|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 19, 2019 6:01:24 GMT
...or is it just renewed? Or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 22, 2019 19:47:05 GMT
karlOne step at a time is the best way of doing anything. Of course, we implicitly construct time as consisting of consecutive steps to do this! (haha - bit of a dry joke) You claim that the predictions of the formula are testable, but only in radically esoteric conditions of extremely accurate equipment and space-craft. So we can only take it on faith that others are claiming to have tested them. So that is not really a positivist test. A claim to a test, is not a test. Its a claim. Perhaps it may be easier to see the 2 spaceships colliding with the midpoint. Each one will perceive it collides first according to the relativist narrative. Although there are some who suggest it is the other who collides first. Because this is an original question I construct myself, I can only guess how you will interpret it. Certainly I have entertained relativists who also say the 2 spaceships meet at the same time - for all observers - and they also suggest that this does not violate special relativity either. But seeing as the 2 spaceships have an effective velocity between them, there should be some time dilation somewhere, but from the perspective of the midpoint, the 2 spaceships must be perceived to be identical to each other. There is no consistent relativist answer forthcoming to the question called the 'time-dilation conundrum' since I have been discussing it on forums from 2014. That itself is woefully ironic! The result is often claimed that 'simultaneity breaks down' which means that everybody is in their own universe. But this violates the very foundation that Einstein put forth, that the laws of physics must be the same for everyone. So slippery semantics dodges the idea that the results of the formulae can be different even though the formulae are the same. But try as they might, the relativists are playing word-games because the results of the formulae being different shows that the formulae are not being applied universally in the same way. It is meaningless to say that objectivity fails. Because that implies that it fails in an objective way, and thus it is objective. Still: its a contradictory paradigm no matter how you look at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 23, 2019 1:41:08 GMT
karl One step at a time is the best way of doing anything. Of course, we implicitly construct time as consisting of consecutive steps to do this! (haha - bit of a dry joke) You claim that the predictions of the formula are testable, but only in radically esoteric conditions of extremely accurate equipment and space-craft. So we can only take it on faith that others are claiming to have tested them. So that is not really a positivist test. A claim to a test, is not a test. Its a claim. Perhaps it may be easier to see the 2 spaceships colliding with the midpoint. Each one will perceive it collides first according to the relativist narrative. Although there are some who suggest it is the other who collides first. Because this is an original question I construct myself, I can only guess how you will interpret it. Certainly I have entertained relativists who also say the 2 spaceships meet at the same time - for all observers - and they also suggest that this does not violate special relativity either. But seeing as the 2 spaceships have an effective velocity between them, there should be some time dilation somewhere, but from the perspective of the midpoint, the 2 spaceships must be perceived to be identical to each other. There is no consistent relativist answer forthcoming to the question called the 'time-dilation conundrum' since I have been discussing it on forums from 2014. That itself is woefully ironic! The result is often claimed that 'simultaneity breaks down' which means that everybody is in their own universe. But this violates the very foundation that Einstein put forth, that the laws of physics must be the same for everyone. So slippery semantics dodges the idea that the results of the formulae can be different even though the formulae are the same. But try as they might, the relativists are playing word-games because the results of the formulae being different shows that the formulae are not being applied universally in the same way. It is meaningless to say that objectivity fails. Because that implies that it fails in an objective way, and thus it is objective. Still: its a contradictory paradigm no matter how you look at it.
When it comes to testing, then you and I couldn't ourselves test the predictions of either the special or the general relativity theory. But the clocks on satellites are continually adjust both for time dilation caused by the movement of the satellite, which slows time down, and the gravitional field, which has the opposite effect. The latter more than cancels out the first, due to GPS satellites orbiting 20.000 km above the Earth's surface.
When it comes to the example you give, then let's imagine that a person stands in the center while spaceship A and B are both 300.000 km away, both traveling at 50% of the speed of ligth, so from his perspective it will take two seconds before they collide. We'll imagine marking points in space, A1 and B1 respectively. So, to he observer in the center, A1 and B1 are 600.000 km apart. If you look at the formulas from the Lorenz transformation, what you'll find is that a person on spaceship A will claim that B has already passed B1 when A reaches A1. A person on spaceship B, however, will claim the opposite, that spaceship A has already passed A1 when B reaches B1. So it's only to the person in the center that the events of A and B passing their marking points happen simultaneously.
Do I understand your objection to this? Yes, I do. I don't actually question the validity of the formulas, and I have no problem accepting time dilation. However, there is no way to directly test whether it's actually so that the sequence of events depends on the observer. It's a conclusion one may only derive after the fact, by receiving information from the observers sent no faster than the speed of light. But since I don't question the formulas themselves, I question the interpretation of them. -Not for time dilation, as that is continually confirmed, but that one should take literally that the seuqence of events depends on the observer. And it is this interpretation that does open up for traveling back in time, which I don't believe in. If, for example, there was a wormhole connecting us through spacetime to some galaxy billion lightyears away, and I'm on the phone line with some alien there, then if I simply start walking in the direction of the galaxy, it would suddenly be in the future on the other end of the line. And if I walk backwards, time on the other end of the line would jump backwards in time. Maybe some would counter this by stating that such wormholes might be an impossibility, but under any circumstance, something isn't right, whatever that something may be.
Is there a way to simply postulate that there is only one squence of events for the universe? Sure, and I could elaborate on it in a later post. But it would be a purely ad hoc way of getting around the problem, that would be completely untestable. If I wanted to slam it myself, I could say that it's a bit like how some creationists acknowledge that there are fossils to imply evolution, but that they're placed there by the devil to deceive us. However, as it stands, you end up with absurdities either way.
|
|
PISTON1246
Full Member
Posts: 361 
Likes: 90
Ethnicity: I HAVE ANCESTORS OF DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR AND EYE COLOR AND I MET SOME OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE STILL LIVING
Politics: REGISTERED VOTER
Religion: ISLAM
|
Post by PISTON1246 on Jan 23, 2019 2:32:09 GMT
there were three different times.
the time before you made the original post in this thread and the time you spent making the post and then here we are the time after you made that post.
Some time after you made that post I started reading it and then typed a reply. I forgot to put caps lock on this time for this post.
ONLY GOD CAN RENEW TIME AND THAT IS IF HE WANTS TO. THE TIME YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN THIS LIFE IS LIMITED. I BELIEVE GOD GAVE US A NUMBERED AMOUNT OF TIME TO SPEND DOING WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND THAT INCLUDES FINDING OUT WHAT WE ARE MEANT TO DO WITH OUR LIVES.
I THINK WE MUST LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL AND TO DO GOOD AND STOP DOING EVIL. WE NEED TO START DOING GOOD FOR OURSELVES AND THOSE AROUND US. EVERYONE WHO IS ALIVE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO GOOD WITH EACH DAY WE ARE GIVEN. I THINK THE QURAN IS AN EXCELLENT GUIDE FOR DOING GOOD. IT CALLS FOR DOING CHARITY, STRIVING FOR ISLAM, EATING GOOD FOOD, PRAYING TO GOD OR ALLAH, SPENDING WHAT YOU ARE GIVEN FOR THE CAUSE OF ISLAM, AND YOU MAY BE CALLED TO ESTABLISH ISLAM IN YOUR AREA JUST LIKE THE PAST MUSLIMS HAVE DONE FOR THEIR AREAS.
EDIT
THE TIME YESTERDAY IS GONE AND HOPEFULLY WE HAVE TOMORROW TO DISCUSS STUFF OVER THE INTERNET WITH PEOPLE IN OUR INTERNET COMMUNITY.
ELIZABETH WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO DO?
I AM LEAVING IN A LITTLE BIT. MIGHT BE BACK TOMORROW.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 24, 2019 18:49:50 GMT
karl One step at a time is the best way of doing anything. Of course, we implicitly construct time as consisting of consecutive steps to do this! (haha - bit of a dry joke) You claim that the predictions of the formula are testable, but only in radically esoteric conditions of extremely accurate equipment and space-craft. So we can only take it on faith that others are claiming to have tested them. So that is not really a positivist test. A claim to a test, is not a test. Its a claim. Perhaps it may be easier to see the 2 spaceships colliding with the midpoint. Each one will perceive it collides first according to the relativist narrative. Although there are some who suggest it is the other who collides first. Because this is an original question I construct myself, I can only guess how you will interpret it. Certainly I have entertained relativists who also say the 2 spaceships meet at the same time - for all observers - and they also suggest that this does not violate special relativity either. But seeing as the 2 spaceships have an effective velocity between them, there should be some time dilation somewhere, but from the perspective of the midpoint, the 2 spaceships must be perceived to be identical to each other. There is no consistent relativist answer forthcoming to the question called the 'time-dilation conundrum' since I have been discussing it on forums from 2014. That itself is woefully ironic! The result is often claimed that 'simultaneity breaks down' which means that everybody is in their own universe. But this violates the very foundation that Einstein put forth, that the laws of physics must be the same for everyone. So slippery semantics dodges the idea that the results of the formulae can be different even though the formulae are the same. But try as they might, the relativists are playing word-games because the results of the formulae being different shows that the formulae are not being applied universally in the same way. It is meaningless to say that objectivity fails. Because that implies that it fails in an objective way, and thus it is objective. Still: its a contradictory paradigm no matter how you look at it.
When it comes to testing, then you and I couldn't ourselves test the predictions of either the special or the general relativity theory. But the clocks on satellites are continually adjust both for time dilation caused by the movement of the satellite, which slows time down, and the gravitional field, which has the opposite effect. The latter more than cancels out the first, due to GPS satellites orbiting 20.000 km above the Earth's surface.
When it comes to the example you give, then let's imagine that a person stands in the center while spaceship A and B are both 300.000 km away, both traveling at 50% of the speed of ligth, so from his perspective it will take two seconds before they collide. We'll imagine marking points in space, A1 and B1 respectively. So, to he observer in the center, A1 and B1 are 600.000 km apart. If you look at the formulas from the Lorenz transformation, what you'll find is that a person on spaceship A will claim that B has already passed B1 when A reaches A1. A person on spaceship B, however, will claim the opposite, that spaceship A has already passed A1 when B reaches B1. So it's only to the person in the center that the events of A and B passing their marking points happen simultaneously.
Do I understand your objection to this? Yes, I do. I don't actually question the validity of the formulas, and I have no problem accepting time dilation. However, there is no way to directly test whether it's actually so that the sequence of events depends on the observer. It's a conclusion one may only derive after the fact, by receiving information from the observers sent no faster than the speed of light. But since I don't question the formulas themselves, I question the interpretation of them. -Not for time dilation, as that is continually confirmed, but that one should take literally that the seuqence of events depends on the observer. And it is this interpretation that does open up for traveling back in time, which I don't believe in. If, for example, there was a wormhole connecting us through spacetime to some galaxy billion lightyears away, and I'm on the phone line with some alien there, then if I simply start walking in the direction of the galaxy, it would suddenly be in the future on the other end of the line. And if I walk backwards, time on the other end of the line would jump backwards in time. Maybe some would counter this by stating that such wormholes might be an impossibility, but under any circumstance, something isn't right, whatever that something may be.
Is there a way to simply postulate that there is only one squence of events for the universe? Sure, and I could elaborate on it in a later post. But it would be a purely ad hoc way of getting around the problem, that would be completely untestable. If I wanted to slam it myself, I could say that it's a bit like how some creationists acknowledge that there are fossils to imply evolution, but that they're placed there by the devil to deceive us. However, as it stands, you end up with absurdities either way.
There are countless claims to satellites proving relativity, and there are also many who claim that they disprove it if you care to look around and not just ignore those who disagree. If you want some links, just ask. So all we are left with is claims and counter-claims, and the criteria of denial or acceptance based on arbitrary decisions of style and status. So we have to try find ways of disproving / proving those aspects of the theory which are most readily available OURSELVES. That is why the video uses the simple light-bulb experiment. After 0.001 second 2 photons moving apart will be 600km from each other. No matter what any formula says, the logic of the matter is that velocity is a measurement of distance over time. 600km/sec is the velocity between them. Applying the various formula from relativity results in claims that are just not true. If we apply time-dilation from SR to the photon, the results are impossible, because then time should stop for the photon. If we interpret it different to this, then the idea is that time only stops for internal features of the photon. But internal features of the photon do not stop. Frequency, wavelength and spin are all functions of time. And time must move to exhibit these. So photons disprove special relativity, which is quite ironic as Einstein was credited with discovering them from what I can ascertain. (Though he is often 'credited' with discoveries that were not his). Then there is the notion of gravity moving at light-speed which is actually the principle from relativity which has the largest mathematical impact, dwarfing the other formulae by hundreds of thousands of times in its effect as regards the solar systems examined. That video is an introduction, but it does not take a great amount of programming ability to apply gravity moving at light-speed to the orbit of the Alpha Centauri binary. They depart at 1.4 million km per orbit giving all binary pairs of stars an orbital life-span of a fraction of a million years. Which is contrary to half of stars being binaries in a universe several billions of years old. Then apply Einstein's gravity-velocity to the moon's orbit, and compare to Newton's laws. The up-shot being that the moon would move away from the earth at 5km per year IF gravity moved at light-speed. The various other equations from relativity amounting to a few mm in effect per year. Thus the moon would have been at the surface of the Earth less than 70 000 years ago - IF gravity moves at light-speed. The algorithms I have developed exam numerous examples. Only on planets that have small mass and eccentric orbits, like Mars and Mercury, will special relativity have a greater impact than general relativity would. Even the Earth would move away from the Sun at 1km per orbit IF gravity moved at light-speed. So its ironic, that you suggest that fossils were placed deliberately to appear aged. Because if you properly apply relativity to the solar system, the result is only compatible with a literal reading of Genesis - the young Earth. (Somewhere a dogmatist has just had his day made). All of Geology must be wrong if Einstein's equations apply. A 4 billion (or more) old Earth would require gravity to be either instant, or move more than a million times light-speed. The link that follows is the full details of this analysis, including free algorithms which I suppose can only be verified in true logical positivist terms if the readers replicate the process themselves. We all have computers now, so there is no real excuse not to do it if you claim that you understand relativity. But all the data they demonstrate can be verified in real-time. You will see that the gravity-delay is displayed and fits all checks for the respective bodies so that it is between 1.5 and 5 hours for alpha Centauri; but 1.35 seconds for the moon-Earth. There are many other features displayed which can be verified by the user. See here for more: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htm |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 25, 2019 0:38:27 GMT
won't let me edit typo
should be 600kkm/sec
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 25, 2019 3:39:18 GMT
When it comes to testing, then you and I couldn't ourselves test the predictions of either the special or the general relativity theory. But the clocks on satellites are continually adjust both for time dilation caused by the movement of the satellite, which slows time down, and the gravitional field, which has the opposite effect. The latter more than cancels out the first, due to GPS satellites orbiting 20.000 km above the Earth's surface.
When it comes to the example you give, then let's imagine that a person stands in the center while spaceship A and B are both 300.000 km away, both traveling at 50% of the speed of ligth, so from his perspective it will take two seconds before they collide. We'll imagine marking points in space, A1 and B1 respectively. So, to he observer in the center, A1 and B1 are 600.000 km apart. If you look at the formulas from the Lorenz transformation, what you'll find is that a person on spaceship A will claim that B has already passed B1 when A reaches A1. A person on spaceship B, however, will claim the opposite, that spaceship A has already passed A1 when B reaches B1. So it's only to the person in the center that the events of A and B passing their marking points happen simultaneously.
Do I understand your objection to this? Yes, I do. I don't actually question the validity of the formulas, and I have no problem accepting time dilation. However, there is no way to directly test whether it's actually so that the sequence of events depends on the observer. It's a conclusion one may only derive after the fact, by receiving information from the observers sent no faster than the speed of light. But since I don't question the formulas themselves, I question the interpretation of them. -Not for time dilation, as that is continually confirmed, but that one should take literally that the seuqence of events depends on the observer. And it is this interpretation that does open up for traveling back in time, which I don't believe in. If, for example, there was a wormhole connecting us through spacetime to some galaxy billion lightyears away, and I'm on the phone line with some alien there, then if I simply start walking in the direction of the galaxy, it would suddenly be in the future on the other end of the line. And if I walk backwards, time on the other end of the line would jump backwards in time. Maybe some would counter this by stating that such wormholes might be an impossibility, but under any circumstance, something isn't right, whatever that something may be.
Is there a way to simply postulate that there is only one squence of events for the universe? Sure, and I could elaborate on it in a later post. But it would be a purely ad hoc way of getting around the problem, that would be completely untestable. If I wanted to slam it myself, I could say that it's a bit like how some creationists acknowledge that there are fossils to imply evolution, but that they're placed there by the devil to deceive us. However, as it stands, you end up with absurdities either way.
There are countless claims to satellites proving relativity, and there are also many who claim that they disprove it if you care to look around and not just ignore those who disagree. If you want some links, just ask. So all we are left with is claims and counter-claims, and the criteria of denial or acceptance based on arbitrary decisions of style and status. So we have to try find ways of disproving / proving those aspects of the theory which are most readily available OURSELVES. That is why the video uses the simple light-bulb experiment. After 0.001 second 2 photons moving apart will be 600km from each other. No matter what any formula says, the logic of the matter is that velocity is a measurement of distance over time. 600km/sec is the velocity between them. Applying the various formula from relativity results in claims that are just not true. If we apply time-dilation from SR to the photon, the results are impossible, because then time should stop for the photon. If we interpret it different to this, then the idea is that time only stops for internal features of the photon. But internal features of the photon do not stop. Frequency, wavelength and spin are all functions of time. And time must move to exhibit these. So photons disprove special relativity, which is quite ironic as Einstein was credited with discovering them from what I can ascertain. (Though he is often 'credited' with discoveries that were not his). Then there is the notion of gravity moving at light-speed which is actually the principle from relativity which has the largest mathematical impact, dwarfing the other formulae by hundreds of thousands of times in its effect as regards the solar systems examined. That video is an introduction, but it does not take a great amount of programming ability to apply gravity moving at light-speed to the orbit of the Alpha Centauri binary. They depart at 1.4 million km per orbit giving all binary pairs of stars an orbital life-span of a fraction of a million years. Which is contrary to half of stars being binaries in a universe several billions of years old. Then apply Einstein's gravity-velocity to the moon's orbit, and compare to Newton's laws. The up-shot being that the moon would move away from the earth at 5km per year IF gravity moved at light-speed. The various other equations from relativity amounting to a few mm in effect per year. Thus the moon would have been at the surface of the Earth less than 70 000 years ago - IF gravity moves at light-speed. The algorithms I have developed exam numerous examples. Only on planets that have small mass and eccentric orbits, like Mars and Mercury, will special relativity have a greater impact than general relativity would. Even the Earth would move away from the Sun at 1km per orbit IF gravity moved at light-speed. So its ironic, that you suggest that fossils were placed deliberately to appear aged. Because if you properly apply relativity to the solar system, the result is only compatible with a literal reading of Genesis - the young Earth. (Somewhere a dogmatist has just had his day made). All of Geology must be wrong if Einstein's equations apply. A 4 billion (or more) old Earth would require gravity to be either instant, or move more than a million times light-speed. The link that follows is the full details of this analysis, including free algorithms which I suppose can only be verified in true logical positivist terms if the readers replicate the process themselves. We all have computers now, so there is no real excuse not to do it if you claim that you understand relativity. But all the data they demonstrate can be verified in real-time. You will see that the gravity-delay is displayed and fits all checks for the respective bodies so that it is between 1.5 and 5 hours for alpha Centauri; but 1.35 seconds for the moon-Earth. There are many other features displayed which can be verified by the user. See here for more: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmFirst, in case there was some misunderstanding. I did not suggest that fossils are placed to appear aged. I stated that some creationists suggest that, and I'm not a creationist. What I was referring to is that it's possible to imagine that there is one reference frame for space and time, and still preserve all the testable predictions of the relativistic formulas. But that this way is like an ad hoc theory that cannot be tested. So I was pointing out the weakness of this approach.
If one observer sees two spaceships from towards him from each direction, at 99,99% of the speed of light, then they would also approach each other, from his viewpoint, at a speed close to 600.000 km/s. But if you were onboard one of the spaceships, the relative speed would be calculated by the formula: (v+u)/(1+vu/csq), and if we do the math, the result is: 99,995% of the speed of light. Following one photon would be impossible, however, since you can't reach the speed of light. You refer to the internal features of the photon. I have no conception of a photon's internal features. A photon is a wave in an electromagnetic field. I don't imagine it as a capsule with internal structures.
I'm sure you can find youtube videos claiming that time doesn't speed up for GPS satellites, but you can also find youtube videos claiming that the Earth is flat. Also, I have no problem actually understanding the special relativity theory, and the basics of the general relativity theory, which is another reason for why I believe both are true.
As for the orbit of the Earth around the sun, you must see the sun's gravitation as an established curvature of spacetime, rather than as signals moving towards the Earth at speed of light. If the sun disappeared right now, it would still take eight minutes before the Earth ceased to move in orbit around where the sun used to be. Same thing for the moon's orbit around the Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 26, 2019 22:12:20 GMT
karlYou really just make claims on the basis that you take the given formula as a matter of fundamental faith. Not of logic. That is your basic premise. If gravity moves at light-speed from the Sun, then the Earth must be moved by it, coming from the point where the Sun was 500 seconds ago. Adding other words like 'curvature' or 'space-time' does not alter that logical conclusion, because we see the Sun where it was 500 seconds ago due to light moving at that precise same velocity. The very measurement of the speed of light was made originally from observing the times of the orbits of Jupiter's moons being delayed fractionally due to this precise effect. Hawking says  So any variation to the CLAIM that gravity is said to be moving at the speed of light is different to the given established theory. Its all fine and well to have a re-worked model. But this then disproves the previous model. ---------------------------------------------------- The frequency of a photon is its established internal structure, and being frequency, is a measurement per second of time. How can it be suggested that its frequency is not part of its structure? That is the very definition of how color works. If you accept relativity, then you reject logic. The implications are so deeply troubling for the future of the mind of man. I can only plead with you for the sake of our common future to please think in terms of logic. The implications of the very benchmark of the scientific method being completely wrong has to be seen as the gravest threat to society. If the thoughts of our academic leaders are jumbled and illogical, then they are not fit to be in power. Disaster awaits at the first genuine crisis. I feel like Churchill during the 1930's for heaven's sake! ----------------------------------------------- If we observe 2 photons 600km apart after 0.001 seconds, then the foundation of relativity is yet again broken. ----------------------------------------------- PS I realize that your suggestion of the fossils was not your viewpoint - I was just pointing out the irony of it (from Stephen Gould - a biologist) actually being in-keeping with a gravity delay as regards the time-frames in celestial mechanics. ----------------------------------------------------- The real issue with the 2 spaceships is based on the fact that it is a 3-body problem. In order to attempt to solve Einstein for 3 bodies, one must first surely be able to solve Newton for 3 bodies. I am aware of only 2 other people that have done this, and none of them (from what I can ascertain) have been able to do it according to precise scales. (I have done, but I have not yet published the results.) There are a few statistical models, yes, but those are implicitly in 2D, and not evolutionary as regards a proper solution to the n-body-gravity problem. So, they plot graphs, and infer future positions on the basis of those graphs; which is good enough in most practical cases. But they do not get to the essential mechanics of gravity. They cannot predict all future situations that involve radically different bodies. That is why the asteroid Oumuamua, is said to 'accelerate' - because the gravity model they use only works for numerous repeatable observations. That 'acceleration' is just poor math. Contemporary astrophysics is revered as if it were some pagan idol. It is seldom analysed. A simple example is in my latest video. Give this a try:
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 27, 2019 5:29:00 GMT
karl You really just make claims on the basis that you take the given formula as a matter of fundamental faith. Not of logic. That is your basic premise. If gravity moves at light-speed from the Sun, then the Earth must be moved by it, coming from the point where the Sun was 500 seconds ago. Adding other words like 'curvature' or 'space-time' does not alter that logical conclusion, because we see the Sun where it was 500 seconds ago due to light moving at that precise same velocity. The very measurement of the speed of light was made originally from observing the times of the orbits of Jupiter's moons being delayed fractionally due to this precise effect. Hawking says So any variation to the CLAIM that gravity is said to be moving at the speed of light is different to the given established theory. Its all fine and well to have a re-worked model. But this then disproves the previous model. ---------------------------------------------------- The frequency of a photon is its established internal structure, and being frequency, is a measurement per second of time. How can it be suggested that its frequency is not part of its structure? That is the very definition of how color works. If you accept relativity, then you reject logic. The implications are so deeply troubling for the future of the mind of man. I can only plead with you for the sake of our common future to please think in terms of logic. The implications of the very benchmark of the scientific method being completely wrong has to be seen as the gravest threat to society. If the thoughts of our academic leaders are jumbled and illogical, then they are not fit to be in power. Disaster awaits at the first genuine crisis. I feel like Churchill during the 1930's for heaven's sake! ----------------------------------------------- If we observe 2 photons 600km apart after 0.001 seconds, then the foundation of relativity is yet again broken. ----------------------------------------------- PS I realize that your suggestion of the fossils was not your viewpoint - I was just pointing out the irony of it (from Stephen Gould - a biologist) actually being in-keeping with a gravity delay as regards the time-frames in celestial mechanics. ----------------------------------------------------- The real issue with the 2 spaceships is based on the fact that it is a 3-body problem. In order to attempt to solve Einstein for 3 bodies, one must first surely be able to solve Newton for 3 bodies. I am aware of only 2 other people that have done this, and none of them (from what I can ascertain) have been able to do it according to precise scales. (I have done, but I have not yet published the results.) There are a few statistical models, yes, but those are implicitly in 2D, and not evolutionary as regards a proper solution to the n-body-gravity problem. So, they plot graphs, and infer future positions on the basis of those graphs; which is good enough in most practical cases. But they do not get to the essential mechanics of gravity. They cannot predict all future situations that involve radically different bodies. That is why the asteroid Oumuamua, is said to 'accelerate' - because the gravity model they use only works for numerous repeatable observations. That 'acceleration' is just poor math. Contemporary astrophysics is revered as if it were some pagan idol. It is seldom analysed. A simple example is in my latest video. Give this a try:
The basis for Einstein's special relativity theory was the observation that no matter what reference frame you use, you get the same value for the speed of light. Once that is established, you can, simply by using math, arrive at the formulas given in the Lorenz transformation, and if you'd like, I can go through every step of it in a future post. When you start off from given premises and arrive at mathematical formulas, you are applying logic. It's the ability to think logically that allows one to deduce relativisitc formulas from the simple fact that the speed of light is measured to be the same from all reference frames, moving in relation to each other.
From these formulas, you can also derive the formula for a relativistic acceleration field, which I may also show in a future post if needed. Then one can show that there is no way to distinguish, locally that is, between a gravitational field and an acceleration field. When you look closer at the actual properties of a relativistic acceleration field, what you will discover is that if you simply treat that as a valid reference frame, you end up with spacial contraction and time dilation depending on distance. This can be presented graphically, in a 3D model, and from that, you can see how a line that looks straight in spacetime from the viewpoint from someone not in acceleration, will look curved from the viewpoint of the observer that's in acceleration. Transfer that to an gravitational field, and you'll see how gravitation is not a force but curvature of spacetime.
Your idea of how gravity must work, actually mirrors a question that confounded physicists before one had developed theories about fields. Similar to how you were thinking, one imagined, for example, how an electron would be influenced by something with an electric charge. So the idea was that the object sent out a signal to the electron, but then, before the signal had time to reach it, the electron would have had time to move. This problem wasn't resolved before one realised that one had to think about it as a field. If you put an object with an electric charge somewhere, the corresponding electrogmagnetic field will spread out at the speed of light. If you then place an electron in that field, it will instantly be affected by it, and doesn't have to wait until a signal has had time to reach it from the object. If the object is removed, the electron will continue to be affected by the field before the field disappears. So if the distance between the charged object and the electron is, let's say, 300 km, then the effect will last 1/1000nd of a second after the object is removed. Same thing goes for a gravitational field.
Hawking was referring to the wave/particle duality. So one can imagine the effect a field has on an object as delivered in packages. The same goes for the gravitational field, where Hawking saw the effect being transmitted by a graviton, which is what's referred to as a virtual particle. Exactly how to understand this duality requires a theory that unifies the relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
As for the 3 body problem. Even in the Newtonian universe, it's only the simplest problems that there is a general solution for. When it becomes more complicated, such as if you have three bodies affecting each other with each their gravitational field, one needs to use a power series to approximate the answer. It's similar to how one may simulate physical processes with a computer. The computer wouldn't be able to "know" the outcome of the simulation, as there is no general solution that may provide an answer. The simulation will simply have to run its course until the outcome presents itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 30, 2019 21:58:05 GMT
karl Let me make an addition to the 3 body problem. We have the 2 ships A&B moving towards the center:C. Now place yourself in a fourth ship D, moving parallel to A. The other change is that A & B will impact at C which has a detonator on board that destroys the ship that hits it, as well as destroying C. The other ship arrives later and because C is already detonated, it is unscathed. So you, moving with A, observe that A impacts C, and both are destroyed. You have already agreed, that A will arrive before B from your perspective: D. So you observe B survives, you hail them, and meet them afterwards for a drink, and say: How can you be alive? For your perspective, you died in a collision...! Please resolve this blatant contradiction that ensues from special relativity.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 31, 2019 4:45:40 GMT
karl Let me make an addition to the 3 body problem. We have the 2 ships A&B moving towards the center:C. Now place yourself in a fourth ship D, moving parallel to A. The other change is that A & B will impact at C which has a detonator on board that destroys the ship that hits it, as well as destroying C. The other ship arrives later and because C is already detonated, it is unscathed. So you, moving with A, observe that A impacts C, and both are destroyed. You have already agreed, that A will arrive before B from your perspective: D. So you observe B survives, you hail them, and meet them afterwards for a drink, and say: How can you be alive? For your perspective, you died in a collision...! Please resolve this blatant contradiction that ensues from special relativity.
First, I misunderstood in my previous post what you referred to when you used the term "3 body problem", since that is a specific term used to describe the problem of calculating the movements of three objects all influencing each other with gravity.
As for the 3 body problem that you now outlined, you presume that, according to special relativity theory, from the viewpoint of one observer, for example one placed at C, both A and B hit C at the same time, while from the viewpoint of another, in this case D, A hits C before B. This is incorrect. The relativity of sequence of events requires distance between these events. This comes from the VX/Csq element of the formula. If X=0, that factor goes away. So if someone throws a clock at you and you look at that clock when you catch it, all observers in the universe will agree on what that clock showed when you looked at it. However, imagine that you have a sharp vision and sees that the clock reads "3", just as a dog right next to you barks. From the viewpoint of an observer moving relative to you, with or against the direction of the clock, the clock showing "3" and the dog barking didn't happen at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 31, 2019 10:58:30 GMT
I don't take into account any notion of time except the concept of changing.
Either we aim a time representation as a distance divided by speed, or a certain function over any measure, we take a rational picture in Math, or just relation.
The changing is a relation too, but this relation is tiny different than the other ones. Changing is the core of a relation, because it's something that allows us start conceiving any processes. And the process might be exactly the one we're looking for.
At the same time, the changing and the process are something similar, and they differ relatively to something beyond this relation. This one could be another spare measure (whatever it is), or understanding of something is moving as it has the start and the finish, and so on.
The changing shows that something has something of one type, or a kind and another something as some kind of different type, or one something isn't the same as the next one. Their non-identity came from our ability to analyze the process of changing into some numbers. Plain numerazing process allows to differ even one type of smth (let's just use smth instead of something further in the text) inside itself. Or we're able to deep into a smth and number it. One smth wouldn't be equal to another smth, even being a whole part together.
The difference between two or more smths that synthesizes into one smth shows us that we can get the process of changing if we represent the this smth as the sequence. And we can't avoid this process of synthesis, although we may reduce to another more plain levels more and more. The difference is a relatively stable element (it moves from a smth to a smth again; or it changes itself during the process of transferring from one smth to another).
So, our task is to understand the nature of this difference and what it comes from. If it's a mind ability, then time is a process of conceiving, and if it's not, then it is a realistic view on this.
But there is where our faith is start to appear. We can hold any of these visions, and we can keep it until a reason of difference'll be found.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 9, 2019 22:11:24 GMT
karl Let me make an addition to the 3 body problem. We have the 2 ships A&B moving towards the center:C. Now place yourself in a fourth ship D, moving parallel to A. The other change is that A & B will impact at C which has a detonator on board that destroys the ship that hits it, as well as destroying C. The other ship arrives later and because C is already detonated, it is unscathed. So you, moving with A, observe that A impacts C, and both are destroyed. You have already agreed, that A will arrive before B from your perspective: D. So you observe B survives, you hail them, and meet them afterwards for a drink, and say: How can you be alive? For your perspective, you died in a collision...! Please resolve this blatant contradiction that ensues from special relativity.
First, I misunderstood in my previous post what you referred to when you used the term "3 body problem", since that is a specific term used to describe the problem of calculating the movements of three objects all influencing each other with gravity.
As for the 3 body problem that you now outlined, you presume that, according to special relativity theory, from the viewpoint of one observer, for example one placed at C, both A and B hit C at the same time, while from the viewpoint of another, in this case D, A hits C before B. This is incorrect. The relativity of sequence of events requires distance between these events. This comes from the VX/Csq element of the formula. If X=0, that factor goes away. So if someone throws a clock at you and you look at that clock when you catch it, all observers in the universe will agree on what that clock showed when you looked at it. However, imagine that you have a sharp vision and sees that the clock reads "3", just as a dog right next to you barks. From the viewpoint of an observer moving relative to you, with or against the direction of the clock, the clock showing "3" and the dog barking didn't happen at the same time.
So that is just the speed of light giving the illusion of time not being simultaneous? Actually everything does occur at the same time? You not only contradicted yourself / shifted the goalposts, but your also refuted the notion of "simultaneity breaking down" which is what relativists typically answer. As I said before, relativists keep changing their minds as to what events would unfold; who reaches the target first; whether the times are synchronous. The notorious twins paradox and the famous spacecraft to Andromeda thought experiment, certainly hope to conclude that time is fundamentally different for the different observers. When the spacecraft returns from Andromeda, the astronauts are only decades old when the Earth is millions of years into the future. That is NOT all observers agreeing with what the clock says. And that is purely a result of velocity, not gravity. There are even alleged measurements of clocks NOT reconciling after space-flights. Once more showing that all observers are not supposed to agree on what the clocks are saying. So when you applied the time-dilation principle first up, you followed the standard steps of time moving differently relative to velocity; then when this resulted in the contradiction, you simply refuted those results. Now are you going to change your mind again and say that the clocks do not agree perhaps? As for the 3-body issue, this started out as a project on planetary movements and gravity; but this example is the simplified version purely to demonstrate that special relativity is a contradictory theorem as regards its notion of time-dilation relative to velocity. That article is here which deals with all the special relativity formulae: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htmCertainly we need to isolate each aspect of relativity in order to properly see its blatant errors. Care to shift your goal-posts back again? Or will you concede that time-dilation in special relativity is just not possible? My guess is that you will avoid the simple question at hand with jargon. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 9, 2019 22:51:51 GMT
karlLet us address the notion of general relativity claiming that gravity moves at the speed of light separately. You earlier stated that considering gravity as a field will compensate for the outwards spiral caused by a gravity delay. Here is my image derived by 2-body algorithm operating with a gravity delay:  The full article on that is here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmThat article shows the exact amounts that a gravity delay would effect the orbits of selected solar system bodies as well as the Alpha Centauri binary - all were generated in evolutionary algorithm that measures the precise orbit of Mercury accurate to within 177mm per orbit according to the Simple Newtonian formula: g=  /r^2 The clearest example being the Alpha Centauri binary orbit, detailed briefly here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-alpha-centauri.htmYou see, relativity itself entirely refutes a gravity 'field' of any sort. So its fine to have your own theory, but we need to be clear about who said what. Moreover, no matter which adjectives we use, whether it be a 'field' or a 'space-time continuum' it makes no difference. Because if the INFORMATION moves at light-speed then it necessitates that gravity moves the star/planet in the binary orbit towards where the other object WAS, and not where it IS. These are only 2-body problems, so should be easy to understand. For the Alpha Centauri binary the delay varies from 1.5 hours to five hours. For the Earth-moon its a delay of 1.35 seconds. But it does not matter what adjectives we use. Geometry is geometry. We could even theorise about little invisible gnomes carrying the gravity information at light-speed, or instantly in two different theories. The bodies will still react at a later stage, and thus they must spiral outwards if there is a delay. For the Alpha Centauri binary the outwards spiral is 1.4 million km per orbit. For the moon and Earth: the separation would be 400m per orbit. Now what I suggest to you is that instead of replying with jargon, build an evolutionary computer algorithm. This would be a great way to begin learning some computer code. Because as much as I would like to believe that it is possible to understand astrophysics when not a computer programmer, I have yet to see this. Are you still with us? ElizabethCome on Zabe, don't you also hide away from the truth now.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 10, 2019 8:49:40 GMT
First, I misunderstood in my previous post what you referred to when you used the term "3 body problem", since that is a specific term used to describe the problem of calculating the movements of three objects all influencing each other with gravity.
As for the 3 body problem that you now outlined, you presume that, according to special relativity theory, from the viewpoint of one observer, for example one placed at C, both A and B hit C at the same time, while from the viewpoint of another, in this case D, A hits C before B. This is incorrect. The relativity of sequence of events requires distance between these events. This comes from the VX/Csq element of the formula. If X=0, that factor goes away. So if someone throws a clock at you and you look at that clock when you catch it, all observers in the universe will agree on what that clock showed when you looked at it. However, imagine that you have a sharp vision and sees that the clock reads "3", just as a dog right next to you barks. From the viewpoint of an observer moving relative to you, with or against the direction of the clock, the clock showing "3" and the dog barking didn't happen at the same time.
So that is just the speed of light giving the illusion of time not being simultaneous? Actually everything does occur at the same time? You not only contradicted yourself / shifted the goalposts, but your also refuted the notion of "simultaneity breaking down" which is what relativists typically answer. As I said before, relativists keep changing their minds as to what events would unfold; who reaches the target first; whether the times are synchronous. The notorious twins paradox and the famous spacecraft to Andromeda thought experiment, certainly hope to conclude that time is fundamentally different for the different observers. When the spacecraft returns from Andromeda, the astronauts are only decades old when the Earth is millions of years into the future. That is NOT all observers agreeing with what the clock says. And that is purely a result of velocity, not gravity. There are even alleged measurements of clocks NOT reconciling after space-flights. Once more showing that all observers are not supposed to agree on what the clocks are saying. So when you applied the time-dilation principle first up, you followed the standard steps of time moving differently relative to velocity; then when this resulted in the contradiction, you simply refuted those results. Now are you going to change your mind again and say that the clocks do not agree perhaps? As for the 3-body issue, this started out as a project on planetary movements and gravity; but this example is the simplified version purely to demonstrate that special relativity is a contradictory theorem as regards its notion of time-dilation relative to velocity. That article is here which deals with all the special relativity formulae: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htmCertainly we need to isolate each aspect of relativity in order to properly see its blatant errors. Care to shift your goal-posts back again? Or will you concede that time-dilation in special relativity is just not possible? My guess is that you will avoid the simple question at hand with jargon.
Let's imagine the following example. you a person X with a clock at some point in space. Towards him, from both directions, come two spaceships, both at 99% of the speed of light. On spaceship A there is a person A, and on spaceship B there is a person B. Person X has a clock, and there are also markers for distance, let's call them poles, placed in space, parallel to the movement of the spaceships. From the perspective of X, the poles are placed 1 light second (300.000km) apart. When X starts his clock, both spaceships are 10 lightseconds away, so, from the perspective of X, it will take them about 10 seconds to reach him. And we'll imagine both of them passing a flag at this point, both flags placed at the tenth pole.
From the perspective of the spaceships, the poles are 0,14 light seconds from each other. When spaceship A passes the flag, it will take 1,4 seconds before it reaches X. At that point, from his perspective (person A), spaceship B is moving towards him at 99,995% of the speed of light. This means that, from his perspective, the relative speed between spaceship B and X is 0,995% the speed of light, or about 3000 km/s. So when A has passed the flag, from his perspective, B has passed the last pole (= first pole away from X) before reaching X. -Meaning, according to A, A is 100 times further away from X at this point, than B. According to B, things are opposite. What they both agree on, and which X agrees on as well, is that they'll both reach X at the same time.
The different perspective of A and B is written into the formula for time dilation, from the Lorentz transformation. t1=(t2-(vx/Csq))/root(1-Vsq/Csq)
(I did mention, in the beginning of our conversation, that there is a logical possibiltiy for stubbornly declaring that there is one sequence of events for all observers, but I don't find it relevant for this discussion. The reason for this loophole is that when two observers end up disagreeing, they may only do so after the fact. In the given example, A has no information from B when he reaches the flag. He gets that information later, and then has to use calculations to figure out what happened in the past. It's when he does that, that he finds that what happened at the same time from his perspective, didn't happen at the same time from B's perspective. So, if one's stubborn about it, one can just assert that it only "seems" as if the sequence of events are different from different observers. But, as I also stated, this is a purely ad-hoc theory, with no scientific merit, and wouldn't change any of the testable predictions. For everything we may test, reality will meet the predictions of the formulas. The only reason why I don't dismiss this possibility, is that if the time dilation formula from the Lorentz transformation is to be taken literally, for example, if you combine it with space being dragged in rotation around a black hole, it opens up for traveling back in time. This is in violation of causality, so something has to give, whatever that something might be. One suggestion is that if you travel back in time, you travel back to a parallel universe, which is a suggestion I don't even take seriously.)
Sq=Square
To understand the twin paradox, you also have to take into account acceleration. If you have a spaceship that starts from Earth and then come back after a long time, it will, at some point, have to de- and re-accelerate. So if you move away from the Earth close to the speed of light, you will experience time on Earth being slower relative to you, but people on Earth will experience time for you moving slower relative to them. But this is only for as long as you keep moving further and further away. If you want to get back, you have to de-accelerate, and when you do that, you'll experience that time on Earth, in relation to you, speeds up. So there is no actual paradox. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 10, 2019 9:10:51 GMT
karl Let us address the notion of general relativity claiming that gravity moves at the speed of light separately. You earlier stated that considering gravity as a field will compensate for the outwards spiral caused by a gravity delay. Here is my image derived by 2-body algorithm operating with a gravity delay: The full article on that is here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmThat article shows the exact amounts that a gravity delay would effect the orbits of selected solar system bodies as well as the Alpha Centauri binary - all were generated in evolutionary algorithm that measures the precise orbit of Mercury accurate to within 177mm per orbit according to the Simple Newtonian formula: g= /r^2 The clearest example being the Alpha Centauri binary orbit, detailed briefly here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-alpha-centauri.htmYou see, relativity itself entirely refutes a gravity 'field' of any sort. So its fine to have your own theory, but we need to be clear about who said what. Moreover, no matter which adjectives we use, whether it be a 'field' or a 'space-time continuum' it makes no difference. Because if the INFORMATION moves at light-speed then it necessitates that gravity moves the star/planet in the binary orbit towards where the other object WAS, and not where it IS. These are only 2-body problems, so should be easy to understand. For the Alpha Centauri binary the delay varies from 1.5 hours to five hours. For the Earth-moon its a delay of 1.35 seconds. But it does not matter what adjectives we use. Geometry is geometry. We could even theorise about little invisible gnomes carrying the gravity information at light-speed, or instantly in two different theories. The bodies will still react at a later stage, and thus they must spiral outwards if there is a delay. For the Alpha Centauri binary the outwards spiral is 1.4 million km per orbit. For the moon and Earth: the separation would be 400m per orbit. Now what I suggest to you is that instead of replying with jargon, build an evolutionary computer algorithm. This would be a great way to begin learning some computer code. Because as much as I would like to believe that it is possible to understand astrophysics when not a computer programmer, I have yet to see this. Are you still with us? Elizabeth Come on Zabe, don't you also hide away from the truth now.
"You see, relativity itself entirely refutes a gravity 'field' of any sort."
When one speaks of a gravitational field in general relativity, one is referring to curved spacetime. If you were to suddenly place an object in space, the curvature of spacetime will then move out from the object at the speed of light. If the object is there for a year, and you then remove it, the curved spacetime it caused one light year away, will remain there a year after the object is gone.
I am currently in the process of using the Euler-Lagrange theorem to find geodesics in curved spacetime. Here is how that works:
For me to write about how to simulate gravity with a computer, I would, at the very least, have reached the endpoint of my current study of tensor mathematics. In addition, I'd need to know more about programming and how to translate formulas into computer software.
|
|
/r^2