Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[A-wal]

No you can't.

 

For two observers that are in motion relative to each other to measure the speed of light to be the same there has to be time dilation and length contraction.

 

All you're doing by adding a preferred frame of reference is making the speed of light constant relative to that frame rather than to each observer.

 

Edit:

Hmm, I should have started from sound instead of working backwards from light.

 

Okay but for what you're claiming to be at all possible every single measurement of the speed of light must have been made while moving at the same speed relative to the aether, presumably at rest relative to it.

 

It would mean that you could overtake light and create an optic boom.

Edited August 24, 2016 by A-wal

[A-wal]

Hmm. This is actually interesting to think about.

 

Assuming that light moves at a constant speed relative to an aether in the same way that sound moves at a constant speed relative to the air you could have two or more observers in motion relative to each other measuring the same speed of light without any length contraction and time dilation if the observers are all moving at the same speed relative to the aether.

 

Although they would measure light moving past themselves at the same rate, light would no longer have a constant velocity, It would change it's velocity relative to each observer as it moved into an area of space where the aether's velocity is the same relative to another observer that's moving at a different velocity relative to the the first observer.

 

This could only work if all observers have the same velocity relative to the supposed aether so for arguments sake let's assume that the aether is somehow dragged around by the observers so that light always moves past each of them at the same velocity without the need for time dilation or length contraction regardless of the velocity relative to each other.

 

It still only works if the measurements are made locally. As soon as light's velocity is measured over an area that includes two or more observers in motion relative to each other the only way to get a constant overall velocity for light relative to more than one observer is if the aether has the same average velocity over that distance from the perspective of each observer.

 

So if two or more observers moved at different rates between the same two objects then they would have to be moving at a different overall velocity relative to the aether over that distance and therefore would have to disagree on light's overall velocity relative to themselves during the trip.

[xinhangshen]

A-wal, please use classical mechanics to analyze both sound and light behaviors if you want to question my aether claim because the aether model is based on the fact that the speed of light is not a constant relative to all inertial reference frames. You should never try to use the constant speed of light in all inertial reference frames with the aether model.

[A-wal]

:huh: Read what I wrote again please.

 

For the aether model to be consistent with observations it would mean that all measurements that have been made of the constant velocity of light were all done with exactly the same overall velocity relative to the aether despite the difference in relative velocities of the measuring equipment. That's hugely convenient for the aether model and highly unlikely.

 

Also what's this aether supposed to be made of and why assume that a far more complicated model is the right one if it has no more evidence than a much simpler model that doesn't require that all experiments testing the consistency of the speed of light to date just happened to have a highly unlikely set of circumstances that hid a non constant speed of light in just the right way to make it look constant?

Edited August 25, 2016 by A-wal

[xinhangshen]

:huh: Read what I wrote again please.

 

For the aether model to be consistent with observations it would mean that all measurements that have been made of the constant velocity of light were all done with exactly the same overall velocity relative to the aether despite the difference in relative velocities of the measuring equipment. That's hugely convenient for the aether model and highly unlikely.

 

Also what's this aether supposed to be made of and why assume that a far more complicated model is the right one if it has no more evidence than a much simpler model that doesn't require that all experiments testing the consistency of the speed of light to date just happened to have a highly unlikely set of circumstances that hid a non constant speed of light in just the right way to make it look constant?

A-wal, all about the existence of aether has been explained in my paper, but you just don't have interests to read it. Please don't come here to waste other people's time if you don't want to read the paper.

[A-wal]

Why do you refuse to justify your claims or answer any obvious problems with the model?

 

You can't post your this on a public forum and then expect everyone who replies to have read something that you've failed to support.

 

Why should I read a paper on a model that has no evidence, is nowhere near as tidy as SR and needs a ridiculously unlikely set of circumstances to agree with observations?

[xinhangshen]

Why do you refuse to justify your claims or answer any obvious problems with the model?

 

You can't post your this on a public forum and then expect everyone who replies to have read something that you've failed to support.

 

Why should I read a paper on a model that has no evidence, is nowhere near as tidy as SR and needs a ridiculously unlikely set of circumstances to agree with observations?

Because it's a waste of other people's time to repeat long stories on the forum while the content is already in the paper which is available free of charge to people here. You have never had a real quality question. You are just wasting the time of other people. Please stop such silly things here. If you really want to participate the debate, please spend a bit more time to read all relevant materials, well organize your thoughts and present them clearly.

Edited August 25, 2016 by xinhangshen

[sluggo]

Sluggo, to make your light clock show time dilation, one must first accept that the speed of light is constant. But the problem is that the constant speed of light is all we want to question. If we use Newton's speed addition formula for the speed of light, your light clock will never show time dilation at all. Therefore, your light clock does not provide any extra support to the existence of time dilation.

The constant speed of light is accepted as supported by experiment. More importantly, the speed of light is independent of its source. It does not acquire the speed of the source, thus is not added by Newton;s or any other method. That's exactly why the moving clock ticks slower relative to the static clock, and why the observer moving with the clock is not aware of the change in tick rate. 

[xinhangshen]

The constant speed of light is accepted as supported by experiment. More importantly, the speed of light is independent of its source. It does not acquire the speed of the source, thus is not added by Newton;s or any other method. That's exactly why the moving clock ticks slower relative to the static clock, and why the observer moving with the clock is not aware of the change in tick rate. 

Sluggo, the constant speed of light is just a postulate of special relativity. There is no strong evidence supporting this postulate. As I discussed on the paper, many experiments show that the speed of light follows Newton's velocity addition formula. All so-called supporting experiments of relativity have either null effects or the results of wrong interpretation and wrong calculation (please read the discussion on my paper and its references). 

[A-wal]

There's three models.

1. A fixed aether.

2. A dynamic aether (like sound moving through air).

3. No aether.

 

1. In this model there can be no test that shows light being constant.

2. In this model the only way tests could show a constant speed of light is if the observer always has the same velocity relative to the aether during the tests.

3. In this model light always has a constant velocity.

 

Model 1 is completely ruled out by observations. Model 2 would require such an unlikely set of conditions to match observations that it can be confidently ruled out. Model 3 matches observations.

 

Fortunately, the reviewers and the editor of Physics Essays thought that this paper is logically sound and allowed to be published.

One or more idiots who should know better not understanding special relativity doe not a valid theory make.

 

Like relativity in its early difficult years, this discovery may also experience a similar ordeal, but it will be finally accepted. Once it has been accepted by the mainstream physicists, then everybody will say "Oh yes, it's obvious!".

You're extremely deluded!

Edited August 29, 2016 by A-wal

[xinhangshen]

There's three models.

1. A fixed aether.

2. A dynamic aether (like sound moving through air).

3. No aether.

 

1. In this model there can be no test that shows light being constant.

2. In this model the only way tests could show a constant speed of light is if the light always has the same overall velocity relative to the aether during the tests.

3. In this model light always has a constant velocity.

 

Model 1 is completely ruled out by observations. Model 2 would require such an unlikely set of conditions to match observations that it can be confidently ruled out. Model 3 matches observations.

 

One or more idiots who should know better not understanding special relativity doe not a valid theory make.

 

You're extremely deluded!

Nobody can understand what you are talking about. Please check your grammar before present your comments!

[A-wal]

I think it's just you who's having trouble understanding. I'll rearrange it for you. If this doesn't work I'll try spelling phonetically.

 

 

There's three models.

 

1. A fixed aether.

In this model there can be no test that shows light being constant.

This is completely ruled out by observations.

 

2. A dynamic aether (like sound moving through air).

In this model the only way tests could show a constant speed of light is if the observer always has the same velocity relative to the aether during the tests.

This would require such an unlikely set of conditions to match observations that it can be confidently ruled out.

 

3. No aether.

In this model light always has a constant velocity.
This model matches observations.

 

 

Now some questions.

1. Why have you tried to push a very old model that was ruled out for very good reasons as if it's something new?

2. Why should a model that's more complicated but explains no more than SR be reconsidered?

3. Why should a model with no evidence and one that needs a very unlikely set of conditions to match observations be reconsidered?

4. You claimed that there's a logical inconsistency in SR. Why have you not been able to point out what it is?

 

 

Is that clear enough for you?

Edited August 29, 2016 by A-wal

[xinhangshen]

I think it's just you who's having trouble understanding. I'll rearrange it for you. If this doesn't work I'll try spelling phonetically.

 

 

There's three models.

 

1. A fixed aether.

In this model there can be no test that shows light being constant.

This is completely ruled out by observations.

 

2. A dynamic aether (like sound moving through air).

In this model the only way tests could show a constant speed of light is if the light always has the same overall velocity relative to the aether during the tests.

This would require such an unlikely set of conditions to match observations that it can be confidently ruled out.

 

3. No aether.

In this model light always has a constant velocity.

This model matches observations.

 

 

Now some questions.

1. Why have you tried to push a very old model that was ruled out for very good reasons as if it's something new?

2. Why should a model that's more complicated but explains no more than SR be reconsidered?

3. Why should a model with no evidence and one that needs a very unlikely set of conditions to match observations be reconsidered?

4. You claimed that there's a logical inconsistency in SR. Why have you not been able to point out what it is?

 

 

Is that clear enough for you?

That's all your problem. You not only ignore all the contents presented on the paper, but never put any logical reasoning in the debate. Please find all answers of your questions in my paper. Stop wasting people's time here.

[A-wal]

No it's very much your problem and it obvious that I'm not the one wasting peoples time. You're making a claim that's so hollow you can't do a thing to defend it. Every time I ask you to justify it you claim I'm not not using reasoning when I clearly am and complete avoid the subject.

 

If you want to try claiming a long dead model that's been ruled out by evidence is in fact the correct one then you need to explain why experiments show a constant speed of light.

 

If you want to claim there's a logical flaw in special relativity then you should be dying to show what it is instead of avoiding offering any kind of support for this stupid claim.

 

If you want people to take you seriously then you should have no problem responding to refutations.

 

Now answer the sodding questions!

 

 

2. A dynamic aether (like sound moving through air).

In this model the only way tests could show a constant speed of light is if the light always has the same overall velocity relative to the aether during the tests.

This would require such an unlikely set of conditions to match observations that it can be confidently ruled out.

I made a mistake on that one. It should be 'In this model the only way tests could show a constant speed of light is if the observer always has the same velocity relative to the aether during the tests. Light does have a constant velocity relative to a non-constant medium in this model, that's the whole point. I'll edit the other posts.

 

 

I suppose it's possible that they were expecting a fixed aether so that when they measured the speed of light while moving relative to the previous test they though the speed of the light would change by the same amount as their velocity changed and when it didn't they assumed a constant speed of light when in fact they were moving at the same velocity relative to the aether both times.

 

But for that to be the case it would mean that every test since has just so happened to be done at roughly the same speed relative to the aether, making light seem like it has a constant speed but it would be far more likely that an unknown variable like that would make light look like it has a far more erratic speed than expected, not more consistent.

[xinhangshen]

No it's very much your problem and it obvious that I'm not the one wasting peoples time. You're making a claim that's so hollow you can't do a thing to defend it. Every time I ask you to justify it you claim I'm not not using reasoning when I clearly am and complete avoid the subject.

 

If you want to try claiming a long dead model that's been ruled out by evidence is in fact the correct one then you need to explain why experiments show a constant speed of light.

 

If you want to claim there's a logical flaw in special relativity then you should be dying to show what it is instead of avoiding offering any kind of support for this stupid claim.

 

If you want people to take you seriously then you should have no problem responding to refutations.

 

Now answer the sodding questions!

 

 

I made a mistake on that one. It should be 'In this model the only way tests could show a constant speed of light is if the observer always has the same velocity relative to the aether during the tests. Light does have a constant velocity relative to a non-constant medium in this model, that's the whole point. I'll edit the other posts.

 

 

I suppose it's possible that they were expecting a fixed aether so that when they measured the speed of light while moving relative to the previous test they though the speed of the light would change by the same amount as their velocity changed and when it didn't they assumed a constant speed of light when in fact they were moving at the same velocity relative to the aether both times.

 

But for that to be the case it would mean that every test since has just so happened to be done at roughly the same speed relative to the aether, making light seem like it has a constant speed but it would be far more likely that an unknown variable like that would make light look like it has a far more erratic speed than expected, not more consistent.

You are just grumbling for nothing. Please clear your thoughts before making any comments! Stop your nonsense please! If you want to refute my points, please first read my paper and understand my points. Then I will respond to your questions!

[sluggo]

I had this in response to previous 'time" discussions, added a bit, and offer it before a response to your paper. 
There are some common ideas and some differences.

 

What is time?

 

1. The author of SR didn't believe or promote the idea of an objective time. In contrast, he developed the idea of clock time or time measurement as being motion dependent! It was Minkowski who expressed the time variable as a mathematical 'dimension', but solely for mathematical purposes, i.e. time on paper.

 

2. Subjective time requires memory, which allows a comparison of a current state to a previous state for any changes, which lends itself to an interpretation of time flowing. Patients with brain damage to specific areas involved in maintaining a personal chronology, lose their ability to estimate elapsed time, short or long term. Consider the fact that people waking from a comatose state, have no memory of how much elapsed time, whether hrs, days, or even years.

Consider one of the greatest misnomers ever used, 'motion pictures' or 'movies', where a person observes a sequence of still photos and the mind melds them to produce moving objects where there is no motion. These cases show time as part of perception. SR then alters perception via motion.

The simplest argument against the arrow of time, time is a scalar, a magnitude with no direction.

 

3. The operational definition of assigning a time to an event as mentioned by A.E. in the 1905 paper is essentially what it is, and how it's been done since humans appeared.

It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure and ordering of activity, with 'time' always increasing/accumulating.

It is an accounting scheme developed out of practical necessity, for human activities like agriculture, business, travel, science, etc. The unit of measure for time initially referred to relative positions of astronomical objects, stars, sun, and moon, which implies earth rotations and earth orbits. The year equates to the periodic motion of the earth relative to the sun, the month, the moon relative to the earth, and the day, the earth rotation relative to the stars. All units of time are by definition, involving spatial motion or distance. The clock further divides the day into smaller units of measure. The reference in the 1905 paper of the watch hand to a position on the watch face involves nothing more than counting hand cycles (hand motion of specific distances representing subdivisions of a day). Finally, with the present day light clock, with internal light oscillations between an emitter and a mirror spaced a distance d, the time t represents a quantity of light motion equal to 2kdc (k a convenient multiple), i.e. a distance labeled as 'time'.

 

Based on the preceding, a more rigorous definition of a clock could be; a device like the metronome, that provides a periodic beat/event. It can be used for measurement purposes just as a ruler is used for spatial measurements.

 

Just as computers require a clock to synchronize operations, there could be a clock that regulates the behavior of the universe, i.e. a form of objective time, but it hasn't been discovered yet.

[sluggo]

Xinhang Shen

abstract

 

This paper finds that the time of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is no longer the physical time measured by physical clocks.

 

 

In the 1905 paper, A.E. used a physical watch to define the 'time' of an event. There is no physical time to measure since time is not a physical thing. It's a label for motion. If a clock was regulated to run 2x its standard rate, you get 2x as many ticks, but no more 'time'. In both cases, while the clock is ticking, the same number of events of interest happen. You even state toward the end of your paper that timekeeping is just a convention.

 

In fact, a clock can never measure time directly; it can only record the status of a physical process during a period of time, such as the number of cycles of an oscillatory mechanism, which is the product of time and oscillation frequency.

 

 

A clock doesn't record anything but 'ticks'. In the case of the light clock. if all the oscillations between two events of interest were placed end to end in a straight line, a light distance results.

That is the product of the clock. If a mechanical clock, it's so much matter in motion.

 

After a Lorentz transformation from a moving inertial reference frame to a stationary inertial reference frame, the time in the moving frame is dilated by a factor , but the frequency of a clock in the moving frame decreases by the same factor , leaving the resulting product (i.e., the time displayed by the moving clock) unchanged.

 

 

The moving clock displays dilated time because the frequency decreases. The frequency decreases since the light component of the clock moves at <c. It's cause and effect.

 

In other words, the time displayed by any physical clock is invariant with respect to Lorentz transformation, unlike the time of the STR

 

.

 

The invariance of the time pertains to the observer moving with the clock, since his perception of time is altered to the same degree as the clock, i.e. he is a biological collection of matter and subject to the same motion induced effects. He is not aware of any clock variation, just as he continues to measure the contracted length of his spaceship correctly with his contracted ruler.

 

Theorem 1. The clock time is an invariant quantity with respect to Lorentz transformation, i.e., an invariant quantity in all inertial reference frames.

 

 

The clock time is invariant for all inertial frames, but the times will vary for each frame depending on its motion..

 

Because twin siblings are the same biological age when they are born, their biological ages will

also remain the same thereafter regardless of the reference frame from which they are observed, in the same manner as

the times displayed by clocks on both reference frames

...

It may be argued that time dilation does indeed manifest in the extended lives of muons flying through the atmosphere compared with those created in laboratories. However, careful examination of this phenomenon will reveal that the extension of the lives of flying muons is absolute and will be the same observed in any inertial reference frame rather than dependent on a specific inertial reference frame, as predicted by the STR.

 

 

The slower rate of aging is a reciprocal observation by each observer of the other. The difference in accumulated age requires a comparison at a common location. Since there is no speed by which a clock/process can gain time, it is lost time, or absolute as your say.

Why though is the 2nd case acceptable and the 1st not. The light clock can be replaced with two particles exchanging em energy, whether animate or inanimate would make no difference.

 

The Hafele-Keating experiment [2] demonstrated that atomic clocks that had travelled different paths (a stationary location on Earth, an eastward airline route around the Earth and a westward airline route around the Earth) displayed different times. After the trips, these clocks could be placed in the same spatial location and the differences in their times would remain unchanged regardless of the inertial reference frame from which they were observed. What does this mean?

It means that the time differences between the clocks, excluding gravitational effects, were not relative as predicted by the STR but, rather, absolute. That is, the time differences between the clocks were determined not by the relative speeds of the inertial reference frames but by the velocities of the clocks relative to only one medium in space.

 

 

It is true, the relative speeds do not cause the effects observed. Referring to the 1905 paper, A.E. used the relative speeds (c-v) and (c+v) which could only be observed/measured from a fixed frame, one that is free from motion induced phenomena. The universe as a whole can serve this purpose since there is nothing else to serve as a reference location for motion. A.E. also saw the difficulty with having a common reference in a dynamic universe. All this is 'superfluous' as he states regarding a fixed 'ether' frame. If you can form expressions that relate the motion of A to U, and expressions that relate the motion of B to U, you can form expressions that relate the motion of A to B, which was his goal, i.e. relative motion. This eliminates the need for knowledge about the rest of the world, when only interested in local events. The H-K experiment is just another version of the 'twin' case.

 

general comment:

 

Once light speed is verified as a finite constant , universal time becomes obsolete, and clock synchronization becomes a necessity.