Jump to content
Science Forums

Ver

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ver

  • Rank
    Thinking
  • Birthday 06/30/1947

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Near Kawakawa bay nz
  • Interests
    Cycling walking inventing sailing

Converted

  • Biography
    Ex Aircraft mechanic
  • Location
    NZ
  • Interests
    Cycling-walking-theories-inventing
  • Occupation
    Vagrant
  1. Have not posted for a while-- rusty. I have been pottering with some of my old preferred frame geometry and have worked out a formula directly from it. The formula is for time dilation due to speed. I am asking for any persons interested to check out its accuracy against the correct formula please and if it works and there is any interest I will explain the geometry which uses a c based absolute datum. Time dilation is the square root of c minus the frame speed squared. (c is1). This geometry can be drawn to scale on A4 and I believe it is
  2. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Hi Craig. Yes I have considered the Postulates of Special Relativity and have no concerns about experimental results. Presently, there is no option but to measure and obtain these results. I have no argument with them. As for length contraction, I have no problem with that and have not made that a consideration for a moving frame because, length contraction is in the direction of travel and using the tabletop in my examples, it is positioned at right angles to the direction of travel and is therefore not length contracted. There is no "length" to any point on the tabletop. See the animation.
  3. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Hi SigurdV Perhaps we are just a product of evolution due to c. I suppose "weight" is a product mostly of the originating observer. If you mean "moments" in time, great. Time to stop and study what precisely has happened. Being able to express "thoughts" is great and even better when someone listens.
  4. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Hi Craig Sorry for being so slow. I think the particular point I cannot understand is the preferred frame, so perhaps we could just take a look at that for the moment. With regards to the only absolute frame being c I ask myself, what is that point between two photons heading in opposite directions. There must be an absolute there. They move at c regardless of red or blue shift so still an absolute. If I form a sphere of photons from a pinhead size event I can see its perfect symetry with every single photon in that sphere having moved the same distance, -- another absolute. If we cre
  5. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    A question in the last paragraph. This is a rehash of my first post and I hope this makes it clearer. The only absolute in the universe is c, so how about a geometrical exercise based on that and check it out against Special Relativity in a particular way. Look at the sketch and consider it to be photons moving from a pinpoint event in gravity free space and having formed a perfect sphere. This can be drawn to scale. 200mm sphere works fine for A4. All photons have moved at c and have moved precisely the same amount. Each and every one has formed a radius of the sphere and has moved in a strai
  6. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Hi Sigurd ---- Remember these are purely my views of relativity.--- Well the tabletop is used for an experiment within the moving frame to measure the speed of light in that frame. It was moved up there for convenience.-- the frame can be a space vehicle or even just the table but everything moving with that table is what I understand to be a "frame". Look at the following diagram and the tabletop which is represented by the horizontal line, so we are looking at the edge of the table. The tabletop is moving up the sphere vertical line the flat face of the top- moving in the direction of trave
  7. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Hi Craig Thanks for your answer and the thumbs up for part of it. Your diagram is almost there. A line from the center of the circle to the tabletop intersection with the sphere should be considered. If we look at the initial formation of the sphere by photons eminating from the center of it and describing the spheres radius at all positions. Each radius is precisely the same as any other and its origin is the same as any other. We have now drawn in one radius and there is one photon at the surface of the tabletop, on the intersection with the sphere. This has all happened in a sphere of 20cm
  8. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Ok Lets use the sphere in a particular way. From this same event we have a moving frame heading in the same direction as one photon at .6c. The event occured at the left hand side of a tabletop the surface of which is flat face to the direction of travel. There is a single photon crossing the table top from that event. The frames observer is measuring the speed of the tabletop crossing photon. We are observing this from the perfect and absolute symetry of the sphere. We can draw this precisely. Draw a circle 100mm radius. Draw in a vertical line from the compass point up through the circle a
  9. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Hi Craig I think there is a bit missed here. It should be-- Take three photons from an event in a gravity free area of space. Two are heading in opposite directions,each on the precise reciprocal of the other while the third heads out at 90 degrees to the line formed by the reciprocals. I am trying to illustrate my belief that all photons originated from that marked event. Disregard all the other photons on the edge of the event sphere and just work with these three for simplicity. The frame which created the event can be anywhere within the sphere therefore the photons are not frame depend
  10. Ver

    Simple Relativity

    Hi SigurdV I have not been active here for a while. Thanks for your comments. It is interesting how relativity has developed since the arrival of Lorentz. and the acceptance of his theory which works when you subtract from the Aether its mechanical and from matter its electromechanical properties. If Maxwell or his "followers" had succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model of relativity at the same time as that of Lorentz, which theory would have been accepted?. From the time concensus agreed with Lorentz, any mechanical theory is disregarded, not by the parameters which would have made a
  11. I have a geometric view of SR which gives the correct answers to simple SR time dilation calculations. I am told my method is incorrect with statements like "thats not how it is" or "A reletavist would not agree". I would like to know precisely at what point it deviates from logic. Take three photons from an event in a gravity free area of space. Two are heading in opposite directions,each on the precise reciprocal of the other while the third heads out at 90 degrees to the line formed by the reciprocals. During propagation I place a small object on the reciprocal headings of the three photon
  12. Create a propagating sphere of light in an area of gravity free space from a pinhead size object. Hold this object for some of the propagation at the center of the sphere. Release the object and it will remain inertial and on the reciprocal of all the propagating photons. It will have no reason to move from the reciprocal of all the photon headings. Create a second propagating sphere from an object close to the first object in the same way. It will stay on the new reciprocals and both objects will remain at the same distance away from each other and be inertial. Do this as many times as you wi
  13. Time dilation calculations using the above geometry are simple. These particular examples are from David Darlings website and are calculated using classic relativity. I hope he is fine with me using his figures. Lets see how my odd geometry stacks up. The table below gives the travel times as measured by onboard clocks to Arcturus located 36 light years from the sun, for a spacecraft travelling at various speeds (given as fractions of the speed of light) Speed Travel time in years .01c 358.2 .5c
  14. Feel free to correct. Further to frame time and the propagating sphere. Lets introduce a moving inertial frame to gravity free space. A desk will work fine. The desk will move flat face to the direction of travel and we will move this example at .6c. We create an event at the left hand edge of the desk top and allow about one meter of propagation towards the right hand end. This distance is not important but allow enough propagation so that the sphere does not cross the other end of the desk. Lets see what we have now. We have a sphere radian which corresponds with the direction the desk is m
  15. I wish to describe how I see the geometry of a photon and an inertial frame to determine frame time. A while ago I tried some simple maths to see how accurate this geometry would be against classic relativity. It works fine. Let me describe how I see this and perhaps find an SR member who might just see how this works. First we go to an area of gravity free space and consider the geometry of propagating spheres of light. From a pinhead event and the release of photons from it, we allow around one meter of propagation and position ourselves centrally and above the propagation for a good view.
×
×
  • Create New...