Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Physics Based On Einstein's Errors

Relativity Einstein Big Bang LIGO

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#69 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 08:49 AM

One IS younger if one DOES change frames while the other DOESN'T, DUMB DUMB.

 

 

Exactly!  Thanks for ratifying my point, aka, the obvious facts.

 

One is younger, one is older.  The "time dilation" is NOT reciprocal.  It is not "symmetric," it is asymmetric.  Each does not end up being younger than the other (whooda thunk!?).

 

No one should expect them to have identical ages, because they are not subject to the same circumstances.  What's the diffference?  One is moving (faster), one is not.

 

Your only error here is that it has nothing to do with changing frames.  Changing my personal, subjective perspective does not, and can not, have a physical effect on external clocks.

 

The Lorentz transforms have no factor related to changing frames.  The relevant factor is speed (motion), that's all.  


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 08:52 AM.


#70 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 08:56 AM

Puzzle me this, A-wal:

 

Who's buried in Grant's tomb?



#71 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 08:58 AM

We have this really simple model in which motion is relative to any observer whichever frame they're in so that objects in motion relative to any frame are time dilated and length contracted in that frame, 

 

 

It's a "very simple" model, if you say so.  It's also very simply wrong, as a matter of empirical fact.

 

All relevant experiments reveal that time dilation is NOT reciprocal, SR notwithstanding.

 

SR is forced to repudiate it's own premises in the twin paradox.  What's that tell ya?


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 08:59 AM.


#72 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 09:09 AM

To reinterate (from the scientific journal cited in post 42 of this thread):

 

The Lorentz transformation (LT) of Einstein's special theory of relativity (STR) predicts that only symmetric time dilation occurs in nature. However, experimental studies of the rates of atomic clocks on airplanes, as well as of the second-order Doppler effect using high-speed rotors, find that time dilation is exclusively asymmetric, in clear contradiction to the LT [used by SR].

 

 

Get it?


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 09:10 AM.


#73 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 09:20 AM

As this same article elucidates there is in fact a form of the LT which makes invariably accurate predictions.

 

But it aint the form used by SR.

 

It is essentially the form originally developed by Lorentz, Poincare, et al prior to Einstein.



#74 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2711 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 09:20 AM

To reinterate (from the scientific journal cited in post 42 of this thread):

 

 

 

Get it?

The "scientific" journal in that post is JAAT, part of the OMICS group, which is widely regarded as predatory: https://en.wikipedia...ublishing_Group

 

Just the place for cranks to "publish". 



#75 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 09:25 AM

That article is just one of many journal articles where physicists have made the exact same points.

 

One need only analyze the relevant literature himself to draw the same conclusions.



#76 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 09:48 AM

As just one example, this is from "Physics Essays" in 2007:

 

This remodeled form of Einstein's relativity theories retains and incorporates only experimentally proven principles...From space age ephemeris generation experience and following nature's way to conserve energy and momentum, we found reason to replace the concept of "relativity of all frames" with that of "nature's preferred frame",

 

 

https://arxiv.org/ft...1/0711.1575.pdf

 

I can't cut and paste from this article (only from the abstract), but read it for yourself, Chem, if you care to contribute anything of substance to this topic.  It's 48 pages long and, based on sound and fully articulated reasoning, it shows why the "reciprocal time dilation" and the "relativity of all frames" of SR must be rejected.

 

They demonstrate that there is a preferred frame, which they also call the "natural co-ordinate system,"  but point out that is not a matter of "selection" but rather of "detection."  Put another way, one looks at the empirical results, and then searches for the preferred frame of reference which will predict those results. (see page 4)

 

The frame which gives accurate predictions is preferred because it is the only one which gives the correct answers, eh?

 

In the twin paradox, the earth's frame would be the preferred one, because it is the one which gives the correct answer. As between the two twins, one is in motion relative to the other, and one aint.  The moving clock is the one which slows down.

 

As Feynman pointed out, it will be the twin who accelerates, because he is the one moving (relative to the other).  He is the one who "blasted off" into space (an obvious instance of "motion").

 

I don't think you're interested in any such thoughts or considerations, though, eh, Chem?  You just want to snipe and yell "crackpot" every now and again.  Your motive for doing this is somewhat mystifying to me, truth be told.


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 08:27 PM.


#77 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 10:51 AM

As this same article elucidates there is in fact a form of the LT which makes invariably accurate predictions.

 

But it aint the form used by SR.

 

It is essentially the form originally developed by Lorentz, Poincare, et al prior to Einstein.

 

Einstein gets all the press, but Lorentz and Poincare were brilliant physicists, both of whom Einstein later acknowledged to be his superiors.  Many say the Poincare is the true "inventor" of SR, but he rejected it as simply an interesting, but inaccurate, way of viewing things.  Neither one of them ever accepted Al's notion of the "relativity of simultaneity."  Years before Einstein, Lorentz developed the crucial notion of "local time" which Einstein adopted as "true time,"  but Lorentz always maintained that local time was merely a mathematical fiction which was convenient as a "shortcut" when doing calculations


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 10:55 AM.


#78 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1047 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 12:08 PM

I don’t know of any experiment that has actually put reciprocal time dilation to the test. The GPS system does not accomplish this because the motion of the satellites in circular orbits about the ECI cannot in any sense be thought of as symmetrical motion. The same thing applies to the Hafele Keating experiment.

 

Relative linear velocities are of course considered as reciprocal, but it may be that such linear velocity alone does not account for time dilation. Certainly, it does not account for gravitational time dilation. As I said in the other thread, acceleration cannot be the answer either as there is no acceleration term in the Lorentz transform.

 

There should be just one fundamental cause of time dilation, whether it is velocity time dilation or gravitational time dilation. The one thing that I see in common is related to the equivalency of mass and energy. Gravitational TD is obviously related to mass and velocity TD is obviously related to kinetic energy. So, I suspect that it is energy that is the fundamental cause of TD and energy is not necessarily reciprocal, even in the case of kinetic energy, regardless of the reciprocity of relative velocity.

 

It is easy to show that is true just by throwing a rock in the air! The rock and the earth possess the same relative velocity, but it would be absurd to calculate the relative kinetic energy of the earth based on that relative velocity! The kinetic energy calculation that correctly corresponds to the energy used by the thrower will be the kinetic energy of the rock, moving at the observed relative velocity to the earth.

 

As I have already admitted in that other thread, I am not an expert on relativity; therefore I don’t consider anyone and everyone who has doubts and questions about the reciprocal claim to be a crackpot, although some are!

 

I think it is fair for the jury to be out on the reciprocal claim part of SR until an experiment is performed that puts reciprocity to the test.

 



#79 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 12:21 PM

I think it is fair for the jury to be out on the reciprocal claim part of SR until an experiment is performed that puts reciprocity to the test.

 

 

I have other comments on this post, Popeye, but I'll start here.  If your claim is, as I take it to be, that SR cannot be applied to conditions where acceleration is present, OK.  That may be.  But using that reasoning, I don't believe anyone can ever create conditions where it does literally apply.  In that case it just gets reduced to an untestable, pseudo-scientific proposition that is useless for any and all practical purposes.  It would be just as misguided to claim that SR has ever, in any way, been confirmed.

 

Fortunately we have a robust alternative theory to SR which works  in all frames.   Whether inertial or accelerating, it still gives you the right answers.


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 02:57 PM.


#80 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 12:29 PM

There should be just one fundamental cause of time dilation, whether it is velocity time dilation or gravitational time dilation. 

 

 

I tend to agree, just as a matter of intuition.  I find it very curious and highly "co-incidental" that, at sea level, gravitational clock distortion and speed distortion exactly offset each other so that clocks run at the same rate (as sea level) anywhere on the planet,  whatever the longitude or latitude.  There must be *some* connection here, but don't ask me what it is.

 

On the other hand, once you start reifying the abstact notion of "time" and treat it as though its something tangible which can be "bent," etc., where does it stop?  Why not say that "time" varies with temperature, with absolute zero being the extreme case.  A lot of things can make both a physical and psychological "adjustments" to the  perception of the "passage of time," if you look at it that way.

 

I seem to recall reading that the speed of light has been slowed to 16 mph (or something like that) at temperatures approaching absolute zero.


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 02:48 PM.


#81 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 12:42 PM

As I have already admitted in that other thread, I am not an expert on relativity; therefore I don’t consider anyone and everyone who has doubts and questions about the reciprocal claim to be a crackpot, although some are!

 

 

 

I don't know if you have ever given any thought to the question of "why" Einstein would propose "reciprocal" time dilation to begin with.  After all, doesn't it strike you as logically impossible (as a matter of objective reality, as opposed to mere subjective perception)?

 

There are very powerful historical, psychological, and philosophical reasons for Al to do this.  For one, he said he was "desperate," and ready to give up, after having spent 8 frustrating years trying to reconcile the "principle of relativity" with Galilean transformations in connection with electromagnetism.


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 08:22 PM.


#82 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 01:08 PM

Person A:  I have, based on premises I want to accept, deduced that your clock is running slower than mine.

 

Person B: Likewise, I have, based on premises I want to accept, deduced that your clock is running slower than mine.

 

============

 

OK, no logical contradiction, paradox, or anything particularly unusual about this situation.  People make mistakes, and disagree every day.

 

But now SR comes in and says:

 

You are both correct!

 

Now there's a big-*** problem, eh?

 

At least if you take that in any literal sense.


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 08:18 PM.


#83 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 01:29 PM

 

It is easy to show that is true just by throwing a rock in the air! The rock and the earth possess the same relative velocity, but it would be absurd to calculate the relative kinetic energy of the earth based on that relative velocity! The kinetic energy calculation that correctly corresponds to the energy used by the thrower will be the kinetic energy of the rock, moving at the observed relative velocity to the earth.

 

 

 

Yes, I agree, and this is just as absurd as claiming that there is no way to determine if a rocket, when the candle under is lit, just stays motionless while the earth moves away from it and the moon moves toward it, or if it is the rocket which is actually moving.

 

But SR advocates routinely make such, or similar, claims on the basis that "there is no preferred frame and all frames are equivalent."

 

In order to maintain their dogma, they must claim that it is "impossible" to tell which of two inertially-moving objects is the one moving.  Funny thing is, after making that claim, they always tell you who is moving.  It's always the other guy, while you are always absolutely motionless.  Anything in the universe that is moving with respect to you is moving.  You are not.

 

And don't EVER try to claim otherwise (if you did, the whole theory would self-destruct).


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 02:04 PM.


#84 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 01:48 PM

 

In order to maintain their dogma, they must claim that it is "impossible" to tell which of two inertially-moving objects is the one moving.  Funny thing is, after making that claim, they always tell you who is moving.  It's always the other guy, while you are always absolutely motionless.  Anything in the universe that is moving with respect to you is moving.  You are not.

 

 

This proposition, despite being highly dubious, is built right into, and completely presupposed by, the form of the Lorentz transformations employed  by SR.

 

Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how "elegant" the math you use when purporting to "prove" your premises in circular fashion.

 

But of course this is the type of argument employed by your math-geek brand of SR advocate.  "If you want the right answer, do the math!" they'll tell you. "You can't hope to understand SR unless you do the math!"  In their mind, a mathematical calculation is conclusive proof of their claims.  They are absolutely oblivious to, and uncritical of, the tacit premises that they have already built into the math equations.  I guess you can't blame them.  That's the way they were "taught."  "Shut up and calculate" is a standard response of the average SR instructor.


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 08:09 PM.


#85 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 05:37 PM

I don’t know of any experiment that has actually put reciprocal time dilation to the test. 

 

 How about the  theoretical test (thought experiment) that SR theory has  proposed for itself, i.e., the twin paradox "resolution?"

 

1.  Why doesn't the reciprocal dilation show up there, do you think?

 

2.  If it had been demonstrated there, which twin would be younger?  Would each twin be younger than the other when they were reunited?


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 08:15 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Relativity, Einstein, Big Bang, LIGO