed. And with a stroboscopic light, it would even be possible to see the person in one of the carriages, write notes on paper to each other, make faces. And the same for an observer on the earth frame. John Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility John, Eric is right about the constancy of c being a *postulate* from which time-dilation and length contraction are derived. However, that doesn't discount your thought experiments as a way of probing the coherence of SR. 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. harry Harry On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:45 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Are you arguing that this is impossible? This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible to make such a measuring instrument. I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. If it is reasonably and obviously possible, then it is valid. If you wanted to do this experiment, there would be no great difficulty in doing so. The separation and velocity of the of the moving platform may or may not be beyond practical implementation. About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our measurement. I have read that photon detectors can be put in double slit experiments and while the wave function will be collapsed by knowing which slit the photon went through, the photon wasn't absorbed. Of course this is another ridiculous objection that makes
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Eric, your humor continues to this day. We are all at the mercy of the experimentalists unless we become those guys ourselves. Relativity seems to be completely at odds to our everyday expectations and that is true. I am confident that when it was first proposed a lot of guys went ballistic in attempting to shoot it down. But the tract record is extremely good from what I have read. Also, I have made plenty of attempts to find holes in it and have never been able to make serious headway. The obvious paradox that we have been discussing does have an explanation according to some sources that I have seen. I recall one article where numbers were carefully put to paper where the authors swore that they yielded the correct and expected answer. I am sorry to say that I did not quite follow their logic, but I assume that it was due to my hang ups. If you ever find a verified error in the theory please allow me to share the Nobel prize with you! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start by making your cases either for or against. I'm at a loss in this instance. I have not taken the time to do the measurements, so I am at the mercy of the experimentalists. My understanding of what they're saying, as conveyed through the popular press and in history books, is that in whatever context the speed of light has been measured, it has been measured to be constant within a small margin of error. Further, I've heard that the theorists will claim that when you assume that light is constant, we're able to do things like calculate the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. I trust that the experimentalists believe what has been claimed on their behalf, and I trust the theorists that the calculations become tractable. In this context I'm willing to assume that the speed of light is constant, and follow this assumption to where it leads, despite the fact that my everyday intuition tells me that light should slow down and speed up in a vacuum if you approach it or recede away from it. My everyday intuition tells me that electricity is made of blue fire, but that's also incorrect. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
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. The only ones measuring the muon time dilation are the observers on Earth. 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. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 10:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The muon experiments show time dilation in operation. Once I calculated the equivalent velocity of the muon assuming that time dilation did not exist. I obtained a velocity of IIRC about 10 times the speed of light. Every thing fit into place regarding the distance traveled in a standard lifetime of a muon. Only one factor could not be made to fit. That happened to be the measured velocity of the muons. The distance was known but the time did not match with the calculated velocity. A similar problem arises when one looks closely at an accelerator. The LHC is a perfect example where the time required to make a revolution is well known. I again could calculate an assumed velocity based upon the energy. I came to the conclusion that time dilation must be real according to what each observer determines. 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. Imagine 2 Muons, one moving at a high percentage of the speed of light around another. If you move with the orbiting muon SR would have us believe that this muon would die before the one in the center. If you sit with the muon in the center, it should be seen to die first. Of course no researcher has been willing to hop into the LHC and settle this time dilation dilemma, pussies. Time dilation is expected, I misnamed this thread, this is not the impossibility of time dilation in a gravitational field, or the impossibility of time dilation due to movement through a preferred frame. It addresses the impossibility of equal opportunity time dilation. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, David Roberson 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Like you I have harbored the idea of an ether that is local. I just can not find a reason to assume any ether at all. I ask myself how any one direction, or velocity can be distinguished from the next in the vastness of space. And, if the ether is slaved to other objects, then what determines how well it is attached to the objects that it follows? Then you get to the questions of how small the attached thing must be to make sense. I suppose it is easier to assume that one is not needed than to handle the multitude of problems that arise. And, no one seems to have any supporting measurements of which I am aware. Maxwell's equations are based upon static charges and current (first derivative of charge with time) measurements. This connection between the electric and magnetic fields in space and time yield the velocity of light without any need for an ether. Then, if you accept that SR is sound, then again an ether does not appear to be required. So, I firmly accept the notion that an ether is not needed and that space and time are relative for each observer. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start by making your cases either for or against. I'm at a loss in this instance. I have not taken the time to do the measurements, so I am at the mercy of the experimentalists. My understanding of what they're saying, as conveyed through the popular press and in history books, is that in whatever context the speed of light has been measured, it has been measured to be constant within a small margin of error. Further, I've heard that the theorists will claim that when you assume that light is constant, we're able to do things like calculate the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. I trust that the experimentalists believe what has been claimed on their behalf, and I trust the theorists that the calculations become tractable. In this context I'm willing to assume that the speed of light is constant, and follow this assumption to where it leads, despite the fact that my everyday intuition tells me that light should slow down and speed up in a vacuum if you approach it or recede away from it. My everyday intuition tells me that electricity is made of blue fire, but that's also incorrect. You must realize though that you are now expressing faith (in the beliefs, work, assumptions and integrity of others) and holding it above logic. The problem is compounded because that is what they did too! Now an entrained aether, and LET give about the same predictions for all these experiments that are used as evidence for SR. The advantage is that it isn't logically indefensible without intimidating someone or just saying it is because we say so. Please understand that it isn't just you, no one has ever answered these questions. If they could be answered, I'm sure they would have by now, I am not the only one to make these arguments. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Like you I have harbored the idea of an ether that is local. I just can not find a reason to assume any ether at all. There are many reasons, there is quite a lot of evidence actually, actually a lot especially if you are flexible of what we mean by aether, but then there is logic too. Since Special Relativity is an impossible nonsense as I have pointed out, and no defence of these or similar points has ever been made. Then there must be some kind of reference frame for various phenomena, including the transmission of light, and any concept of a preferred reference frame, local or universal is termed aether. I ask myself how any one direction, or velocity can be distinguished from the next in the vastness of space. And, if the ether is slaved to other objects, then what determines how well it is attached to the objects that it follows? Then you get to the questions of how small the attached thing must be to make sense. These are good questions. Just because the answers are not automatically known does not invalidate it, merely it sets challenges for experiments to be conducted which as far as I am aware have not even been formulated. I suppose it is easier to assume that one is not needed than to handle the multitude of problems that arise. Ah, it is easier to believe a simple clean impossibility than a messy truth that is more complex to answer and has unknowns. You have hit the nail on the head for why the aether is unpopular. And, no one seems to have any supporting measurements of which I am aware. You have not looked then, there are, but then there is the evidence from mainstream physics that isn't looking for an aether... Have you heard of Higgs field? Dark matter/energy? Quantum probability waves? Virtual particles? Casimer effect? Zero point energy, Dirac sea etc... Frame dragging? Probably more. There are perfectly fine experiments that have shown the existence of the aether by physicists that have been rejected by their opposition to SR too. Maxwell's equations are based upon static charges and current (first derivative of charge with time) measurements. This connection between the electric and magnetic fields in space and time yield the velocity of light without any need for an ether. Then, if you accept that SR is sound, then again an ether does not appear to be required. Yes, but you can't say it is sound, and I can't find anyone who can explain how SR can really play out with the examples I have given. So, I firmly accept the notion that an ether is not needed and that space and time are relative for each observer. You might, but only be dogmatically believing in something you can't understand or explain or defend without opting out of the argument. And this might still seem more attractive than the aether to you, but that doesn't make you right or even coherent. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
We disagree, lets leave it at that John. We reached an impasse that can not be breached so until that is resolved, we can not move forward in this discussion. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 11:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, David Roberson 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: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Many will disagree with your assessment of SR John. That is OK since it is good for people to question the accepted theories. Perhaps you will find someone else willing to spend the time attempting to modify your beliefs. It was fun, but once an impasse is reached where basic lab measurements are questioned, it is time to abandon the effort. Have you ever visited the Moletrap site? You might find a good home among those guys. They would enjoy discussing your ideas. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Like you I have harbored the idea of an ether that is local. I just can not find a reason to assume any ether at all. There are many reasons, there is quite a lot of evidence actually, actually a lot especially if you are flexible of what we mean by aether, but then there is logic too. Since Special Relativity is an impossible nonsense as I have pointed out, and no defence of these or similar points has ever been made. Then there must be some kind of reference frame for various phenomena, including the transmission of light, and any concept of a preferred reference frame, local or universal is termed aether. I ask myself how any one direction, or velocity can be distinguished from the next in the vastness of space. And, if the ether is slaved to other objects, then what determines how well it is attached to the objects that it follows? Then you get to the questions of how small the attached thing must be to make sense. These are good questions. Just because the answers are not automatically known does not invalidate it, merely it sets challenges for experiments to be conducted which as far as I am aware have not even been formulated. I suppose it is easier to assume that one is not needed than to handle the multitude of problems that arise. Ah, it is easier to believe a simple clean impossibility than a messy truth that is more complex to answer and has unknowns. You have hit the nail on the head for why the aether is unpopular. And, no one seems to have any supporting measurements of which I am aware. You have not looked then, there are, but then there is the evidence from mainstream physics that isn't looking for an aether... Have you heard of Higgs field? Dark matter/energy? Quantum probability waves? Virtual particles? Casimer effect? Zero point energy, Dirac sea etc... Frame dragging? Probably more. There are perfectly fine experiments that have shown the existence of the aether by physicists that have been rejected by their opposition to SR too. Maxwell's equations are based upon static charges and current (first derivative of charge with time) measurements. This connection between the electric and magnetic fields in space and time yield the velocity of light without any need for an ether. Then, if you accept that SR is sound, then again an ether does not appear to be required. Yes, but you can't say it is sound, and I can't find anyone who can explain how SR can really play out with the examples I have given. So, I firmly accept the notion that an ether is not needed and that space and time are relative for each observer. You might, but only be dogmatically believing in something you can't understand or explain or defend without opting out of the argument. And this might still seem more attractive than the aether to you, but that doesn't make you right or even coherent. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Many will disagree with your assessment of SR John. That is OK since it is good for people to question the accepted theories. Perhaps you will find someone else willing to spend the time attempting to modify your beliefs. It was fun, but once an impasse is reached where basic lab measurements are questioned, it is time to abandon the effort I have not questioned any lab measurements at all. Have you ever visited the Moletrap site? You might find a good home among those guys. They would enjoy discussing your ideas. I'll have a look, thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Like you I have harbored the idea of an ether that is local. I just can not find a reason to assume any ether at all. There are many reasons, there is quite a lot of evidence actually, actually a lot especially if you are flexible of what we mean by aether, but then there is logic too. Since Special Relativity is an impossible nonsense as I have pointed out, and no defence of these or similar points has ever been made. Then there must be some kind of reference frame for various phenomena, including the transmission of light, and any concept of a preferred reference frame, local or universal is termed aether. I ask myself how any one direction, or velocity can be distinguished from the next in the vastness of space. And, if the ether is slaved to other objects, then what determines how well it is attached to the objects that it follows? Then you get to the questions of how small the attached thing must be to make sense. These are good questions. Just because the answers are not automatically known does not invalidate it, merely it sets challenges for experiments to be conducted which as far as I am aware have not even been formulated. I suppose it is easier to assume that one is not needed than to handle the multitude of problems that arise. Ah, it is easier to believe a simple clean impossibility than a messy truth that is more complex to answer and has unknowns. You have hit the nail on the head for why the aether is unpopular. And, no one seems to have any supporting measurements of which I am aware. You have not looked then, there are, but then there is the evidence from mainstream physics that isn't looking for an aether... Have you heard of Higgs field? Dark matter/energy? Quantum probability waves? Virtual particles? Casimer effect? Zero point energy, Dirac sea etc... Frame dragging? Probably more. There are perfectly fine experiments that have shown the existence of the aether by physicists that have been rejected by their opposition to SR too. Maxwell's equations are based upon static charges and current (first derivative of charge with time) measurements. This connection between the electric and magnetic fields in space and time yield the velocity of light without any need for an ether. Then, if you accept that SR is sound, then again an ether does not appear to be required. Yes, but you can't say it is sound, and I can't find anyone who can explain how SR can really play out with the examples I have given. So, I firmly accept the notion that an ether is not needed and that space and time are relative for each observer. You might, but only be dogmatically believing in something you can't understand or explain or defend without opting out of the argument. And this might still seem more attractive than the aether to you, but that doesn't make you right or even coherent. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Not that it matters, but I gave the speed of light in km a second and then said meters a second... Also, I would genuinely like to know if anyone disagrees with my arguments, or fails to understand them. And if you do agree, would you conclude that an aether of some type is logically required? John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Originally the aether was thought to exist, but it was hoped the earth would move though it rather than entrain it, maybe as a continued departure from earth centric thinking, or more likely because a static aether was far more simple than trying to understand an aether that was entrained to some degree by Earth. First Michelson and Morley performed an experiment which if not flawed (some say it is) would show if the earth moved though an aether, however such was not detected. However this did not disprove an entrained aether, Michelson and or Morley still believed in an aether. Indeed drifts with the M-M experiment were detected, just really tiny ones consistent with with a mostly entrained aether, but larger drifts have been detected up mountains in glass houses than in brick basements where aether might be more poorly entrained. Next came Einstein with SR, he showed how an aether wasn't required if space and time distorted in the right ways. Actually he still believed in an aether, although a very different one. Let's look at Time dilation. First off I must say that SR arguments works and look alright until you change your view slightly. Let's take a pulse of light, some observers on the ground measuring the time this pulse takes to traverse 2 detectors 1 meter apart, they get a speed of 299,292.458 meters a second. Then we have have this pulse run along train tracks past a train, they detect this light pulse which they are moving with, and they are meant to detect the same speed. This is an impossibility, except for length contraction and time dilation, only it is still impossible! The first thing to appreciate is that there is an illusion that will appear to create length contraction and time dilation, but this illusion is not real at all. It is the Doppler effect, consider that if I was shooting at you and moving towards you, each bullet would have less travel time causing an increase in the rate at which I seem to be firing bullets, this is the same effect as pitch changes in horns as cars go by. If I was moving away from you it would appear the rate of fire decreased. But of course the rate of fire is unchanged This will create an illusion of the rate of time, but this illusion can be removed through calculation, or by communication of time rate orthogonally to direction of travel. a b- c b is moving away from a, but both a and b can sync clocks with c. since b and c have a period where they are not moving away or toward each other they can keep track of each others progress through time without and Doppler effects in the way. Secondly the Doppler effect causes a length contraction (and expansion) illusion, this is where at any moment a sees b, it sees light from different points in time and hence different positions for the closer and furthest part of b. Because the light from the furthest part of b takes longer to get to a, by the time it has got to a the image a has of the closer portion of the ship is slightly newer and based on a position further away. This causes an illusion of length contraction, but for c this length contraction also has not occurred. And if we add 'stationary' point d that b is moving towards it would see a length expansion which SR ignores completely. So if there is real time and length contraction it is important to separate that from this bogus, illusive form of these effects. And it is important to realise that observer c collapses any possibility of time dilation occurring without a preferred reference frame, if a time rate difference exists between b and c it can be agreed upon between both b and c, they can't see the other as experiencing time slower than they are because they can observe each other without the Doppler distortion, if they both saw the other as frozen in time what happens if they both reach a common reference frame, and meet, would they have to see the time rate on the other suddenly make up for all that time they saw the other being frozen? It just doesn't work. Next let's go back to our train and light pulses, if the train is seen to shrink from the earth frame, then the distance of the meter shrinks so even though they are moving with the light pulse the stationary observer could expect their speed of light measure to agree. But now what if we send another pulse in the other direction??? Now the earth measures the expected rate, sure. But the train is travelling against the direction, this would cause them to expect to find the light to be, ahem,
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
The universe is a spin net liquid, that they have called the Higgs field. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:39 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Not that it matters, but I gave the speed of light in km a second and then said meters a second... Also, I would genuinely like to know if anyone disagrees with my arguments, or fails to understand them. And if you do agree, would you conclude that an aether of some type is logically required? John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Originally the aether was thought to exist, but it was hoped the earth would move though it rather than entrain it, maybe as a continued departure from earth centric thinking, or more likely because a static aether was far more simple than trying to understand an aether that was entrained to some degree by Earth. First Michelson and Morley performed an experiment which if not flawed (some say it is) would show if the earth moved though an aether, however such was not detected. However this did not disprove an entrained aether, Michelson and or Morley still believed in an aether. Indeed drifts with the M-M experiment were detected, just really tiny ones consistent with with a mostly entrained aether, but larger drifts have been detected up mountains in glass houses than in brick basements where aether might be more poorly entrained. Next came Einstein with SR, he showed how an aether wasn't required if space and time distorted in the right ways. Actually he still believed in an aether, although a very different one. Let's look at Time dilation. First off I must say that SR arguments works and look alright until you change your view slightly. Let's take a pulse of light, some observers on the ground measuring the time this pulse takes to traverse 2 detectors 1 meter apart, they get a speed of 299,292.458 meters a second. Then we have have this pulse run along train tracks past a train, they detect this light pulse which they are moving with, and they are meant to detect the same speed. This is an impossibility, except for length contraction and time dilation, only it is still impossible! The first thing to appreciate is that there is an illusion that will appear to create length contraction and time dilation, but this illusion is not real at all. It is the Doppler effect, consider that if I was shooting at you and moving towards you, each bullet would have less travel time causing an increase in the rate at which I seem to be firing bullets, this is the same effect as pitch changes in horns as cars go by. If I was moving away from you it would appear the rate of fire decreased. But of course the rate of fire is unchanged This will create an illusion of the rate of time, but this illusion can be removed through calculation, or by communication of time rate orthogonally to direction of travel. a b- c b is moving away from a, but both a and b can sync clocks with c. since b and c have a period where they are not moving away or toward each other they can keep track of each others progress through time without and Doppler effects in the way. Secondly the Doppler effect causes a length contraction (and expansion) illusion, this is where at any moment a sees b, it sees light from different points in time and hence different positions for the closer and furthest part of b. Because the light from the furthest part of b takes longer to get to a, by the time it has got to a the image a has of the closer portion of the ship is slightly newer and based on a position further away. This causes an illusion of length contraction, but for c this length contraction also has not occurred. And if we add 'stationary' point d that b is moving towards it would see a length expansion which SR ignores completely. So if there is real time and length contraction it is important to separate that from this bogus, illusive form of these effects. And it is important to realise that observer c collapses any possibility of time dilation occurring without a preferred reference frame, if a time rate difference exists between b and c it can be agreed upon between both b and c, they can't see the other as experiencing time slower than they are because they can observe each other without the Doppler distortion, if they both saw the other as frozen in time what happens if they both reach a common reference frame, and meet, would they have to see the time rate on the other suddenly make up for all that time they saw the other being frozen? It just doesn't work. Next let's go back to our train and light pulses, if the train is seen to shrink from the earth frame, then the distance of the meter shrinks so even though they are moving with the light pulse the stationary observer could expect their speed of light measure to agree. But now what if we send another pulse in the other direction??? Now the earth
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I would genuinely like to know if anyone disagrees with my arguments, or fails to understand them. I had a hard time following your examples and counterexamples, but I suspect that relativity will not be so easy to pull apart. There's probably a misunderstanding about one or more of the claims it's making. I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to within a very small error, and that any thought experiments concerning corner cases that are far removed from everyday experience nonetheless remain internally consistent. It will probably require more than a simple thought experiment to call it into doubt. And if you do agree, would you conclude that an aether of some type is logically required? I do not imagine an ether is required as a result of a failure of relativity due to internal inconsistencies. I think it just makes conceptual sense for a wave (e.g., electromagnetic wave) to be a wave traveling in some medium. What is that medium? Perhaps something like an ether. An ether that meets this simple requirement, however, is not necessarily something that one would be able to detect. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
John, you make a lot of interesting arguments, but special relativity always seems to come through with the right answers. 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. With the speed limit so well defined, you must ask yourself why this is so? 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. It is a fun exercise trying to prove special relativity is wrong, but you will eventually come to the realization that it is correct. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 9:21 pm Subject: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility Originally the aether was thought to exist, but it was hoped the earth would move though it rather than entrain it, maybe as a continued departure from earth centric thinking, or more likely because a static aether was far more simple than trying to understand an aether that was entrained to some degree by Earth. First Michelson and Morley performed an experiment which if not flawed (some say it is) would show if the earth moved though an aether, however such was not detected. However this did not disprove an entrained aether, Michelson and or Morley still believed in an aether. Indeed drifts with the M-M experiment were detected, just really tiny ones consistent with with a mostly entrained aether, but larger drifts have been detected up mountains in glass houses than in brick basements where aether might be more poorly entrained. Next came Einstein with SR, he showed how an aether wasn't required if space and time distorted in the right ways. Actually he still believed in an aether, although a very different one. Let's look at Time dilation. First off I must say that SR arguments works and look alright until you change your view slightly. Let's take a pulse of light, some observers on the ground measuring the time this pulse takes to traverse 2 detectors 1 meter apart, they get a speed of 299,292.458 meters a second. Then we have have this pulse run along train tracks past a train, they detect this light pulse which they are moving with, and they are meant to detect the same speed. This is an impossibility, except for length contraction and time dilation, only it is still impossible! The first thing to appreciate is that there is an illusion that will appear to create length contraction and time dilation, but this illusion is not real at all. It is the Doppler effect, consider that if I was shooting at you and moving towards you, each bullet would have less travel time causing an increase in the rate at which I seem to be firing bullets, this is the same effect as pitch changes in horns as cars go by. If I was moving away from you it would appear the rate of fire decreased. But of course the rate of fire is unchanged This will create an illusion of the rate of time, but this illusion can be removed through calculation, or by communication of time rate orthogonally to direction of travel. a b- c b is moving away from a, but both a and b can sync clocks with c. since b and c have a period where they are not moving away or toward each other they can keep track of each others progress through time without and Doppler effects in the way. Secondly the Doppler effect causes a length contraction (and expansion) illusion, this is where at any moment a sees b, it sees light from different points in time and hence different positions for the closer and furthest part of b. Because the light from the furthest part of b takes longer to get to a, by the time it has got to a the image a has of the closer portion of the ship is slightly newer and based on a position further away. This causes an illusion of length contraction, but for c this length contraction also has not occurred. And if we add 'stationary' point d that b is moving towards it would see a length expansion which SR ignores completely. So if there is real time and length contraction it is important to separate that from this bogus, illusive form of these effects. And it is important to realise that observer c collapses any possibility of time dilation occurring without a preferred reference frame, if a time rate difference exists between b and c it can be agreed upon
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
Eric, I agree with you that special relativity is going to be a hard one to bring down. I have tried plenty of times to no avail. An ether does not appear to be required for the transmission of electromagnetic waves. My first encounter with that issue came up in fields classes when my professors derived the speed of travel for an electromagnetic disturbance by using factors that are measured at steady state conditions. It seemed remarkable that the electric fields for static charges and magnetic fields measured for steady currents could enter into a differential equation that predicted the velocity of light. Combine the static measurement support and the brilliant insight of Einstein and his special relativity theory and everything falls into place. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I would genuinely like to know if anyone disagrees with my arguments, or fails to understand them. I had a hard time following your examples and counterexamples, but I suspect that relativity will not be so easy to pull apart. There's probably a misunderstanding about one or more of the claims it's making. I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to within a very small error, and that any thought experiments concerning corner cases that are far removed from everyday experience nonetheless remain internally consistent. It will probably require more than a simple thought experiment to call it into doubt. And if you do agree, would you conclude that an aether of some type is logically required? I do not imagine an ether is required as a result of a failure of relativity due to internal inconsistencies. I think it just makes conceptual sense for a wave (e.g., electromagnetic wave) to be a wave traveling in some medium. What is that medium? Perhaps something like an ether. An ether that meets this simple requirement, however, is not necessarily something that one would be able to detect. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
I wrote: I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to within a very small error, and that any thought experiments concerning corner cases that are far removed from everyday experience nonetheless remain internally consistent. I should add one qualification. Mainstream physics describes a universe that is currently expanding rapidly, one in which some galaxies are receding from us faster than the speed of light. This is what Wikipedia says [1]: The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally. This notion of local versus comoving coordinates, and a lack of any simple relation between them, to explain away an apparent faster-than-light violation of special relativity has the hallmarks of a fudge. I think physicists should be allowed to fudge things here and there when in order to keep the obvious stuff pinned down, so it's not a bad thing that has been done, necessarily. This example, however, it seems to me, does not highlight an apparent violation of special relativity that must be explained away (using a fudge about local versus comoving coordinates), but rather, it highlights an assumption that should be revisited about galaxies receding away from us faster than the speed of light. That would require a reassessment of the redshift. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
I wonder about the digital capacity of the vacuum. If the vacuum were analogous to a computer memory, what is the memory limit of the vacuum? Can a small volume of the vacuum be saturated by many matter waves? What is the result of this overloading of the quantum capacity of the vacuum? Can there be too many electrons or quarks packed into a given space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The universe is a spin net liquid, that they have called the Higgs field. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:39 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Not that it matters, but I gave the speed of light in km a second and then said meters a second... Also, I would genuinely like to know if anyone disagrees with my arguments, or fails to understand them. And if you do agree, would you conclude that an aether of some type is logically required? John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Originally the aether was thought to exist, but it was hoped the earth would move though it rather than entrain it, maybe as a continued departure from earth centric thinking, or more likely because a static aether was far more simple than trying to understand an aether that was entrained to some degree by Earth. First Michelson and Morley performed an experiment which if not flawed (some say it is) would show if the earth moved though an aether, however such was not detected. However this did not disprove an entrained aether, Michelson and or Morley still believed in an aether. Indeed drifts with the M-M experiment were detected, just really tiny ones consistent with with a mostly entrained aether, but larger drifts have been detected up mountains in glass houses than in brick basements where aether might be more poorly entrained. Next came Einstein with SR, he showed how an aether wasn't required if space and time distorted in the right ways. Actually he still believed in an aether, although a very different one. Let's look at Time dilation. First off I must say that SR arguments works and look alright until you change your view slightly. Let's take a pulse of light, some observers on the ground measuring the time this pulse takes to traverse 2 detectors 1 meter apart, they get a speed of 299,292.458 meters a second. Then we have have this pulse run along train tracks past a train, they detect this light pulse which they are moving with, and they are meant to detect the same speed. This is an impossibility, except for length contraction and time dilation, only it is still impossible! The first thing to appreciate is that there is an illusion that will appear to create length contraction and time dilation, but this illusion is not real at all. It is the Doppler effect, consider that if I was shooting at you and moving towards you, each bullet would have less travel time causing an increase in the rate at which I seem to be firing bullets, this is the same effect as pitch changes in horns as cars go by. If I was moving away from you it would appear the rate of fire decreased. But of course the rate of fire is unchanged This will create an illusion of the rate of time, but this illusion can be removed through calculation, or by communication of time rate orthogonally to direction of travel. a b- c b is moving away from a, but both a and b can sync clocks with c. since b and c have a period where they are not moving away or toward each other they can keep track of each others progress through time without and Doppler effects in the way. Secondly the Doppler effect causes a length contraction (and expansion) illusion, this is where at any moment a sees b, it sees light from different points in time and hence different positions for the closer and furthest part of b. Because the light from the furthest part of b takes longer to get to a, by the time it has got to a the image a has of the closer portion of the ship is slightly newer and based on a position further away. This causes an illusion of length contraction, but for c this length contraction also has not occurred. And if we add 'stationary' point d that b is moving towards it would see a length expansion which SR ignores completely. So if there is real time and length contraction it is important to separate that from this bogus, illusive form of these effects. And it is important to realise that observer c collapses any possibility of time dilation occurring without a preferred reference frame, if a time rate difference exists between b and c it can be agreed upon between both b and c, they can't see the other as experiencing time slower than they are because they can observe each other without the Doppler distortion, if they both saw the other as frozen in time what happens if they both reach a common reference frame, and meet, would they have to see the
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: An ether does not appear to be required for the transmission of electromagnetic waves. But what does it mean for something to be a wave without being a disturbance in or of anything? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson 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 you will have a hard time envisioning this. Consider the example of a train on a circular track. If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on the train, and their clocks. initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you see their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you can use a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock. Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see the train clocks advance a few seconds. Meanwhile the passengers on the train may not see you as moving given you are in the center, but if you stand anywhere else they would see you as moving and hence your clock would seem to stop. They experience years on the train while they see your clock stop. Then the train suddenly comes to a stop, both expects the others clock to be significantly retarded behind theirs. Additionally if you have an issue with the circle (despite this being the case for particle accelerators) you could have other trains moving at the same speed that are on a straight track, in the brief moment they spend near each other the 2 trains could communicate in real time and even theoretically passengers could switch train, clearly the circular train must have the same degree of time dilation as ones moving in a linear manner. Special Relativity's time dilation is based on the idea of a spaceship leaving earth and communication that does not undergo Doppler shift if not considered, and the arguments state that you can't calculate Doppler based time distortions because that wouldn't be sporting. But you can have instantaneous communication at right angles to the direction of travel. So it really doesn't hold up at all. It's just an illusion, a bluff, everyone else believes it peer pressure. Because it makes the same predictions as an entrained aether would in many cases it seems to hold up well enough. And most find an illogical but popular and 'clean' model more attractive than a messy semi entrained aether, so we have SR, but it's not the truth. It's a convenient lie. It is a fun exercise trying to prove special relativity is wrong, but you will eventually come to the realization that it is correct. Funny, because in 15 years I have never had one person point to the flaw in these thoughts, just that it must be true coz it's popular and who wants to disgrace almost 110 years of science. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Also, I would genuinely like to know if anyone disagrees with my arguments, or fails to understand them. I had a hard time following your examples and counterexamples, but I suspect that relativity will not be so easy to pull apart. Ok, let's keep it really simple. Can you explain how a moving 'train' could measure the velocity of the same photon/s as a stationary observer and measure the same velocity of those photons despite the trains motion, especially photons moving the opposite direction of the train? As far as I can tell, length contraction and time dilation would only help with photons moving with the train, not against it. And if somehow you can pull it off, how could photons travelling in the opposite direction (slowed by the trains motion) be normalized by the same distortions being applied in a consistent manner? Basically to understand my argument, I guess you have to have some understanding of SR in the first place. There's probably a misunderstanding about one or more of the claims it's making. I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to within a very small error, No, it does not. However it makes many of the same predictions as an entrained aether. But it being impossible and illogical is a bit of an issue. I can happily debate it with you, but only if you try to understand my argument, since you asked no specific questions all I can ask you is to explain how it could work. I am sorry, but that was a very lazy reply, it is hard to answer. John
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
David, let me ask you this. Did you understand my arguments? Can you see a flaw in my arguments? If you understand them and can't see a flaw, then can you see how SR could be true anyway? Does it make sense to accept an illogical and impossible theory just because it often gives the right answers? Would it not make more sense to search for a theory that actually makes sense and correct predictions? If you can explain how time dilation can be caused by differences in relative velocity between 2 frames with each frame seeing the other as being more dilated... If you can explain how a photon can be measured to have the same velocity for a stationary frame and a moving frame, and that must explain photons with and against the motion. These have no solution, they are impossible, but feel free to call me out that that. Special Relativity is always only presented from certain angle from which it all works out, the twin paradox has a spaceship leaving earth and there is no instantaneous communication possible. If it circles the earth at high speed then near instantaneous and near constant delay communication is possible. The argument with the train is in my experience always given with light moving in the direction of the train, never against. Surely if it is genuine then these simple arguments can be easily solved, so please disabuse my of these crazy ideas. Explain these flaws. John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, you make a lot of interesting arguments, but special relativity always seems to come through with the right answers. 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. With the speed limit so well defined, you must ask yourself why this is so? 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. It is a fun exercise trying to prove special relativity is wrong, but you will eventually come to the realization that it is correct. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 9:21 pm Subject: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility Originally the aether was thought to exist, but it was hoped the earth would move though it rather than entrain it, maybe as a continued departure from earth centric thinking, or more likely because a static aether was far more simple than trying to understand an aether that was entrained to some degree by Earth. First Michelson and Morley performed an experiment which if not flawed (some say it is) would show if the earth moved though an aether, however such was not detected. However this did not disprove an entrained aether, Michelson and or Morley still believed in an aether. Indeed drifts with the M-M experiment were detected, just really tiny ones consistent with with a mostly entrained aether, but larger drifts have been detected up mountains in glass houses than in brick basements where aether might be more poorly entrained. Next came Einstein with SR, he showed how an aether wasn't required if space and time distorted in the right ways. Actually he still believed in an aether, although a very different one. Let's look at Time dilation. First off I must say that SR arguments works and look alright until you change your view slightly. Let's take a pulse of light, some observers on the ground measuring the time this pulse takes to traverse 2 detectors 1 meter apart, they get a speed of 299,292.458 meters a second. Then we have have this pulse run along train tracks past a train, they detect this light pulse which they are moving with, and they are meant to detect the same speed. This is an impossibility, except for length contraction and time dilation, only it is still impossible! The first thing to appreciate is that there is an illusion that will appear to create length contraction and time dilation, but this illusion is not real at all. It is the Doppler effect, consider that if I was shooting at you and moving towards you, each bullet would have less travel time causing an increase in the rate at which I seem to be firing bullets, this is the same effect as pitch changes in horns as cars go by. If I was moving away from you it would appear the rate of fire decreased. But of course the
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
*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 berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: 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 you will have a hard time envisioning this. Consider the example of a train on a circular track. If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on the train, and their clocks. initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you see their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you can use a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock. Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see the train clocks advance a few seconds. Meanwhile the passengers on the train may not see you as moving given you are in the center, but if you stand anywhere else they would see you as moving and hence your clock would seem to stop. They experience years on the train while they see your clock stop. Then the train suddenly comes to a stop, both expects the others clock to be significantly retarded behind theirs. Additionally if you have an issue with the circle (despite this being the case for particle accelerators) you could have other trains moving at the same speed that are on a straight track, in the brief moment they spend near each other the 2 trains could communicate in real time and even theoretically passengers could switch train, clearly the circular train must have the same degree of time dilation as ones moving in a linear manner. Special Relativity's time dilation is based on the idea of a spaceship leaving earth and communication that does not undergo Doppler shift if not considered, and the arguments state that you can't calculate Doppler based time distortions because that wouldn't be sporting. But you can have instantaneous communication at right angles to the direction of travel. So it really doesn't hold up at all. It's just an illusion, a bluff, everyone else believes it peer pressure. Because it makes the same predictions as an entrained aether would in many cases it seems to hold up well enough. And most find an illogical but popular and 'clean' model more attractive than a messy semi entrained aether, so we have SR, but it's not the truth. It's a convenient lie. It is a fun exercise trying to prove special relativity is wrong, but you will eventually come to the realization that it is correct. Funny, because in 15 years I have never had one person point to the flaw in these thoughts, just that it must be true coz it's popular and who wants to disgrace almost 110 years of science. John
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 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 berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: 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 you will have a hard time envisioning this. Consider the example of a train on a circular track. If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on the train, and their clocks. initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you see their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you can use a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock. Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see the train clocks advance a few seconds. Meanwhile the passengers on the train may not see you as moving given you are in the center, but if you stand anywhere else they would see you as moving and hence your clock would seem to stop. They experience years on the train while they see your clock stop. Then the train suddenly comes to a stop, both expects the others clock to be significantly retarded behind theirs. Additionally if you have an issue with the circle (despite this being the case for particle accelerators) you could have other trains moving at the same speed that are on a straight track, in the brief moment they spend near each other the 2 trains could communicate in real time and even theoretically passengers could switch train, clearly the circular train must have the same degree of time dilation as ones moving in a linear manner. Special Relativity's time dilation is based on the idea of a spaceship leaving earth and communication that does not undergo Doppler shift if not considered, and the arguments state that you can't calculate Doppler based time distortions because that
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:37 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, let's keep it really simple. Can you explain how a moving 'train' could measure the velocity of the same photon/s as a stationary observer and measure the same velocity of those photons despite the trains motion, especially photons moving the opposite direction of the train? You need to explain how your train is measuring the velocity of the photon. Until you do that, your thought experiment is under-determined, and little can be reasoned in connection with it. When you have an opportunity to explain the precise manner in which the velocity of the photon is being measured, keep in mind this bit of detail [1]: The Earth moves around the sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if velocities added vectorially as newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago routinely accelerate particles to within a whisper of the speed of light. Any dependence of the speed of light on reference frames would have shown up long ago, unless it is very slight indeed. Basically to understand my argument, I guess you have to have some understanding of SR in the first place. I'm hoping you can help me with this one. There's probably a misunderstanding about one or more of the claims it's making. I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to within a very small error, No, it does not. Yes, it does. However it makes many of the same predictions as an entrained aether. But it being impossible and illogical is a bit of an issue. We should take a careful look at what it is that is impossible and illogical. Eric [1] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:37 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, let's keep it really simple. Can you explain how a moving 'train' could measure the velocity of the same photon/s as a stationary observer and measure the same velocity of those photons despite the trains motion, especially photons moving the opposite direction of the train? You need to explain how your train is measuring the velocity of the photon. Until you do that, your thought experiment is under-determined, and little can be reasoned in connection with it. I did cover that, I said the speed is measured with 2 light/photon sensors 1 meter apart with a clock to measure the time delay between a photon (or light pulse) triggering the first sensor and the second sensor. When you have an opportunity to explain the precise manner in which the velocity of the photon is being measured, keep in mind this bit of detail [1]: The Earth moves around the sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if velocities added vectorially as newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Have you read ANY of my first email? I am not trying to be insulting but it was the first thing I mentioned, do you understand the word entrained? I said that the M-M experiment could be argued to disprove a rigid aether, but I am proposing an aether that is dragged by the earth. The only relevant question is how entrained is it by what degree and type of mass and other fields, and can it be that it might be entrained to a sufficient degree for one type of phenomena but not for another? Does a car, or train entrain aether enough to find the speed of light is C for an experiment contained entirely in the vehicle? Does a ball? Does a spit wad? Maybe these all do but have a variable size 'Aura' of entrained aether what would 'win' against the level of entrainment offered by the air. This is the problem with an entrained aether, theory, not that it is illogical, but that there can by much speculation regarding the degree that aether is entrained by mass and what effect electric and magnetic fields might have on this entrainment. Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago routinely accelerate particles to within a whisper of the speed of light. Any dependence of the speed of light on reference frames would have shown up long ago, unless it is very slight indeed. The argument is that the aether is entrained by matter, these labs are underground, and the fields they have would be expected to entrain an entrain-able aether. A proton by it's self is almost certainly insufficient to entrain aether, and if it did I doubt that any electromagnetic force would be able to interact with something beyond light speed. Basically to understand my argument, I guess you have to have some understanding of SR in the first place. I'm hoping you can help me with this one. There's probably a misunderstanding about one or more of the claims it's making. I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to within a very small error, No, it does not. Yes, it does. No, it does not... Yes, it does... No, it does not... Yes, it does... I guess examples are required, and there are, variations and drifts have been detected but I have no interest in playing the whackamole game with experiments showing either side of this argument. Experiments don't prove anything, at least not as cleanly and clearly as logic can. Experiments of this type could always be flawed or argued against on some grounds either way. The thing is that Lorentz Aether Theory (LET) was the bones that SR is built on and most every experiment that backs up SR also backs up LET if the Aether in question is entrained by matter. However it makes many of the same predictions as an entrained aether. But it being impossible and illogical is a bit of an issue. We should take a careful look at what it is that is impossible and illogical. Yes, let's It is impossible for one moving thing to be measured as having the same velocity relative to all reference frames. And the means that SR employees to shoe horn everything to fit only works to fix light travelling in one direction, it increases the disagreement the other way. And it is impossible for 2 parties with relative motion to both experience the other as experiencing time slower than they are when there is constant delay (near instantaneous) communication between them. These are impossibilities and are the very most basic parts of SR, if I am in error it should be easy to show me the mistake and how it does work in these situations. John
