Personal Topic

[Moronium]

I don't know what motivates you to post all this anti-relativity stuff. Why so negative?

You obviously don't understand the theories SR or GR, and keep repeating twisted interpretations of things you get from the internet. Everything in print isn't truth!

 

 

 Do those last few posts help answer your question, Sluggo?

 

Maybe you should heed your own words, eh?

 

I have to give you credit, though, Sluggo.  You're one of the few who has ridiculed me, yet still acknowledged and responded (to a degree anyway) to my explanations.

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

The brainwave I had when I awoke, (some time ago, when I realized that Physics has a lot of problems) is that If Alice goes on a three year trip at 0.6 light speed, then returns at the same speed to Earth to meet up with Bob, is that Bob will want to have sex with Alice, and she will probably agree.

Also, as she is away, she will be 6 years older than when she left, and Bob will also be 6 years older.

 

I did the math.

 

age on departure + outward time + return time = final age.

 

The math is flawless, I ran tests with cockroaches and it works in experiments too!

 

Any theory that claims anything different is the work of kooks and cranks.

Edited February 15, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

You can believe what  you want so long as you can rationally back it up. As I said there is no way a future spaceport on earth won't have all velocities and time relative to it. That's still relative velocity and the fact that it's to a common point shouldn't matter. You can choose whatever frame you want as stationary so that is earth in most examples.

 

Length can be measured using non-relativistic means and a ship travelling to proxima centauri knows it's 4 ly away. Who cares what its perspective of the distance is at speed. So it covers that distance in less of its own time. Who cares what a muon's perspective is of the distance it travels to earth? If you believe time is a concept, it's much easier to bend a concept than shrink an iron bar. Can't we just employ shortcuts of understanding?  Relativity can  be taught as practical relativity and it will make far more sense to everyone. Others who want to study impractical relativity for a universe where only 1 or 2 things exist, they can have at it. But the current way practical relativity is taught is purely impractical so let's get rid of it.

Alpha Centauri is 4 ly distant. Fuel for the trip and provisions are packed for a 4 year trip at light speed.

 

What you are saying is that once underway, the occupants will think that the trip was instant, as no time elapsed at all, given that light, from lights perspective covers infinite distance in precisely zero time.

 

Because they think the trip was instant, they did not eat, so they died on the four year trip from starvation. Either that or they were sent off on a trip of 4 ly, that would take them zero time, so then they packed nothing, and did not bother to even fuel up, as the engines would not be needed for zero burn time.

 

Which way is it?

 

My bet is that no relativistic theory is correct. The ONLY sane answer is that time is a concept, and its absolute.

Edited February 15, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

What does .6c + .6c equal? Relativity has a speed limit. x/t alone doesn't take that into account. x/ct doesn't work because that equals 0 within a frame. x/ct' between a stationary frame and a moving frame limits c, which is the speed we are always moving at through time and space. The faster an observer sees you move through space, the slower he must see your rate through time to keep everything at c. You got an old squeaky wheel upstairs which is still in the 1800's and won't accept the new definition of velocity. Too bad. You can't be helped. I will no longer read your posts.

you just explained an hypothesis based on assumptions that themselves were of dubious value and logically improbable.

Then you decide, based on that, you would not discuss it further.

 

(0.6 * anything) + (0.6 * anything)  mathematically always equates to 1.2 * anything)  ("anything" is a constant in this equation)

 

So based solely on your assumption that you know something about light, which actually defies all rationality, you are hanging your hypothesis, which has the result of creating mumbo jumbo nonsensical outcomes.  Alice does not age as much as bob, blah blah...blah.

[Moronium]

My bet is that no relativistic theory is correct. The ONLY sane answer is that time is a concept, and its absolute.

 

You seem to treat your two sentences there as being mutually exclusive, Marco.  But as I've tried to explain to you, there are theories of "relativity" which insist that time is a concept and that it is absolute.  I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater by condemning "relativity" per se.

 

In such theories, people on spaceships do not "think" that time has slowed down.  Nor do they think the actual distance they are travelling has "shortened."

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In such theories, people on spaceships do not "think" that time has slowed down.  Nor do they think the actual distance they are travelling has "shortened."

 

 

If I asked two people how far Podunk is from here, one might say "about 50 miles" and one might say "about an hour."

 

Of course an hour has nothing, per se, to do with distance, but you can think of it in those terms if you want.  Assuming that a guy is travelling at the rate of 50 mph (usually a totally unwarranted assumption), then Podunk is "an hour" from here.  Time and distance are both required to calculate speed, so they are all, to that extent, interrelated.

 

But guys like Minkowski thought this inter-relationship was somehow an "independent reality" as opposed to a mere restatement of a mathematical relationship.  What do you expect?  He's a damn mathematician, not a physicist.  What does he know about "independent reality?"

 

If I decided to mash down on that accelerator and hold it at 100 mph all the way to Podunk, thereby getting there in a half an hour instead of an hour, I certainly wouldn't claim that I had traveled a "shorter distance"  than 50 miles.  Only an SR disciple could possibly think that, I figure.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

ralfcis,

 

You may not read my posts, but someone else might.

You never answered my question about using t instead of ct.

 

Instead you simply claimed that ct is a distance, not a time.

 

I replied that any plot involving velocity, which already possesses a horizontal distance axis, called x, MUST , MUST mean that the vertical axis is a TIME axis.

 

So "ct" is and always was a time measurement, NOT a distance.

 

Now that this is established, I repeat, can you derive time dilation equations if you only use t as the variable for time, and x is simply standard length units?

 

Well, save you "time" the answer is no you can not.

 

Only by butchering the algebra can any time dilation result be derived.

[marcospolo]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262959486_Ether_and_Relativity

 

I can't find, offhand, a copy of Builder's paper which I can copy and paste from, but it's well worth reading in it's entirety. You can read it here, if you want:  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B The foregoing excerpt is from the abstract.

 

A number of theoretical physicists have pointed out, and elaborated upon, Builder's contributions since his time (he died in 1960), but relatively few.  Fortunately for H & K, they were (or at least became) familiar with his analysis.  They knew relative motion couldn't explain their results.

 

Since Builder's paper was published it has been discovered that one need not invoke an "ether" per se, or the "universe" as a whole, in order to get reliable predictions with LR. The center of the gravitational mass which is dominant in the vicinity being investigated serves as the appropriate preferred frame.  That's what H & K used, i.e., the non-rotating earth-centered inertial frame ("ECI").  The GPS uses the same.

What I find interesting is that despite the insistence of Relativists that SR is ONLY for inertial frames of reference, they then immediately use a bunch of ACCELERATING frames to PROVE SR!

The rotating Earth, the orbiting satellites, the accelerating cars, the ... well everything in the Universe seems to be NON inertial.

 

Now, here's where it gets even more interesting.  To overcome this glaring problem with the theories, one simply needs to pronounce that his favorite accelerting frame is in fact now looked on as if it was actually inertial.

 

  That's the secret, you just need to say the phrase, "I pronounce that this rotating mass is actually now inertial" and presto, all the math and actual physical effects all fall into line!  Its MAGIC if there ever was such a thing.

[marcospolo]

 

As I've tried to explain to you, Marco, there are theories of "relativity" which insist that time is a concept and that it is absolute.  I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater by condemning "relativity" per se.

 

In such theories, people on spaceships do not "think" that time has slowed down.  Nor do they think the actual distance they are travelling has "shortened."

 

 

So where is relativity then? if the people on board find no discrepancy between what was expected and what was realzied, i.e a 4 year trip took 4 years,

and for the people on earth who sent the ship off on a 4 year trip, they too expected it to take 4 years, and that's what they experienced?

 

Actually the claim by relativists is that from lights perspective, it will experience zero time when going any distance, even though we see it taking billions of years to cross the universe, for light its an instant trip. That is saying that the observers WILL notice a difference in time! It NOT like they will still think that 4 years have gone by, but in reality it was way less time. They MUST actually experience less time and know that's it less. (according to their own claims about light making the same trip)

 

So too it must be true for a Relativist that the people in the ship MUST therefore really experience zero time if the ship is going at light speed.

Even at less than light speed, they must experience a reduced time than they calculated before they departed.

 

BUT this is not the relativity of which you are referring.

Your relativity is using absolute time and perhaps absolute distance, you are not totally sure about that bit.

So in your absolute relativity, nothing is amiss from the norm, other than the curious fact that clocks slow down. That's all that is occurring. Just we cant make clocks that keep good time.

Edited February 15, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

 

You seem to treat your two sentences there as being mutually exclusive, Marco.  But as I've tried to explain to you, there are theories of "relativity" which insist that time is a concept and that it is absolute.  I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater by condemning "relativity" per se.

 

In such theories, people on spaceships do not "think" that time has slowed down.  Nor do they think the actual distance they are travelling has "shortened."

 

 

I had a quick read of that paper about Absolute time based relative effects. Its sound better as a theory than SR no doubt. But Ill read it more carefully and get back to you on that subject later.

[Moronium]

The rotating Earth, the orbiting satellites, the accelerating cars, the ... well everything in the Universe seems to be NON inertial.

 

Now, here's where it gets even more interesting.  To overcome this glaring problem with the theories, one simply needs to pronounce that his favorite accelerting frame is in fact now looked on as if it was actually inertial.

 

True, but, being the sophists they are, they always try to have it "both ways."  As soon as they encounter reasoning which they can't refute, they quickly say:  "That's no indictment of SR!   You can't even apply SR in an accelerating frame!"

 

In the next breath, they'll then try to tell you how many times SR has been "proven," citing experiments held on earth.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Your relativity is using absolute time and perhaps absolute distance, you are not totally sure about that bit.

So in your absolute relativity, nothing is amiss from the norm, other than the curious fact that clocks slow down. That's all that is occurring. Just we cant make clocks that keep good time.

 

 

Exactly.  Clocks do slow down with speed, and yardsticks do in fact contract.  But that doesn't change either the time or the distance.  Again, I'm agnostic about the length contraction, but that's the common theory.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Exactly.  Clocks do slow down with speed, and yardsticks do in fact contract.  But that doesn't change either the time or the distance.  Again, I'm agnostic about the length contraction, but that's the common theory.

 

Well, then, what does it change?  It changes the way we calculate the time and distance IF we rely on (what we know to be unreliable) measuring instruments.  By that erroneous procedure, observers in different inertial frames will always "measure" the speed of light to be the same, even though it aint the same.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

If I asked two people how far Podunk is from here, one might say "about 50 miles" and one might say "about an hour."

 

Of course an hour has nothing, per se, to do with distance, but you can think of it in those terms if you want.  Assuming that a guy is travelling at the rate of 50 mph (usually a totally unwarranted assumption), then Podunk is "an hour" from here.  Time and distance are both required to calculate speed, so they are all, to that extent, interrelated.

 

But guys like Minkowski thought this inter-relationship was somehow an "independent reality" as opposed to a mere restatement of a mathematical relationship.  What do you expect?  He's a damn mathematician, not a physicist.  What does he know about "independent reality?"

 

If I decided to mash down on that accelerator and hold it at 100 mph all the way to Podunk, thereby getting there in a half an hour instead of an hour, I certainly wouldn't claim that I had traveled a "shorter distance"  than 50 miles.  Only an SR disciple could possibly think that, I figure.

Right, speed is only a calculated result that requires a knowledge first of the distance and the time.

"about an hour" is NOT a correct reply to the question of how far is Podunk?

One must also have the average speed before that reply is useful.

 

Einstein Relativists MUST ONLY EVER measure time in terms of distances, and assume that this is correct based on the assumed stability if something that is assumed to be actually moving! (light) They go on to claim that "time"is not stable, nor is"length", yet they accurately calculate light speed using those two rubbery units.!

 

Without all these assumptions, and only when using distance as if it is time, and DESPITE there counter intuitive claim that distances and times are not ever what we measure them to be, they base their theories.

 

If that's not the perfect example of quack science, I cant imagine what could be.

[marcospolo]

Exactly.  Clocks do slow down with speed, and yardsticks do in fact contract.  But that doesn't change either the time or the distance.  Again, I'm agnostic about the length contraction, but that's the common theory.

I agree with you more than you imagine on this. BUT only if its absolutely certain that clocks really have been accurately observed to have lost time under these conditions.

I'm just not convinced that we have truthful or correct readings of these claimed discrepancies.

 

If we had no evidence at all for slowing clocks, would you still insist that TL was still essential as a theory?

 

The theory should still make total sense even without the supporting evidence. I don't believe it does.

[Moronium]

If we had no evidence at all for slowing clocks, would you still insist that TL was still essential as a theory?

 

The theory should still make total sense even without the supporting evidence. I don't believe it does.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are asking here.  As I said before, the LT are extremely suspect on their face.  Without evidence, I guess I would say it's "possible," but not be convinced. 

 

It does make just as much sense, theoretically, with or without confirming evidence, though.  It serves to provide a coherent explanation for the phenomena, either way.  Whether or not the explanation is correct is a completely different and independent question.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It serves to provide a coherent explanation for the phenomena, either way.  Whether or not the explanation is correct is a completely different and independent question.

 

If someone told me that a wife had poisoned her husband to "collect the insurance money," I certainly wouldn't say that's not possible.  It sounds quite plausible, actually.  But her true motivation could still have been something else, something much more convoluted and complex.  She may never have given a thought to insurance.  Without more information, you just can't "know."

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium