swansont

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

All of these experiments failed to obtain any information about the future or the real world that was not previously known.

Enough said, no?

2 minutes ago, externo said:

Lorentz's explanation is that if we assume the Earth is stationary in the ether, the traveling twin ages less than the Earth during the journey there and back.

You said the CMB is the rest frame, so we are not at rest wrt the ether.

I notice you did not address why the M-M experiment got a null result.

26 minutes ago, Prajna said:

You might note that an electric motor will not run until you flick the switch. Although it doesn't take much energy to flick the switch and the real energy that is running the motor comes from the power supply that switch needs to be turned on for it work. Here the operator is turning the rotor, effectively just switching fields in the magnet array, rather than any direct application of force to the rockers, which are what send work to the output

A motor needs to be connected to a source of electricity, which provides the energy to run it. It’s not from anything stored in the wires.

16 minutes ago, externo said:

Einstein's SR is not capable of processing accelerations

Yes, it is. 

16 minutes ago, externo said:

, otherwise explain to me what happens during an acceleration according to Einstein.

What happens is rather open-ended. What happens to what?

16 minutes ago, externo said:

The speed of light remains constant and time changes its simultaneity, is that the explanation?

Those are the results (sort of; “time changes its simultaneity” is a rather awkward phrase)

What do you want explained?

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

As a thought experiment surely I have presented enough to spark a discussion on (at least hypothetical) energy exchange.

Energy goes in through the input, and some smaller amount goes out through the output.

You might note that after my initial commentary I stopped until there was an suggestion that this was an over-unity device; i.e. that stronger magnets would increase the power output in some way other than just reducing losses, and that turning the input rotor was not the source of energy in the device. 

You agreed that the system will not run on its own. These are contradictory statements.

31 minutes ago, externo said:

It is not ad hoc, Lorentz justified in 1904 the reason for contraction by the electromagnetic nature of matter.

Justified? With empirical evidence?

31 minutes ago, externo said:

But above all, we know today that Lorentz transformations are the transformations undergone by moving stationary waves, which is proof of the existence of the ether. These transformations simply indicate that matter in motion is made up of networks of moving standing waves of aether. The immobile frame of reference in relation to the ether is that of the CMB, it is the frame of reference of the universe.

So why do measurements like the Michelson-Morley experiment fail to measure the motion of the earth through the ether?

Quote

Search on Google: “CMB absolute frame”

I find links saying it’s not an absolute frame, as expected. 

46 minutes ago, Prajna said:

I hope you will at least admit that this device presents an interesting problem of analysis and the energy exchange is far from obvious

You’ve not shown a working device, only animations, so who is to say there is an energy exchange? I’m not convinced it will work as advertised.

Yes, AI can be discussed. But the arguments one makes in any discussion can’t be AI-generated. AI can’t be used as a source of information.

IOW, you can’t support an argument with anything that’s equivalent to “ChatGPT said <something>” 

2 hours ago, Prajna said:

Now, most likely you are right and it just remains for us to research deeply enough to understand your assertions but it would be much more helpful if you would offer some explanations to go along with your assertions. Thank you.

You should open up a thread to ask questions. People could answer, or point you toward sources that would explain it. Of course, you could also pick up a physics textbook. You’d eventually find that a changing B field creates an electric field, and that can do work, and also that the energy in the magnetic field is fairly small, and is not the source of the energy. 

I’m explaining that the work in your device comes from whatever turns the rotor, not the magnets (which are just a substitute for a mechanical coupling, which would also not be doing work). You even acknowledge this, when you agreed that this device would not run on its own. Someone has to turn the crank. That’s where the energy comes from.

49 minutes ago, externo said:

Lorentz theory passes the tests as well without this postulate.

Lorentz theory is ad-hoc.

There’s no independent evidence of an ether. Are we moving with respect to the ether, or are we stationary with respect to it?

4 minutes ago, externo said:

Einstein's postulate on the invariance of the one-way speed of light is untestable as well.

It’s a postulate. The resulting theory is testable, and passes the tests.

6 minutes ago, externo said:

Walking droplets are mainstream physics. Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics and it's mainstream physics.

 

6 hours ago, externo said:

How do you know that the speed of light is invariant? This is a  eisteinian postulat, not a physical reality.

A postulate based on electrodynamics, which has an invariant speed of light.

And given the success of relativity, and its experimental confirmation, it is a physical reality.

6 hours ago, externo said:

This has been proven, for example, walking droplets in oil baths obey Lorentz transformations while moving. Lorentz transformations are proof that matter consists of moving standing waves of ether.

I am reminded of a certain Sidney Harris cartoon

6 hours ago, externo said:

C is invariant, but the speed of light relative to moving objects is not. In the absence of gravitation the speed of light is invariant with respect to ether or space

Nope.

6 hours ago, externo said:

The Doppler effect comes from relative speed and is generated during the acceleration period. If you don't accelerate you can't move.

So the Doppler effect somehow know about some prior acceleration? even if the signal isn't sent until after the object starts moving at constant velocity?

That's magic, not science.

6 hours ago, externo said:

So you say yourself that the space twin change is velocity and produces a Doppler effect, so if it is the one moving it is not the Earth that is moving and there is no physical symmetry.

You've made this error a number of times. Changing velocity does not produce the Doppler shift. Repeating the assertion does not make it true.

6 hours ago, externo said:

Matter waves, gravitaional waves, any ether waves.

None of which are present in the twins paradox.

6 hours ago, externo said:

What you say there is Einstein's interpretation. In this interpretation the lengths contract because the simultaneity physically changes. If simultaneity does not change physically there is no possible length contraction of. But an object which accelerates has no influence on outer space, it therefore cannot change the simultaneity of outer space, it can only change its own simultaneity, that is to say it physically transforms itself because the speed of light changes relative to him and he has to adapt. So the outer space has not changed in simultaneity so there is a simultaneity of the outer space and it is a privileged frame of reference.

No. Your conclusion does not follow.

43 minutes ago, externo said:

This is impossible, the one-way speed of light cannot be measured:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Lorentz's theory is based on a speed of light varying in one direction but = c on the average of the round trip.

And here you admit that there’s no way to test Lorentz’s theory, rendering it unscientific.

3 hours ago, externo said:

Time dilation occurs in a propagating medium when confined standing waves are set in motion. Lorentz transformations are classical wave physics.

Here are references:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4356.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4534
https://web.archive.org/web/20120228112717/http://glafreniere.com/sa_Lorentz.htm

So the Lorentz transformations tell us that matter is made up of standing waves of ether. Electron is probably a standing wave according to Milo Wolff's model.

5 hours ago, jv1 said:

is this more simple way to calculate time dilation for light clock experiment ?

It’s wrong. Perhaps that’s more simple, but since it’s wrong it’s not useful.

You’ve not incorporated length contraction.

The following was posted in the forum announcements

AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made

Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. 

Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting.

Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content

___

We are happy to discuss the whys and wherefores, and consider modifications.

In addition, a reminder that accusing people of being bots, or using AI, is off-topic. You are, however, free to ask for clarification in any discussion, including links to any citations. Faking a cite is easy, but a valid link with one is a little harder to manage.

AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made

Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. 

Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting.

Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content

___

Discussion of policy is at https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133849-aillm-policy-discussion/

Just FYI, the energy density of the earth’s magnetic field is about a millijoule per cubic meter. Scale up as necessary for a stronger magnet. The energy for doing stuff with magnets is not contained in the magnetic field.

https://brainly.com/question/17055580

16 minutes ago, externo said:

If time dilation was a relative effect, it would not be absolute and the twin would not return younger.

You need to read more carefully. I specified inertial frames.

16 minutes ago, externo said:

If the speed of light does not change relative to a moving object, how does a light clock work?

There are a number of explanations, easily found on the web, of how a light clock would work, based on an invariant c

22 minutes ago, externo said:

You are confusing time dilation and simultaneity. 

The change in simultaneity is the origin of length contraction and is a perspective effect. Time dilation is an absolute effect and comes from the decrease in the average speed of light relative to an objet in motion.

Speed of light is invariant. It does not decrease for an object in motion.

Time dilation is a relative effect for inertial frames.

22 minutes ago, externo said:

The Doppler effect is an effect due to waves, so what changes is the speed relative to the waves.

Not for light, whose speed is invariant

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics equations, they cannot exist without a propagation medium.

That’s not evidence. 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Acceleration causes variation in the Doppler effect and therefore variation in the speed of the waves relative to the accelerating one.

c is invariant

22 minutes ago, externo said:

The study of acceleration shows that the symmetry is observational but not physical.

The Doppler effect, which is what I was commenting on, does not rely on acceleration, it depends on velocity, and it is symmetric. The measured frequency changes; that’s physical.

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Only at the end of the trip, until the Doppler effect is transmitted at the speed of light, because it is not light which changes speed in relation to the waves.

No, if the space twin sends a signal to the earth twin, it will be Doppler-shifted. That shift will change when the velocity changes, because the Doppler shift depends on velocity. It will take time for the signal with the new frequency to arrive, but that will be before the end of the trip.

What waves do you have, other than the light?

22 minutes ago, externo said:

What do you mean by “en route”

“on the way”

The signal being sent was already on the way. 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

What works is the mathematical law, not Einstein's interpretation.

I don’t think you are representing Einstein’s interpretation faithfully, and in any event it doesn’t matter. The equations tell us what happens, and that’s what’s important. 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Relativity_of_simultaneity

you can see that there is a "simultaneity jump"

You didn’t say simultaneity jump, you said “jump into the future”

Future and past are not part of the discussion

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Its in Lorentz theory you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks, in Einstein's theory what’s happening with the clocks is considered physical reality, it's the only way to explain the constancy of the speed of light, or else this constancy itself is not physical reality and then it's no more Einstein interpretation but Lorentz.

Relativity says clocks run slow because time is affected, and lengths contract. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect and objects do not actually compress. Since there is no preferred frame, you can’t say that one observation is the “truth” so any inertial observer can say what they observe is reality.

Even within a given frame, you have to account for the time delay from a finite speed of light. You see a signal from a distant clock, but you have to account for the fact that it took a time of L/c to get to you. That still applies in multiple frames.

22 minutes ago, externo said:

If time is not physical, neither is Minkowski space-time and Lorentz is right.

Can you hand me a chunk of space-time?

Please use the quote function properly. Hit return to get the cursor our of the quote box before typing your respinse. I can’t easily quote you to respond.