Jump to content

Farsight

Senior Members
  • Posts

    616
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Farsight

  1. Oh I do understand science, insane_alien. Believe me, I do. And I also understand people.

     

    Remember that this essay comes under the heading RELATIVITY+. It's my vision of how Einstein might have developed General Relativity. And remember this quote:

     

    "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

  2. farsight, there is more than one definition of work. just like there is more than one definition of colour.

     

    for instance, you have the colours of the spectrum (red, orange, yellow, etc. etc.) and then there is the colour force. which is completely different as it describes how subatomic particles such as quarks interact. its also called the strong nuclear force.

     

    Human work is not substantially different from physics work, Insane_alien. And "Colour force" is not colour, really.

     

    John Cuthber: I'm sure everybody will agree with your post above.

  3. Edtharan and swansont, I congratulate your responses to this thread, I have long ago given up.

     

    You may have given up, Klaynos, but come on, check back through this thread. You've given nothing.

     

    Edtharan: let's agree to differ and call it a day shall we?

  4. Thanks for putting in the time, Molotov.

     

    1. I'll tackle the first one. First off, c is a constant, of which you have been told many times over in all of the other posts. The speed of light doesn't change, and it is not relative to any observer. All observers will agree on the speed that light travels. Depending on their frame of reference, they will disagree on the distance a beam of light has traveled, and they will also disagree on the time it has taken to travel from point A to point B as well. This phenomenon has been verified by many experiments, especially by the Michelson–Morley experiment (They put beams of light at right angles at one another to determine properties of the supposed aether, but found that light always traveled at c independently of what they did). In addition, the value of c has been calculated to be a constant several decades before that experiment by Maxwell. c is not variable and all observers will agree on the speed of light no matter their frame of reference.

     

    Yes, all observers will always measure c to be the same old 300,000km/s, no problem. This is clearly the crux of the issue. If you've been following the thread you'll have spotted that it really hasn't been dealt with. If I'm experiencing gravitational time dilation such that I age one year whilst you age seven, my light has travelled one light year whilst yours has travelled seven light years. I assert that for this to happen, my c was one seventh of yours. Can you counter this?

     

    2. I don't understand it well enough to actually be able to explain it to you in a way that makes sense, so I'll post a link about it right here: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/elementary/specialRT/index.html. This link will teach you about relativity and is intended for the general audiences. It also includes general relativity and its applications, and I have checked it for credibility. But in a nutshell, the Special Theory of Relativity is a theory that explains the nature of light, inertial and accelerating frames, and the nature of time. This theory states that time is relative to the observer just like space (which means that it is a physical dimension just like space, hence it is called spacetime). When one accelerates to near light speeds, the person's time will contract (which is why it goes slower for the person that is traveling and ages less than the person who is not accelerating). It also includes the principle that there is no absolute rest (A Newtonian concept), just as there is no absolute time, that all observers will agree on. And the reason it is called "Special" is because it does not take gravity into account and works only in inertial frames.
    Thanks, but I'm way ahead of this. I really do understand SR beyond the postulate.

     

    3. In all of your threads, you have shown and continue to refuse to show any proof, experimental data, and mathematics for your so-called "theories". Also, you have relied on analogies to explain what they are. Analogies are not explanations. Analogies are used to reinforce understanding of a concept and put it into perspective. They are not to be confused with explanations, data, and proofs.

     

    You're entitled to express a view. But note that I haven't refused to show proof, experimental data or mathematics. I chose to write these essays in a layman-friendly style in an attempt to get the ideas across. And I haven't actually called it a "theory". I prefer to describe this as a "toy model". Do remember that this is only a discussion forum, not some formal scientific institution.

     

    A good scientific theory is something that can:

    1) Explain various natural phenomena consistently

    2) Be verified by experimental data

    3) Make predictions

     

    It is interesting to note that if even one thing or observation contradicts the theory, it either has to be modified or scrapped. The reason standard theories work is because they meet all of the above criterion and they haven't been disproven by experiments or observations. Also note that they will always remain theories because they have to be consistently proven by experiment.

     

    Who disagrees with that? Not me. But try applying it to String Theory. And does the Standard Model explain natural phenomena such as gravity? See my "toy model" comment above.

     

    Your theories, on the other hand, do not do a good job explaining, and do not take into account various other natural phenomena (your assumptions are wrong in any case), aren't backed up by experiments or mathematics or any other proofs, and most importantly, they do not make any predictions. For all intents and purposes, it isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis, since a hypothesis makes predictions. As such, this isn't and cannot be the correct explanation for gravity. If you hope for anybody here to even consider this as a theory, never mind an alternative explanation, you have to meet all of the above criterion. Otherwise, we will not consider them to be a legitimate explanation.

     

    Obviously I beg to differ as regards these essays do a good job of explaining, but again, you're entitled to express your view. Now, can you offer any particular reason why this essay cannot be the correct explanation of gravity? Something better than "c is always constant", because that's an axiomatic rebuttal. The thrust of the argument against this essay is "c cannot be variable because c is constant, QED" and there's a seeming refusal to look into the situations I propose. Please do reply to my question above regarding gravitational time dilation. If you need to do any re-reading start with RELATIVITY+, which links all the essays together.

  5. We are all quite bright here, so there is no need for you to simplify. In fact, you seem to have oversimplified and that is the source of your error...

     

    What error? That time travel is bunk? Don't pretend you've found some error of mine, Edtharan. You haven't. And repeating the pretence won't make it real.

     

    No. Under relativity there is no preferred frame. Why are you claiming that we have included one when we haven't?

     

    Because you insist that c is constant, and to do that you will insist that light travelled further in the "time dilation" thought-experiment I described to Swanson.

     

    So in effect, by this thought experiment, you have in fact demonstrated that without accounting for all the frames of reference, you end up with strange results. Congratulations: That is what we have been trying to explain for quite some time to you.

     

    You've explained zip, Edtharan. Your only justification for the axioms you hold dear has been the dogmatic repetition of those very axioms themselves.

     

    By forcing us to leave out a frame of reference (your accelerating frame) you have actually forced a preferred frame of reference onto us. No wonder our results are all strange.

     

    Sadly I've been unable to make you leave out your preferred reference frame. The simple fact is that I'm away for a year whilst seven years elapse for Swanson means light travelled one light year for me and seven light years for you, which means c is different. I just can't make it any simpler.

     

    You have misrepresented current theories by forcing a situation that does not give it enough data. That my friend is a strawman.

     

    I do not misrepresent. I do not use Strawman arguments. And I explained straw man to you, remember?

     

    Your arguments that you have built up against current theories are based on a false understanding of those theories. I am assuming that you have had access to information about the current theories of Time and Gravity and Space, that you have had some tutelage (even if just from a popular science book) about this subject. However, you have come to an understanding that is different to what these actually are. If these sources didn't give you this incorrect understanding, then it must have come from you. Therefore: You made them up (even if it was through ignorance).

     

    Theories like Time is a Length Edtharan? You have no understanding of time, or gravity, and when I offer you a total understanding of these things, you reject it all, like some religious acolyte, stooping to dishonesty to avoid an open-minded discussion. How can you sleep at night?

     

    You won't be able to sleep at night when you find out I'm right.

  6. Yep. It's a scale change. You're in it, you can't see it. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame. The postulate is still good. You need something like Pound-Rebka to know something's changing.

  7. So you are saying that this is fact... But you are saying that this is not fact... So you have worked out conclusions... Many times throughout history...
    You're clutching at very thin straws here, making a mountain out of my molehill of challenge, presumably because there's not much in the essay you can argue against.

     

    How does light going around in circles effect the permittivity of space?
    I haven't told you that yet. It'll be in the next essay.

     

    And how does this lead to mass?
    The light going round in circles leads to mass. Here's a precit: in empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We can call it a photon. It has momentum, and energy. But it’s all relative. The photon is moving, so you feel its momentum when it hits you. If however you apply a little relativity and imagine it's you moving, you'd feel its inertia when you hit it. See MASS EXPLAINED for more.

     

    So a photon is a distortion in space. But that is what "Gravity Waves" are supposed to be. Are gravity waves and Photons the same thing?
    A photon is travelling stress. It travels with an accompanying tension. Gravity is the tension that opposes mass/energy stress. You can't have this tension all on its own, just as you can't have stress without the tension. You can have a reduction in the tension, but you can't have a wave of it without an accompanying stress. If a planet lost some mass it would emit photons, and these would run off into space carried by stress and tension like in the rubber sheet analogy. They have their own gravity, so in this respect they are gravity waves, but we call them photons.

     

    Actually this is a good example, but not of your theory... If the ruler is held in the same direction as you (that is vertically), then it can be used to measure your shadow, just by using the shadow of the ruler. However, if we rotate it out of our direction (make it slightly more aligned with the ground), then we can't use the shadow of the ruler as a direct measure...
    Your rotation is missing the point of my example. Imagine you measure the length of your shadow using the shadow of your ruler. You get the same result at midday as you do at dusk. In similar vein you always measure c to be the same, even when it is actually different as evidenced by time dilation.
  8. "Frames" is the crux of the argument here. By avoiding it you are sweeping all of the details under the rug.

     

    No, I'm avoiding frames because they're at the root of your confusion. You have to step back from these frames and look at what's happening in much simpler terms. For me, light travelled one light year. For you, it travelled seven. The crux of it it is that light defines time, and if the time experienced is different, the speed of light must have been different too. If there's time dilation, there's a difference in c, but you always measure 300,000km/s, just like you always measure sixteen ounces to the pound, even on the moon. Your light defines your time. And that's the crux of GRAVITY EXPLAINED. It is just so simple.

  9. Actually what you have done is deliberately hid information. By not providing all the relevant information we can not come to the correct result.
    I've tried to simplify matters enough for you to grasp them.

     

    By deliberately hiding the fact that you accelerated (that is even though we know that you did, even though all we can use for this thought experiment is what is on the tape), we can not complete the equations. If you give us that piece of information, then there is no problem and there is then no need for a variable value of C.
    If I told you that I'd accelerated to .99c, you would assert that light had travelled a far greater distance in your preferred frame. You might not appreciate it, but this is creating an aether to maintain your axiom that says c is constant.

     

    The changing of a reference frame is very important to relativity. Most of GR deals with changing reference frames. IF you wish to just too out this vitally relevant information (that is violate the laws of physics) then of course you will not get the correct results. But all you end up really doing is constructing a strawman argument as you are not arguing against what really is occuring, but you own made up version of it.
    Straw man? Made up? Oh that's enough Edtharan.
  10. LOL Klaynos, I'll copy your response so you can squirm about it later.

     

    It's pure speculation. And as I understood it GR can be applied correctly to SR situations and gets the same results or am I wrong here? My GR knowledge is not great.

     

    And you show nothing about how the world works there's no maths :P

    __________________

    Klaynos ~~In quiet protest.

     

    PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DO NOT POST THEM AS SUCH

     

    <drochaid> Klaynos, lies, I drink urine and call it beer

     

  11. No, no goalpost shifting here. You have the videotape. It shows me sitting there with my metre rule lightclock, for a whole year, with a running timestamp in the bottom corner. There's a little action at the start of the tape and at the end, where you feature. You just don't know where I've been or what I've done. That's deliberate, to avoid any confusion about frames.

  12. That's how we define time. That's not necessarily the representation of what time actually is. Without a meterstick, we'd still have spatial dimensions. They exist regardless of how we measure them. You cannot argue the nonexistence of a time dimension based on the ways it is measured.

     

    The word dimension originally meant "to measure out", Cap'n. Temperature used to be considered a dimension, when the word was used to talk about anything you could measure. But there's a huge difference between this sort of dimension and the sort that offers freedom of movement.

     

    If you have no freedom of movement within a "dimension", you really shouldn't put it in the same camp as those where you do. Hence people talk about 3+1 dimensions rather than 4 dimensions.

     

    I'm not arguing for the nonexistence of time. Time exists like heat exists, as a derived effect of motion. We talk about heat flowing, and that's reasonable because there's a spatial motion going on. But there's no actual height to a high temperature, there's no motion through heat. In similar vein there's no actual length to time, and no motion through time. These are just concepts we grew up with, and find difficult to analyse.

     

    If you boil down what I'm saying, my view is basically that Time Travel is impossible. But sadly my full explanation is rather dismissed as speculation.

  13. How many of you here are familiar with the twin paradox. For those of you who don't know, the twin paradox basically is when you have one set of twins, put one sibling on a rocket and accelerated to near light speeds. Of course, if you travel at near light speeds, the time relative to the person going that fast is a lot slower than for the sibling still on Earth according to the theory of relativity. This therefore leads to twins that are not the same age when he/she returns from the trip. For example, if you were on a rocket ship going at near light speeds for, say, 10 years, several decades may have passed for the observer on Earth.

     

    I'm familiar with this. The paradox is that each twin considers the time for the other twin to be going slower than his own. It sounds counterintuitive, but it's isn't really a paradox. If you and I are separated by distance, our sizes look smaller to one another. We don't have a problem with that. The thing is, if we're separated by velocity, our times look smaller to one another. When the travelling twin turns round, he "skips some simultaneity", so when he comes back he has aged less than the one who stayed on earth. Look up "bricks and ticks" for an analogy that might explain it to your satisfaction.

     

    I am quite fascinated with this phenomenon, and I think Kip Thorne even theorized that this may make some sort of time travel possible if you were to attach a wormhole with one end on the rocket ship.

     

    I'm afraid this is speculation. Personally I'd go so far as to say it's wild speculation, or worse.

  14. Farsight, then explain how I can hold up my arms 10 seconds apart. Anyone can do it. Put your left hand up then down, count off 10 seconds and then repeat with your other arm.

     

    You've got two events here - two motions, two changes. When you say "apart" you're assigning a notional "distance" between them based on other events, starting with the seconds as indicated by your watch. These are calibrated against an atomic clock, such that:

     

    Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K…

     

    So one second is circa nine billion little atomic events, and the word "radiation" tells you these events are associated with light. If these events didn't happen, and nothing changed, you'd have nothing to count, and there would be no time. The only distance associated with these event is the distance travelled by something electromagnetic within the caesium atom during the event interval. It's a spatial distance, not a time distance. Hence a light year is a spatial distance, not a time distance. When you realise this you realise that

     

    The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.

     

    ..is circular. Both seconds and metres are defined using the distance travelled by light, which is why we always measure c to be the same value. When you say "apart" there's no actual time distance in there. It's just what you grew up with, and it's difficult to think any other way. Really, really difficult.

  15. The bowling ball analogy is wrong. Because it uses gravity to explain gravity. It's better to think in terms of gravitational time dilation. If the gravity keeps on increasing, the time dilation becomes total. In terms of analogy, the space doesn't rip. It freezes solid. That's why black holes used to be called "Frozen Stars". Check them out via google. Here's a link selected at random:

     

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00012DEF-46AA-1F04-BA6A80A84189EEDF

  16. You have no evidence of it. I stepped out the room and did something unknown to you that meant my time lasted one year whilst yours lasted seven. I say light travelled one light year whilst you say light travelled seven light years. Come on Swanson, what does this mean for c? I can't make it any simpler.

  17. actually the Old pennies (pure copper) the ones that don`t stick to magnets, are actually worth a fraction more in scrap value than their Face value :)

     

    Like I said in the essay:

     

    "Since May 2006, all circulation Canadian pennies from 1942 to 1996 have an intrinsic value of over $0.02 USD based on the increasing spot price of copper in the commodity markets...”

  18. Farsight, please stop using speculations as fact. The rest of us admit that we're not sure about time's nature, but you don't seem to. The same goes for other places where you interject with a speculation rather than a real theory.

     

    Noted.

  19. I am moving through time at the moment. What is a second if not a length? I cannot hold a meter in my head, does that mean it does not exist? Ignore time explained, it's random speculation.

     

    No, you are not moving through time. That's a fantasy. A second is not a length. That's a fantasy too. You can hold up your arms a metre apart. The distance between them is a length. You can step sideways by one metre, so you can move through space. But you simply can't do that with time. You are kidding yourself that you can.

     

    A second is a unit measure of change as compared to other change. If nothing changes, you have no time. And you cannot move through a measure of change.

  20. All of the above is arguably speculative, but don't let that be a reason to ignore it. This is how the world works. This is what you'll be teaching or talking about in years to come. It'll take a while.

     

    Give it.. time.

  21. RELATIVITY+

     

    I’ve always held Albert Einstein in the highest regard. I admire his ability to think outside the box, and empathise with his curiosity and desire to understand the world in terms we can grasp and understand. Interestingly, when you read about Einstein, you realise that some things are incorrectly attributed to him, and there have been some subtle but crucial shifts in interpretation that he wouldn’t agree with.

     

    einstein-bboard.jpg

     

    If Einstein was still alive today, I think we would have a different interpretation of Relativity. I think he would have explained the postulates he used in Special Relativity and General Relativity, and would have united both theories into something new. I’d like to introduce you to my vision of where Einstein would have gone. I’ve given it a name that is easy to remember and hopefully conveys the right message: RELATIVITY+. There’s already a General Relativity+, but I want something even more general, and relativity++ isn’t so easy on the tongue.

     

    We start with time. Albert said “time is suspect”, but we’ve rather forgotten that. We’ve also rather forgotten his Princeton years with Godel. We misinterpreted Godel’s rotating universe as something that permits time travel instead of rendering it impossible, and we brushed aside Einstein’s conclusion. That time is a relative measure of change, and whilst it's a dimension in the measure sense, it really isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space where we have freedom of movement. It exists like heat exists, but like heat, it is a “derived effect of motion” rather than something fundamental. For details read TIME EXPLAINED.

     

    clock_silver.jpg

     

    Time is the guilty party. Because once you understand time, you hold Einstein's key to all the doors in Physics: Spacetime is a Space. It’s rather difficult to accept this, because it’s difficult to analyse your own long-held concepts. There are psychological factors at work, associated with the phrase “Catch ‘em young”. Since ”Time is Money” and as an illustration why you should persevere, I offer an essay MONEY EXPLAINED.

     

    Bank_Of_England10.gif

     

    No, time is not money. But it isn’t quite what you thought it was, and if you can accept this you’re starting to understand ontological thinking. It’s a matter of looking at what’s really there, and asking yourself soul searching questions about the concept you hold dear. In the picture below, squares A and B are the same colour. Sounds amazing, but it's true. Follow this echalk optical illusions link to check it out.

     

    checkershadow-AB.jpg

     

    One such question is: ”If I understand it, can I explain it?” If you think you understand something but you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it. You perhaps already understood money, and you may already be aware of some parallels between money and energy. But do you understand energy? See ENERGY EXPLAINED.

     

    slinky3tran.gif

     

    Energy is in essence stress, quantified by volume. It’s that simple. In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We call it a photon. It has momentum. But it’s all relative. If it’s the photon moving, you feel its momentum when it hits you. If it’s you moving, you feel its inertia when you hit it. When you really understand this relativity, you understand just how simple mass is. See

    MASS EXPLAINED

     

    photons_loop1.gif

     

    In its barest essence, mass is energy going round in circles. When you push an object you deform these circles in the direction of motion, creating a partial spiral. The energy now moves in a helical fashion, rather like a spring. To stop the object you have to push the “springs” back into circles. It’s wonderfully elegant, and what’s more it tells you that everything is basically made of light. We live in a “hard light” world. Everything is drawn in light, and when we measure the speed of it, it’s like we’re measuring the length of our shadow with the shadow of our ruler. We can now understand what Einstein meant in chapter 22 of General Relativity about the non-constancy of the velocity of light. And we can now understand Gravity: GRAVITY EXPLAINED

     

    Gravity is not really a force. That’s why unification was so difficult. It’s like an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress. The speed of light is always 300,000km/s but light defines our time. The speed of light isn’t constant, and that’s what the gravity is. There’s no magical mysterious spacetime curvature. Not when spacetime is a space. Not in a world drawn in light. It’s just the permittivity of space that changes. The capacitance. The thing we call c changes, it is not flat. And it all comes down to charge, which is a story of something and nothing.

     

    theswr18.jpg

     

    Understanding this is the next challenge. And once we understand it all, we can set to work. And if we can make it work, we’re on the road to the stars. And I like to think that the name of the road is: RELATIVITY+.

     

    © “Farsight” 2007

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.