tar
-
Posts
4341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tar
-
-
2 hours ago, swansont said:
Relativity is why we think there is dark eneregy and dark matter. What has failed to happen is for some new theory to emerge to explain these things.
How does it fall to relativity to propose other realities and other dimensions?
What "I" have is a theory that has passed every experimental test thrown at it. What have you got? From this perspective you have nada.
That was tried early on. Clocks were left uncorrected and were observed to not be running at the correct rate. The relativity corrections were correct to about 1%
Why would there be "needed corrections" if relativity were wrong?
We already know and adjust for light travel time; it's part of clock synchronization. "Now" is not a value that ever gets used when you try and quantify such things. "Now" is pretty useless for a wide swath of applications of relativity. That you are not aware of these applications doesn't make them any less real.
I don't see what the pulsar "experiment" has to do with the validity of relativity. You have a distant pulsar, you have a bunch of pulses that are en route. Is there something more than that?
why yes
relativity equations would have the traveling twin not age as much as the stay at home
the pulsar cycle count experienced by both the stay at home and the moving twin would be exactly the same, thus invalidating the relativity equation
any differences in the clocks of the moving and stationary observers can be explained by red shift and blue shift where the frequency of light changes, not distance or the speed of light or time
Matter of fact, if you travel at relativistic speeds the universe in front of you is highly blue shifted and is hitting you with tremendous energy and the universe behind you is highly red shifted and visible light is hitting you as microwaves and radio waves. Gamma rays coming in your front window, radio waves out the back. On the way back the traveling twin will see the approaching clocks running fast, making up for any slow count on the way out.
0 -
4 minutes ago, swansont said:
We use such aids to understanding in a lot of ways, and in lots of disciplines. As they say, the map is not the territory. But maps are useful.
But where has the science failed? Do you have any concrete examples of relativity not working as advertised?
Again, you are projecting your own lack of comprehension on to others. We may not know everything, but that's very different from saying we know nothing.
I believe relativity has failed in constructing dark energy and dark matter from the motion of a super nova in another galaxy.
I believe relativity has failed in proposing other realities and other dimensions that have no bearing on our reality.
I believe relativity has failed in causing people to think the universe is strange and not comprehensible, when everything actually fits together and works quite flawlessly. I do not yield to you that yiou have it right and I have it wrong.
Answer the pulsar thought experiment.
If your equations come out with the count different, you have made some bad assumptions, or your equations are incorrect.
57 minutes ago, swansont said:It does if you want to do anything related to time and distance.
Perhaps the most famous example of time dilation's impact on the modern world is that it has to be accounted for in order for GPS to work. Without it, no GPS. So it would seem that it does have an impact.
We can't measure length at the same precision as time, but there are examples of length contraction having an impact, too. Certain high-energy collision physics must take it into account. We have the well-known muon decay example. It's critical in order to explain why parallel, current-carrying wires exert forces on each other.
I think this translates to it makes no sense to you, and you don't know what spacetime is, but to project that onto other people is quite something.
Perhaps, but I try and read and understand QED and GR and SR stuff. I have developed my own understanding of what makes sense and what does not. Usually, if something is true it is true in more than one way. That is, you could sync GPS clocks without using relativity equations, using only distance and light travel time. I f the orbiting clock runs slow or fast you apply the needed correction.
40 minutes ago, swansont said:Muon decay has nothing to do with this beyond being another example of relativity
My point was that you can explain the magnetic force with only the electric force and relativity. Because, in fact, all the classical magnetic force is is an electrostatic force viewed from a moving frame of reference, via the relativistic transformations. But you knew this, right? Because such criticism has to be based on a thorough understanding of relativity
Physics isn't attempting to explain reality. It's explaining how nature behaves.
well suppose you have a pen pal on a planet circling a nearby star, where light travel time separates your nows by 3 years. When you get a message from her you know she sent it 3 years ago. If she was 36 when she wrote it, you know she is 39 now. Two nows. When she gets your reply she will be 42.
She is, in reality only one age, as you are only one age. And you increment your years at the same time.
20 hours ago, beecee said:Start explaining. Start by explaining to me why we need to plug in SR with regards to GPS satellites, and then the muon effect.
"c" is actually the speed of light in a vacuum and is obviously constant. It has been shown irrefutably [not withstanding your yet to be announced examples to the contrary] that it is space/length and time that are invariant. And of course, at least in my puny mind, as we go faster, time slows down [dilates] while "c" is constant. Just as space and time are interchangeable, so to is length contraction and time dilation.
No it doesn't. You can never be sure that the next pulse will ever happen. We see Alpha Centauri tonight in our now. That "now" happened 4.3 years ago from the FoR of Centauri. There are many many nows that will see different things. My "now" when I see Alpha Centauri tonight is not the "now" of any planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, because that "now" does not exist as far as I am aware, until I receive information [light] about it.
How can you know you will see them later?
Well the correct part is that yes, everytime we look into the night sky, we are looking into the past. That literally means that it may not actually be there. We have no information about their "now".
Yes but our now includes light from alpha Centauri which it has for many past nows. Although we can not be certain there is not a gamma ray burst that will hit the Earth on Tuesday on its way, we can be absolutely sure that in our now that occurred a minute ago, there was light from Alpha in space a light minute out because we just saw it.
-1 -
19 minutes ago, swansont said:
It does if you want to do anything related to time and distance.
Perhaps the most famous example of time dilation's impact on the modern world is that it has to be accounted for in order for GPS to work. Without it, no GPS. So it would seem that it does have an impact.
We can't measure length at the same precision as time, but there are examples of length contraction having an impact, too. Certain high-energy collision physics must take it into account. We have the well-known muon decay example. It's critical in order to explain why parallel, current-carrying wires exert forces on each other.
I think this translates to it makes no sense to you, and you don't know what spacetime is, but to project that onto other people is quite something.
could you describe spacetime, using space and time as the a priori understandings?
I do not understand Chinese, although a 3 year old Chinese kid does.
That does not mean I do not understand reality.
Math is a language. One thing stands for another.
My question to you, is can the forces between two wires be explained with magnetic and electric fields, without using muon decay?
0 -
a 45 degree line exists only on your mental graph
it has no analog in reality
imagine the incorrect transformations that are done when someone is trying to set one thing in the place of another and describing a four dimensional thing on a two dimensional media
my contention is that the mind deals with an idea as happening all within ones view or imaginary view
that however is not how the universe works
the universe is intricate beyond comprehension, huge beyond comprehension, long lived beyond comprehension
0 -
20 hours ago, swansont said:
The distance shortens by the same factor as the time, leaving c the same.
Except time shortening has no meaning.
Distances shortenining has no meaning.
Kant thought there were two a priori understandings, that needed no, in fact had no definitions or components. Those two were time and space. Everyone knows what time is and everyone knows what space is.
It makes no sense to say that time shortens or space shortens. It has no meaning. All to balance an equation. Senseless.
no one knows what spacetime is
no one responded to my thought experiment
have the traveling twin count the pules of a pulsar
have the stay at home count
have the twins compare their count upon the return of the traveling twin
any blue or red shift experienced by the traveling twin of the pulses will exactly reverse on the trip back
the count will be the same because the traveling twin never left the galaxy
-4 -
On 11/2/2021 at 3:32 PM, beecee said:
What I said is that there is no universal now...universal meaning a "now" for everyone in the universe including my cousin in Andromeda. The universal speed limit assures that everyone's "now" is different. You are actually agreeing with me with your Mars Rover example.
SR/GR are probably the most tested theories of all time, and keep coming up trumps. The many examples of that, by many physicists around the world assures that we have no confirmation bias. It does not have to do with light travel per se, as it does with it being a universal physical constant, at a universal finite speed we define as "c".
But hey! I'm only a poor old retired tradesman, that is echoing the many reputable books and the many irrefutable experiments that continually support the most complete theory of gravity that we have. (SR of course being a subset of GR)
The first order of business is for you to acknowledge your fundamental errors.
beecee, What I am arguing here is that the results from various experiments align with the equations of SR and GR but there are other ways to explain the results than to suggest that time dilates and distances shorten. The mere idea of such things is counter the idea of c. c is the distance light travels in a particular time. You can't have c unless you have time remaining the same and distance remaining the same. If the distance.shortens then light would cover the span in a quicker time. This would invalidate the statement that light speed is invariant. What I suggest is happening is that people do not switch properly between two frames of reference. You can for instance be in the same inertial frame but distant from another observer or from a part of the experiment.u
My example of the pulsar proves my argument. You cannot have the next pulse in a second unless the light wave you are going to see in a sec is right now existing in space 186,000 miles from here.
The benefit of considering my proposal is that it corresponds to actual reality. The universe is huge and longlived beyond comprehension. It is incorrect to imagine the universe as being able to be seen all at once. My universal now is not meant to be seen, as light is the media we experience and it will take what is happening now elsewhere time to get here. However, there is something happening everywhere right now. That is my argument. There are two nows. One that sees the whole universe as photons coming in from a far, having been emitted a sec, or two or an hour or two or a year or two or a billion or two years ago. This is the actual way we see the universe all at once.
The other now is real, things are actually happening outside our view, because the light has not reached us yet, but we know they have to be happening now because we see them later. This other now is the universal now that for any one observer has to be imagined as happening now for an observer in those other locations.
But for any one location there is past, present and future. It is a simple thing to imagine everything happening now, and determining what happened elsewhere when, nased on the image and the distance.
Experiments have to consider this other now. Everything we see in space has already actually happened. That is if we see a quasar filled with first generation stars we can know in our imaginations that right now, in that area of space, there is likely a galaxy like the Milky way, or Andromeda filled with third generation stars.
We of course will never see it because the light from the current situation is billions of years away. and we don't live that long, but that does not mean it is not what is happening now in that are of space where we see the quasar.
0 -
On 10/28/2021 at 12:28 PM, swansont said:
AFAIK they were strapped into the seats, so the beam would be going perpendicular to the plane's motion. But that would have no measurable effect on the outcome according to SR.
No radioactive decay is involved.
It would be transverse in this case. But if you're thinking about some preferred frame, then you have to account for the fact that trips at one time of day would be in one direction, and trips 12 hours later would be in the opposite.
The time dilation was far larger than the measurement error from those clocks.
If you think that the accelerations played a large part, that's one more thing that's up to you to demonstrate. From an relativistic point of view, the effect is minimal.
The gravitational drop in the several millisecond travel of a thermal cesium beam is quite small. External electric and magnetic fields are shielded; these would have a large effect on the clock's performance if they were not.
Yes; the earth's rotation is taken into account in the analysis. The motion about the sun is not as the effect is (or was, for those clocks and such a short experiment) too small to measure
Can you calculate the angular speed of this to show that it's "rapid"? The gravity to show its hugeness?
(hint: how long does it take for us to compete 2*pi of a revolution?)
Feel free to show this.
This is a graph from the Hafele-Keating results (Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 168-170)
Fig 2 from p169. Seems to me the scatter in the timing signal is smaller than ∆t. (edit: and they cite the experimental error in their results)'s
It's likely you would need to show some model demonstrating that you would expect a result before anyone does this experiment.
Not if relativity is correct
SwansonT, In a way, the experiment has already been done, referencing your graphs. the magnetic field of the Earth is in one orientation when the clocks are headed east and in the other orientation when the clocks are heading west. In one direction magnetic north is to the beam's right. In the other direction it is to the beams left.
On 10/28/2021 at 3:34 PM, beecee said:So have many scientists/physicists over a 100 years and more.
The BB says nothing about how the universe began, only how it evolved from t+10-35th seconds or thereabouts. Secondly the BB applies to the observable universe.
Keep working on it.
There is no universal now, sorry.
beecee, You say there isn't when you use it all the time. If the Mars rover is doing something now, yet we see what it did later, there are two nows. One that is what is happening now, here, and one that is what is happening everywhere at the moment we are in here.
relativity equations work, but that does not mean they are correct and common sense is not.
there could be confirmation bias in the way the experiment is set up, and differences in results from expected results are often accounted for after the fact
relativity is real, but I believe it has to do with light travel time more than with gravity and velocity
I am not thinking it is correct to apply angular velocity equations to huge spinning objects because you cannot see the whole thing at once and the equation is immediate
The observable universe is all we have, and all we will ever be affected by. If something not contained in the observable has an effect on the observable universe, and we detect that effect, than the thing we considered earlier not in the observable universe would be observable and hence within the observable universe, so talking as if there is something outside the observable universe is without purpose and value.
then not than
-1 -
13 hours ago, MigL said:
And that is not true for any other, equally valid frame.
It is only approximately true even for the person on the telescope 1 meter behind you.What makes your frame so special ???
I am making the Earthbound frame special because that is the one we all experience, give or take several seconds.
If the universe began at the big bang, then there is a T=0.
All objects and events happening now in the universe are the same age in reference to the big bang.
0 -
18 hours ago, swansont said:
Explain why clocks at different speeds, and/or gravitational potentials, are observed (as in, there is experimental evidence) to run at different rates.
I am working on that. I need more information about the orientation of the clocks in the planes. Atomic clocks work on counting the decaying particles of Cesium. The detectors are in a certain direction from the emitting portions. In a moving plane the detector is maybe moving toward or away fromnor the emitter. Doppler shiftwise if you are moving toward a pulse you will count more pulses in a given time than if you are moving away.
The data from the various clocks show small variations of readouts from the moving clocks and the stationary clocks. Some of the variations are explained in one direction by gravitation differences in terms of the altitude and distance from the center of the Earth and other differences are explained the motion. The differences are small and not way far off normal error tolerances and there are motions and accelerations not taken into consideration, in terms of time of year and time of day during various takeoffs and landings.
One thing about electrons and photons and particles is they tend to move in a straight line but always in reference to the sum total of all the magnetic and gravitational fields it is moving through. When you conduct an experiment on the Earth the Earthbound clocks do not know they are supposed to be stationary. The Earth is rotating around its axis, The Earth is revolving around the Sun. The Sun is rapidly revolving around a huge source of gravity and magnetic fields that are strongest toward Sagittarius.
All in all the differences in the clocks are small and the data is wedged into gravitati.onal equations from relativity and motion equations from relativity to account for the small differences. I submit that if I had two "stationary" cesium clocks, they would show differences to the same magnitude as the differences witnessed in the relativity experiment depending on how they were oriented.c
One possible experiment to maybe see if my hypothesis is true is to take two identical Cesium clocks and mount one on a platform suspended within a structure that could rotate around four different axis through the center of a cube and its corners.
the Axis could be oriented toward and away from the Great Attractor, the Center of the Milky Way. the Sun and the Center of the Earth. I would be possible to program the platform to position the Cesium clock in the same orientations as if it were traveling around the Earth in that direction or this.
15 hours ago, Endy0816 said:The changing of frame of reference is what causes the time dilation and length contraction. That's what breaks the mirror between the two.
A difference in total time elapsed remains.
Visualize seconds for one twin spaced further apart. If counted you come up with a smaller total, meaning less time has passed.
IMO redshift, blueshift stuff should really just be ignored here. The one twin could stop halfway and still the effects of the time dilation experienced will persist.
Maybe, but I don't think so, Consider this thought experiment. Have two twins count the pulses from a pulsar and then send one travelinhe g fast toward the pulsar. The traveling twin will be running into the waves and will see them blue shifted and will count more of them per minute than the twin on Earth. The pulsar is only sending out one set of waves and traveling twin is counting the wave crests that have not yet reached the Earth. On the way back the traveling twin will be traveling with the waves and will see the next wave coming to the ship as red shifted compared to how the Earth bound twin sees them and doubly red shifted in terms of how she saw them on he way out.
Like if you were to count the waves on the way out to the oil platform and count the wave crests on the way back. When you return your count of wave crests is exactly the same as the count the guy on shore counted.
15 hours ago, beecee said:I think what you have missed, is that in fact there is no universal now...your now is not my now, nor the now of my cousin on the planet orbiting Proxima Centauri...
You are certainly, definiely 100% wrong re the twins aging differently being nonsense. This fact has been varified amny many times.
47 minutes ago, tar said:I am working on that. I need more information about the orientation of the clocks in the planes. Atomic clocks work on counting the decaying particles of Cesium. The detectors are in a certain direction from the emitting portions. In a moving plane the detector is maybe moving toward or away fromnor the emitter. Doppler shiftwise if you are moving toward a pulse you will count more pulses in a given time than if you are moving away.
The data from the various clocks show small variations of readouts from the moving clocks and the stationary clocks. Some of the variations are explained in one direction by gravitation differences in terms of the altitude and distance from the center of the Earth and other differences are explained the motion. The differences are small and not way far off normal error tolerances and there are motions and accelerations not taken into consideration, in terms of time of year and time of day during various takeoffs and landings.
One thing about electrons and photons and particles is they tend to move in a straight line but always in reference to the sum total of all the magnetic and gravitational fields it is moving through. When you conduct an experiment on the Earth the Earthbound clocks do not know they are supposed to be stationary. The Earth is rotating around its axis, The Earth is revolving around the Sun. The Sun is rapidly revolving around a huge source of gravity and magnetic fields that are strongest toward Sagittarius.
All in all the differences in the clocks are small and the data is wedged into gravitati.onal equations from relativity and motion equations from relativity to account for the small differences. I submit that if I had two "stationary" cesium clocks, they would show differences to the same magnitude as the differences witnessed in the relativity experiment depending on how they were oriented.c
One possible experiment to maybe see if my hypothesis is true is to take two identical Cesium clocks and mount one on a platform suspended within a structure that could rotate around four different axis through the center of a cube and its corners.
the Axis could be oriented toward and away from the Great Attractor, the Center of the Milky Way. the Sun and the Center of the Earth. I would be possible to program the platform to position the Cesium clock in the same orientations as if it were traveling around the Earth in that direction or this.
Maybe, but I don't think so, Consider this thought experiment. Have two twins count the pulses from a pulsar and then send one travelinhe g fast toward the pulsar. The traveling twin will be running into the waves and will see them blue shifted and will count more of them per minute than the twin on Earth. The pulsar is only sending out one set of waves and traveling twin is counting the wave crests that have not yet reached the Earth. On the way back the traveling twin will be traveling with the waves and will see the next wave coming to the ship as red shifted compared to how the Earth bound twin sees them and doubly red shifted in terms of how she saw them on he way out.
Like if you were to count the waves on the way out to the oil platform and count the wave crests on way back. When you return your count of wave crests is exactly the same as the count the guy on shore counted.
beecee, I am aware that the equations of relativity have been found to be very descriptive of the events we witness, but reality does not conform to the equations, the equations conform to reality. You say the moving twin ages differently than the stationary one and this has been experimentally proven. I have seen many of these muon counts on platforms and such but always sense some fudging in the assumptions and set up and read outs because of frame shifting back and forth between one part of the experiment an another. It take time for the signal at one end of the experiment to reach the other end and people flip from place to place in their mind at fasted than light speed. This confounds the results. I am not saying there IS a universal now, I am saying we assume one where things are happening now, before we witness them. Proof being we say the light of a nearby star took three years to get to our eye. This assumes the star is actually shining now and putting out photons we will see in our now in three years. The universal now does exist.
0 -
The world is completely connected. Everything fits. The planets cycle the sun the sun revolves around the center of the galaxy, the galaxy spins in relation to the great attractor. Every molecule, every atom has a history and a present state and a likely future condition. No part of the whole can be removed from its current state and inserted in a different time, because the past has already happened in total and the future has not yet happened. The whole universe fits together seamlessly. No way to exist in another time without taking the whole universe with you.
If you take the whole universe with you you are effectively where you began. No time travel is possible.
0 -
So relativity says the twins will age differently and I say that is nonsense,
Anything that is true about how the traveling twin experiences the clocks at home and on the ship will be reversed on the trip back. The flow of time is consistent everywhere, only appearances differ, and everything adds back correctly as neither twin ever leaves reality.
Both twins will experience the other in slow motion bhecause of the doppler red shift. On the way back they will see each other's clocks blue shifted. Clocks will be in sync when they reunite.
Actually if you want to add reality to the thought experiment, the traveling twin will be traveling so fast the the visible light waves coming from the direction she is going will be blue shifted so much that they will be experienced as high frequency high energy gamma waves and the ship will likely not survive.
0 -
On 10/25/2021 at 9:38 PM, MigL said:
This 'now' does not exist, and is impossible.
This 'now' is approximately possible in a local frame.
Time does not 'flow' equally all over the universe, but is dependent on relative speeds and gravitational potentials, making the concept of a universal 'now' non-sensical.
( I'm sure Markus will offer some explanation such as the regular foliation based on equal time co-ordinates in Minkowky space is not the only choice, any foliation where the simultaneities are spacelike hypersurfaces is valid, IOW different 'nows' for different observers )
MigL it absolutely does exist and it is not nonsense,
Let me prove it to you.
If you witness in your telescope a pulsar and it pulses at a rate of one cycle from highest amplitude to highest amplitude in one second and said pulsar is figured to be 150 light years from here, there HAS TO BE 28,840,000 sine waves in the space between the Pulsar and here, RIGHT NOW.
If not, you wouldn't see the peak that is 196,000 miles out, in a second and you do see it.
On 10/26/2021 at 2:05 AM, md65536 said:No, you don't need two. You can have the two, but there's nothing that stops working or making sense with just the frame-dependent definition of simultaneity.
For order of events, causality is enough, and that doesn't depend on frames of reference or simultaneity. There is no "god's eye view" needed. You can add it in, but it doesn't explain any observations that can't be explained without it. Therefore it's likely more misleading than helpful for explaining. It would be like saying "To understand life and death, we have to first understand ghosts." Nothing requires that ghosts aren't real, but everything observed can be explained without ghosts.
For order of events, if two distant events are simultaneous, they're not causally linked (one doesn't cause the other). Their order is frame-dependent, and there's no problem with that because their order has no bearing on causality and on what other events are effected, and thus no bearing on what can be observed (since observations can be treated as a set of events). If the god's eye view is necessary, it's for something other than what's been observed or what's predicted to be, ie. metaphysical. The "universal now" is simply not needed for the universe to function.
Md65536, the order of events isdifferent to three observers in the same frame of reference if for instance three observers in a triangle light a signal light when they see the lightning strike. However the lightning strike occurred only once at a particular time and the various signals occurred when the light from the strike reached each station. They were causally connected because the light reaching each station caused the signal to be lit.
There used to be a ferry boat that served as the station at Port Imperial. It is gone now, But an observer with a powerful telescope on planet 25 ly from here would still see it sitting there on the shore of the Hudson across from Midtown Manhattan.
I need no relativity equations to know this.
Regards, TAR
On 10/26/2021 at 5:10 AM, Markus Hanke said:That’s not true - relativity of simultaneity is explicitly about distant simultaneity, ie events and observers at different spatial coordinates. Within the mathematical treatment, this spatial separation as well as the finite propagation speed of light are explicitly accounted for within the necessary Lorentz transformation.
Mr. Hanke,
But if two events occur distant to two observers, lets say a light second away in opposite directions and the observers say they happened now, the events really happened a sec ago. So there is the now they each witness the event at the same time and there is the now when the event actually happened. That is it happened now, in the universal sense, a second ago. An observer at the event would have witnessed it a sec ago. The Mars Rover is doing something now that we won't see for 20 minutes.
So relativity says the twins will age differently and I say that is nonsense,
Anything that is true about how the traveling twin experiences the clocks at home and on the ship will be reversed on the trip back. The flow of time is consistent everywhere, only appearances differ, and everything adds back correctly as neither twin ever leaves reality.
0 -
Einstein uses a lightning strike to establish the idea of simultaneity but fails to consider the distance of the two observers from the lightning strike.
My contention is that in order to understand simultaneity and discuss it and refer to the order of events and the appearance of time slowing and quickening and distances foreshortening and such, one needs to float the existence of two nows. One where everything is happening in the entire universe right now at the same time, and one in reference to an observer in a location, moving at the speed of the frame of reference he or she inhabits.
It is true that NO other observer is in the same time as you are, because all events happening distavnt from you are experienced by you after they occur. But there is a way to take a God's eye view and consider something happening in every location in the universe, right now. Things happening 196000 miles away will be apparent in your personal now in a sec. But they actual happened a second ago when the happened at the same time as everything else that happened in the Universe a sec ago.
For instance, the Sun or a star is in your sky now if it is not cloudy. It is immediate. The photons left the object 8 mins ago or 3 years ago, but they are arriving at the back of your eye now. That star is shining now, in the God's eye view of things ,too.
0 -
Einstein uses a lightning strike to establish the idea of simultaneity but fails to consider the distance of the two observers from the lightning strike.
My contention is that in order to understand simultaneity and discuss it and refer to the order of events and the appearance of time slowing and quickening and distances foreshortening and such, one needs to float the existence of two nows. One where everything is happening in the entire universe right now at the same time, and one in reference to an observer in a location, moving at the speed of the frame of reference he or she inhabits.
It is true that NO other observer is in the same time as you are, because all events happening distavnt from you are experienced by you after they occur. But there is a way to take a God's eye view and consider something happening in every location in the universe, right now. Things happening 196000 miles away will be apparent in your personal now in a sec. But they actual happened a second ago when the happened at the same time as everything else that happened in the Universe a sec ago.
For instance, the Sun or a star is in your sky now if it is not cloudy. It is immediate. The photons left the object 8 mins ago or 3 years ago, but they are arriving at the back of your eye now. That star is shining now, in the God's eye view of things ,too.
My suggestion is to consider everything, every object, every event as happen now, existing now. 13.787±0.020 billion years after the big bang.
Then considering everything you see or experience as being old news about what happened earlier.
The unfortunately is not an actual way to experience other star's nows.We have to just imagine what they might be doing the many years after what they appear to be doing now. In that other now, the God's eye view now, where everything is currently happening.
One additional suggestion is to consider everyone on Earth existing in the same now, give or take several seconds.
0 -
22 hours ago, StringJunky said:
Relativity of simultaneity, I think covers that.
StringJunky,
That is what I am looking to discuss. Einstein talks about a lightning strike as a device to establish simultaneity, but does not account for the distance of each observer from the strike
there are a number of inconsistencies and impossibilities that arise using relativity equations. One such hard to square issue is that of the speed of light being constant and defined as a travel time over a certain distance. How can you use this as a standard when both time and distance are warped with high velocities and large gravitational fields?
the difficulty is an imagination can place two observers at two different points at the same time, but since they are in actuality separated by a distance, NOTHING can happen at the same time in both places
only an event that happened half way between would be noticed by both observers at the same time
0 -
On 9/30/2021 at 3:55 AM, Intoscience said:
Relativity deals with this.
Your relative position, speed and distance determines what information you receive and when. If the separate observers are viewing from different reference frames then they may experience different situations to each other, or the same situation at different times etc... There are no fixed times or points in space for any observer, only what they experience relative to something else.
For example; I'm sitting on a moving train reading my book, I'm fixed in position relative to the train and my clock reads a certain time. As we pass a platform a person observes me sitting on the train whizzing by. Relative to that person I'm moving and also our clocks will tick at a slightly different rates (in reality almost negligible since the train will be travelling too slow for our clocks to measure the difference, however lets assume for this analogy the train is travelling fast enough for the clocks to measure the difference) so the observer will experience time slightly differently relatively to me.
except, Einstein assumes an observer that views both the stationary observer and the moving observer at the same time, in order to compare what they each observe at each moment. This makes the comparison mute as the third observer, that compares the two, has his or her own reference frame and can therefore NOT guarantee anything is happening at the same time.
0 -
On 9/30/2021 at 3:55 AM, Intoscience said:
Relativity deals with this.
Your relative position, speed and distance determines what information you receive and when. If the separate observers are viewing from different reference frames then they may experience different situations to each other, or the same situation at different times etc... There are no fixed times or points in space for any observer, only what they experience relative to something else.
For example; I'm sitting on a moving train reading my book, I'm fixed in position relative to the train and my clock reads a certain time. As we pass a platform a person observes me sitting on the train whizzing by. Relative to that person I'm moving and also our clocks will tick at a slightly different rates (in reality almost negligible since the train will be travelling too slow for our clocks to measure the difference, however lets assume for this analogy the train is travelling fast enough for the clocks to measure the difference) so the observer will experience time slightly differently relatively to me.
I have read Einstein's train thing and the idea of Simultaneity needs to be agreed upon in order to make any sense of anything. I think you have to consider
I have been suspended from Twitter, shadow banned on Gab and now a watcher or bot deleting my sentences as I write.
0 -
Thread,
The OP had some interesting observations. One was of particular import to me. Any point in space contains everything. Not sensible at first glance, but if you think about it, information from the furthest galaxies in the observable universe is arriving as we speak to all points of Earth's surface facing in the direction of said shiny body.
Interesting that if you look at a ballgame and I look at a ball game we both see the whole scene, and we are stationed at different points.
Regards, TAR
0 -
Mit have gotten my lowers and uppers and lefts and rights fouled up.
Like this, is the way the current number system goes.
10 7 4 1
11 8 5 2
12 9 6 3
Regards, TAR2
0 -
On 8/12/2021 at 2:46 PM, swansont said:
No, there are data which point to their existence. Much like there were data that pointed to the existence of the neutrino, before we could actually detect a neutrino.
AFAICT the problem here is you are not familiar enough with the reasons scientists think dark matter and dark energy exist. That's probably one reason your common sense says it's nonsense. Another is that some of science is just plain weird and outside of common experience, and therefore not intuitive. Which would make "common sense" moot. You're wielding a NERF sword in this battle
Actually I don't think the universe is weird at all. It fits together quite nicely. Works better than the model.
0 -
On 8/8/2021 at 2:48 PM, tar said:
TAR spherical coordinate system consists of designating the four three points adjacent to the South pole four point as Red, Yellow, Green and Blue, looking at the South Pole, moving counter clockwise around the pole.
Each of the four threepoints becomes the center of rotation of an axis going through the center of the sphere.
These are analogous to the four axis of a tetrahedron.
Looking at them from the south, each axis can be imagined as putting out an infinite number of great circles that intersect at the other end of the axis on opposite side of the sphere,
The line going through the South pole is the 0/360 line and the other lines are designated in degrees in a clockwise direction around each of the four axis.
Twelve diamonds are described by drawing the great circles at 0 degrees, 60 degrees, 120, 180,, 240, 300 and 360.
The 0, 60, 120 are the same circle as the 180, 240, 300 but retain them all because the intersections of certain of the degrees on the six diamonds that are furthest from the axis ends, around the middle of the sphere, in reference to each axis, allow a description of every possible direction from the center of the sphere with two coordinates.
Diamond 1 through 12 are numbered as follows.
1 Red 180-240 Blue 120-180
2 Yellow 240-300 Blue 60-120
3 Green 300-360 Blue 0-60
4 Yellow 180-240 Red 120 180
5 Green 240-300 Red 60-120
6 Blue 300-360 Red 0-60
7. Green 180-240 Yellow 120-180
8 Blue 240-300 Yellow 60=120
9 Red 300-360 Yellow 0-60
10 Blue 180-240 Green 120-180
11 Red 240-300 Green 60-120
12 Yellow 300-360 Green 0-60
Notice each color appears 6 times, the six 60 sections.
So if you have a point in space at the center of a sphere, and designate a South pole surrounded by four tetrahedral axis you designate one as Red and the whole system is determined and every direction in space can be designated with color degree, color degree and every point in space describable by adding a distance to the direction.
Copyright Thomas A. Roth Aug 8 2021
The four images posted are the 4 equatorial diamonds
look for the small pink numbers in the middle of each diamond
the number system is simple and elegant, unlike the arbitrary numbering I used earlier in the thread
to imagine it , 1 is to the upper right of 2, 2 is the equatorial diamond where the date line on the Earth passes through the center, 3 is to the lower left of 2
then rotate as the Earth rotates to diamond 5, again an equatorial diamond. 4 is to the upper left, 6 is to the lower right.
rotate to equatorial diamond 8. 7 is to the upper left 9 to the lower right
rotate to number 11 10 is to the upper left 12 is to the lower righ
Unlike my earlier numbering system this works out perfectly. The order is easy to follow AND you will notice a pick dot in the left corner of each diamond. This signifies the origin of an X Y type grid in each diamond where the degrees go up to the right in the one colors wheel and up toward the top in the other color's wheel.
Each color thus spans six diamonds around the sphere and intersects with each of the other color wheels twice.
This system is potentially useful because the square degrees are all named and of the same area.
spheres have 41,253 square degrees
Compare that with this system that shows 43,300 diamond degrees
also notice the 3 point under each equatorial diamond
Red, yellow, green and blue axis points respectively
0 -
On 8/10/2021 at 1:15 PM, swansont said:
Makes no sense based on your experience and intuition*, which is not the same as that of many scientists, especially one familiar with the problem.
*this is one reason why we urge people in speculations to become familiar with the science surrounding the problem they are trying to solve
It's hard to see it. Maybe we've missed a similar amount of stuff in the ocean, because it doesn't reside near the surface. There was a time, not so long ago, we didn't notice protons and neutrons and electrons. Had no clue they were there — too small to see — until we built the tools to detect them. We've only known about the different atoms for a relatively short time. How come people in 1700 had no clue about Tellurium? Or most of the elements, for that matter? (Only a dozen or so were known at that time) How did we miss all that?
There was a time when people had no clue about other continents in the world. They had to explore to ind new places. But being unaware doesn't men these other places didn't exist.
Swansont,
Well of course you are right about all those things we didn't notice, and science found them for us...but we are talking about dark matter and dark energy here which, for I can see exist ONLY in the equations. That is only in the model and the imagination. You can't say "well that explains illness" like you could when we found germs.
Regards, TAR2
0 -
On 8/9/2021 at 10:13 AM, dimreepr said:
The difference is understanding the knowledge, a crackpot just assumes knowledge is for all to see; without the need of learning.
For instance, can you build a car; because you know how an engine work's?
Well no dimreepr you can't, and I see your point. The crackpot has stuff working in his or her mind that any scientist knows can not work in reality.
But the other side of the coin is that sometimes I know that what a scientist says is stuff the model says, or the math says or a probability equation says, and I know, from common sense, that it is nonsense. What I mean is my senses give me information that is NOT consistent with what the scientist says. The thing fits the model but makes no sense.
For instance scientist say that the models and the math tell them the universe is 79% dark energy. That makes no sense. We have been in the universe since we started noticing stuff. How did me miss 79% of what there is to notice?
It seems to me a thing is true if it is true in many ways, not just one. If dark energy is 79 percent of the universe and now we know that, we should be able to explain 79 percent of the the things we only understood 21 percent of before the discovery.
I suppose that is the other reason I left the board. I think scientists are just people, same as religious folk.
I give no special wonderfulness to people that believe more in their model than they believe in their neighbor.
0 -
11 hours ago, zapatos said:
Long time no see tar! Welcome back! 😁
I enjoyed this board a lot.
Made some friends and had some great discussions and learned a lot.
Got run off by Hillary Trolls.
Came back to post my solution to the spherical coordinate challenge I had posed to myself.
Saw this thread and had to respond.O
It is important to me that crack pots and scientist recognize that they are both working from essentially the same viewpoint. A human viewpoint. And the world is a whole lot bigger than any one person's image of it. For that matter it is a whole lot bigger and more complex than all the images of all the scientists, since man started communicating with him or herself.
The scientist and the crackpot have almost exactly the same brain, with all the same chemicals and sections with various functions. Bodies match pretty closely too and the same chemicals are in the brain with the same dopamine/serotonin/norepinephrine in both the scientist and the crackpot, working on in most cases the same problems, with the scientist having more information and the results of more investigations and a better understanding of the collective models. However it is important for the scientist to realize that math is happening in the mind, in the imagination. It is not affecting the outside world until it is used to build something or create something in the outside world or in some other mind.
Models of the world are just that. Internal analogous representations of outside the brain reality. Knowing the math means you know the model. The model, by definition is incomplete. It is not reality itself. If reality fits the model it is because the model is consistent and well designed. But reality is under NO compunction to fit the model.
Imagination can be wrong. Optical illusions can give the eyes and brain misinformation. Old age can dull the hearing. Taste buds can be dulled by spices, matching facilities in the brain can get old and once sharp minds can become a little dull and slow.
Point being, I have great respect for the crackpot, because I am one. The difference between me and a scientist is slight. Has mostly to do with experience and knowledge of conventions.
The actual world remains exactly the same regardless of our knowledge of it.
On Earth we change stuff all the time.
In space we just have moved a few rocks and sent out radio signals.
Just because you imagine something does not make it possible.
What is possible is what we build our imaginations from.
0
Requirement for two "nows" to grasp the idea of Simultaneity
in Relativity
Posted
This effect, which I untis an obvious consequence of high velocity toward or away from an electromagnetic wave is a new theory evidently because you say I am wrong and I am not. I believe that is the way the universe works.
It is hard for me to accept a heat death of the universe because the whole universe is sending photons toward every other part of the universe. Said photons don't disappear until they hit another atom an raise an electron into a higher energy state. Then as atoms do they try to lose the energy by emitting a photon. No atom can reach a ground state because the rest of the universe is sending its energy in to it
so i do not think the universe will suffer a heat death
How is blue shift and red shift not science?
I will be quiet.
You are not answering honestly. You are answering with the relativity equation, like it is more real than reality. Reality makes more sense than how you say it works.