Jump to content

ravell

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-22

About ravell

  • Rank
    Meson

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A. Measurements on the astronaut clock ( A). On Planet X the light clock of the astronaut, will run twice as slowly as on Earth, due to ”time dilation”. According to your answers above, it follows that the actual speed of light on Planet X, measured by this clock, is twice as low as on Earth. That's correct But also in your opinion, the speed of sound is there twice as low as on Earth? Why? It takes twice as much time to cook a pancake here than on Earth? B. Measurements on the local clock (B). If the ticking frequency of clocks on Earth and of the local clock on Planet X are identically tuned, based on a common reference standard, which in our example is the rotation of the Earth or a distant pulsar, flashing at a frequency of 1 sec., then these clocks will measure time in the same units, i.e. on the same scale. Your answers regarding local clock B are in contradiction to the answers related to clock A, because you show here that the speed of light, measured by the local clock B on the same scale as for clocks on Earth, is twice as high on Planet X than on Earth. The same is for the speed of sound, which is twice as high here as on Earth? Also the cooking time of a pancake is shorter by half than on Earth. All of the above is not true. Taking your answers for both clocks A and B, where do you see here the gravitational time dilation, as GR claims? The “time dilation” cannot be equated with the slowdown of ticking of light clocks, because this slowdown is due to the decrease in the speed of light as the gravity increases. Only your answers for questions 1 and 2 are correct for both clocks A and B. Sorry, but the relationship between the clocks has nothing to do with the passage of time as such. If you have a clock in room A that is fast, and in room B a clock that is late, it does not mean that in room B the passage of time is slower than in room A. If any two clocks measure a divergent values of the passage of time, it only means that the clocks are not synchronized with a common reference standard. After synchronization with the reference standard, both clocks will measure the passage of time in an identical scale, regardless of the value of gravity at the location of each. Material particles are only a condensed form of electromagnetic energy. Life dilation of muons and other elementary particles during movement is just a confirmation of the above fact. So I repeat here again, during movement, only light clocks slowdown, and not all type of clocks as SR claims, and this is clearly presented in the article The interpretation of time dilation is incorrect. The links to this article and to the program VETER for verification of SR theory, has been so far stubbornly removed by the moderator. I am very sorry for the Moderator of this forum for the fact that due to my respect for all who read this thread and want to know the details, I attach here this "prohibited" link once more : THAT'S A BIG NOPE Let's not be afraid of the truth, gentlemen. Thank you very much Markus for your comments.
  2. Unfortunately, this cannot be true and it is not true. If it is the passage of time that slows down as gravity increases, and all type of clocks only show this effect, then explain the following very theoretical example. You have moved to planet X with your clock tuned on Earth in our units of time, seconds, minutes and hours, and let gravity on this planet be so high that, according to the theory of relativity, the passage of time is there twice as slowly as on Earth. Can you give answers then, what time values you will measure on your clock on the planet X for the following events: 1. The period of flashes of a distant pulsar that, seen from Earth, flashes once a second? 2. Earth rotation period, which on Earth is 24 hours? 3. The travel time of light back and forth in a vacuum pipe 150 m long, which on Earth is 1 microsecond. 4. The travel time of sound in a pipe 340 m long (air pressure 1 atmosphere) , which on Earth is 1 second. 5. The frequency for the A sound, which on Earth is 440 Hz? 6. The time it takes to cook a pancake at a given frying pan temperature, which on Earth is 5 minutes? ☺ If you already have the answers, now answer the same 6 questions, but using the local clock on the planet X, which is tuned so that its ticking rate is the same as for clocks on Earth, i.e. 1 sec on this clock = 1/86400 Earth day. It”s obvious. Pendulum clock in the absence of gravity will not work, like the atomic clock will not work in the absence of electricity. However, during movement, only light clocks slowdown, not all clocks, as relativity theory claims. This slowdown of light clocks during movement is not a relativistic effect, as it results from classical physics. This was clearly presented in the article (noncommercial):
  3. The theory of relativity claims that all clocks regardless of their design and principle of operation, slowdown their ticks in the following cases: - during its movement, according to the formula T = To / (1- (v / c) ^2)^0,5 - as gravity increases. It turns out that such a slowdown of the clock ticks, called time dilation, is true only for light clocks, which include atomic clocks, and does not apply to all clocks. This slowing down of the clock ticks is therefore only a technical feature of light clocks, and not a dilation of time as such. For example, the pendulum clock will not slow down but will tick faster when the gravity increases, as it shown in the following formula for the clock's cycle: T = 2 π (I / mgr)^0,5 where: m - pendulum mass, g - gravitational acceleration, r - distance of the center of mass from the pendulum axis, I = mr ^ 2 - moment of inertia relative to the axis of oscillation. Another claim of special relativity is the length contraction of objects during motion, according to the formula: L = Lo (1- (v / c)^2)^0,5 The fundamental evidence of this length contraction is to be the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is also untrue, because the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and all other similar experiments are solely due to the Doppler effect and nothing else. Detailed analyzes and calculations in the above cases have been clearly presented in the VETER program for verification of relativity theory, available on the link: url deleted Therefore, all the above claims of the theory of relativity are not in fully consistent to the truth and therefore require appropriate correction.
  4. According to current views, the Universe was created as a result of the explosion of an original singularity of infinitely small size and infinitely high density. This event, called the Big Bang, was to take place 13.7 billion years ago, as determined by the assumed expansion rate of the Universe, adopted by astronomers. The result of the Big Bang is also to be mysterious, undetectable dark matter (non-barionic) , which matter alleged to be the cause of the uniform velocity of stars in the disks of spiral galaxies. A computational analysis of the above issues presented in the Sagitarius BR program, available at the link: url deleted undermines both the occurrence of dark matter in galaxies and the reality of the expansion of the Universe.
  5. Regarding the alleged plenty of scientific evidence and experiments confirming the special and general relativity, the summary list of which is presented in the article "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?", available on the link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html , it is not possible to treat this list of experiments as confirmation of the truth of the SR. A significant part of the experiments quoted there concerns the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and many other similar experiments. In any case, these experiments can not be a confirmation of the truth of Special Relativity, because in fact their null results are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the alleged contraction of the longitudinal arm of the interferometer as the SR claims. Another large part of the experiments cited in that article concerns the delaying of clocks (light clocks !) in motion, which is also not a relativistic effect, because the delay of light clocks results directly from classical physics. The mathematical proof in this regard is presented in the article available on the link: URL deleted It must be emphasized here that presenting GPS as the SR proof is unfounded. The required factory offset for clocks in GPS satellites is entirely based on classical physics. It is also worth noting that a significant part of the description contained in the article, refers to "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR / GR", which in itself does not require additional comments.
  6. The relevant formulas are clearly presented in the VETER program available at the link: ! Moderator Note Link deleted, again. If you have something to say regarding the program and its implications, do that here in writing. This program is safe, available on the Internet since 2013 and has many users, and has been cited many times in this forum. Moving this program from the Relativity section to the Speculations and removing its link without any substantive objections is incomprehensible and reflects the strange intentions of the moderator. Could you provide the recommended link to these scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity?
  7. In the program VETER v. 3.0 for verification the theory of relativity, available on the link: LINK DELETED are presented calculations regarding the observation of ticks rate of light clocks in motion. The calculations shown (numerically and graphically) in the "Frequency" and "Time" sheets, clearly prove that is not true the claim of relativity theory, that every two clocks maintaining a constant velocity with respect to each other, will both see (measure) the other as running slow. (To open this program you do not need to log in to Dropbox, but select: Download> Download directly and after opening the program in Excel, select Enable editing.)
  8. Quotes from the link provided by Strange: „The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy with a diameter between 150,000 and 200,000 light-years (ly). Estimates of the mass of the Milky Way vary, depending upon the method and data used. At the low end of the estimate range, the mass of the Milky Way is 5.8×1011 solar masses According to a study published in 2014, the mass of the entire Milky Way is estimated to be 8.5×1011 M☉, which is about half the mass of the Andromeda Galaxy Mathematical models of the Milky Way suggest that the mass of dark matter is 1–1.5×1012 M☉. Recent studies indicate a range in mass, as large as 4.5×1012 M☉] and as small as 8×1011 M☉.” As you can see, there is no unambiguous data regarding the mass of Milky Way and its diameter. As it results from the above, the assumed for calculations in the program the diameter of the galaxy 200 kly and the mass around 2.5E+11 Ms, is generally correct and gives correct calculations of the speed, consistent with the observations. This excludes unambiguously, the occurrence in the galaxy of a mysterious dark matter (non-baryonic) with a very large mass of 4.5E+12 Ms, that is (4.5E+12) / (2.5E+11) = 18 times greater than its normal (baryonic) mass !.
  9. According to data from astronomical tables from 2002, the mass of the Milky Way is 5E+41 kg that is 2,5E+11 solar masses (Ms), and the diameter of the galaxy disk is 120 kly. If we put this data into the Sagitarius BR program, with the previously given distribution of mass, but with the diameter of the galaxy enlarged to 200 kły, then we get the calculated rotation speed of the stars exactly the same as we observe (ie about 220 km/s). The change in the diameter or mass of the galaxy does not change the shape of the speed curve, but only raises or lowers the level of velocity obtained. For example, after adding that controversial dark matter, 10 times larger than normal mass (!?), the mass of the galaxy should then be about 2,5E+12 Ms, and the obtained star speed will then be about 700 km/s! For a full understanding of these relationships, I suggest you practice it yourself in the program Sagitarius BR.
  10. This is what the uniqueness of the Sagitarius BR program is all about. You can, by trial method, model such mass distribution in the disk of the considered galaxy, which in turn results in a rotation curve of stars in the galaxy, consistent with the observations. On this basis, the program allows to analytically verify the real mass value of the analyzed galaxy and its distribution in the disk.
  11. As can be seen from the description of the Sagitarius BR program, the mass Me of the equivalent star in the individual rings of the galaxy is calculated as follows: The modeled % mass for a given ring is divided equally into 72 sectors, and then the mass of the sector is divided equally into 10 layers of this sector. So there are 720 Me stars in each ring. Thus, if we model the total mass in a given ring by, for example, 5% of the mass of the galaxy, then the mass of each equivalent star in this ring will be Me = (5/72)/10 = 0.006944% of the mass of the galaxy. If, for example, for Milky Way, we assume a distribution of the galaxy mass on individual rings 1-20 in % as follows: 13, 1, 5, 6, 11, 1, 8, 6, 5, 5,5, 5,3, 4,9, 4,8, 4,6 4,5 4, 3,5, 3, 2,4 1,5 We get a graph of velocities of stars, which is generally consistent with the observations: The observed velocities of the stars for the Milky Way : Therefore, the calculation method adopted in the Sagitarius BR program can be considered as fully correct, which is confirmed by the observations.
  12. The method used to calculate the velocity of stars in the disks of spiral galaxies is clearly presented in the description of the Sagitarius BR program. The link to the description of this program is given in the final part of the program. The link is as follows: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d2ywkaabxo0jd6m/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf?dl=0 Below a fragment of this description concerning the applied calculation method: “ The idea of the computation program Sagitarius BR is to split an analyzed galaxy disc into twenty concentric rings of the same width. The thickness of each ring is formed of 10 layers. The thickness of the layers in the rings are adopted accordingly to assumed profile of the galaxy. Each layer is divided into 72 sectors (five degrees of arc) and the total mass of stars and gas contained in the each sector is presented as a single star of equivalent mass (Me). Thus, the model used for calculations is equivalent in size and mass with the analyzed galaxy, and it consists of 14400 Me stars, rotating in a galaxy disc on 200 orbits, with 72 Me stars on each of the orbit. The program allows: - to calculate and present a chart of the orbital velocity of stars in galaxies of any galaxy mass, calculated in multiples of the Sun (Ms), and with any disc diameter, ……….. The program first calculates the force of gravitational attraction of the Ms star, located on orbits in the consecutive rings, by each of 14 400 Me stars (F (kn) = (G Me(kn) Ms) / L(kn)^2, where k is the ring number, n the sector number, L the distance between the Ms star and the Me star of a particular sector), and then calculates for the Ms star at a given orbit, the total resultant force of attraction F by all the 14 400 Me stars of galaxy On the basis of the calculated resultant forces F of gravitational attraction for each orbit, the program calculates the rotation velocity of the stars on these orbits, resulting from the formula for centrifugal force to balance the gravitational attraction for a given orbit (F = ( Ms V^2)/ r), where r is the radius of the orbit. In total, the Sagitarius BR program version 4.0 performs over 200 000 calculations. ……………. ” The link to the program is correct, but for some inexplicable reasons has been blocked here. I therefore give it again: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1cu74xj4ep9iyq/SagitariusBRprogramForCalculationsOfSpeedOfStars.xlsx?dl=0
  13. The program Sagitarius BR is for many years available on the Internet and also on this forum has already been cited several times. The program is save and has many users. The program Sagitarius BR (made in Excel) is very useful, because in an interesting, interactive way presents selected calculations in the field of astronomy. The program does not contain speculations only legible, easy to verify the real calculations.
  14. In Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve the flat curves of the observed velocities of stars in the discs of spiral galaxies are presented, which according to physicists, differ significantly from calculated velocities of stars, resulting from the luminous mass of a given galaxy. Such a significant discrepancy between the observed and calculated velocity of stars in spiral galaxies is currently explained in scientific publications, by the alleged presence of an unvisible halo of some mysterious dark matter. For example, in the textbook James B. Hartle "Gravity. An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity " states that such an equal velocities of stars, for example in the disk of the Andromeda galaxy, indicates that the galaxy has an unvisible halo of dark matter in an amount 10 times (!) of the luminous mass. As it turns out, such explanation of the equal velocities of stars in spiral galaxies as a result of the interaction of undetectable dark matter is wrong. The concept of dark matter arose as a result of adopting the wrong method of calculating the distribution of gravity in the disk of spiral galaxies (as for a sphere!). Correct calculations of the distribution of gravity for the galaxy disk clearly show, that flat curves of the velocities of stars in the discs of spiral galaxies, result only from Newton's laws of motion and gravity for the natural distribution of luminous mass in the disk, and any mysterious dark matter (non-baryonic) is not present there. Detailed calculations proving it are available on the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1cu74xj4ep9iyq/SagitariusBRprogramForCalculationsOfSpeedOfStars.xlsx?dl=0 (To download the Excel file from Dropbox, you do not need to be logged in. You only have to choose the options: download> download directly> enable editing).
  15. Thank you for your post with the beautiful animation. In the opening post, I pointed out that my questions concern light clocks in motion. Two questions: 1. What in the theory of relativity means the ticking of the clock at a normal rate, and based on what data, the person on the spacecraft in motion finds that his light clock is ticking at a normal rate? 2. As we have stated already, in our example the observer on the spacecraft will receive the frequency 500 Hz of the clock on Earth when is receding, and 2000 Hz when is approaching. Thus on the basis of what data or in what way, the person on the spacecraft will determine or experience the illusion, that the clock on Earth, from which he took off, ticks slower than the light clock on board, regardless of the spacecraft approaching or receding from the Earth? This is unfortunately not true. The light clocks in motion tick slower and it is a real phenomenon. This is not a relativistic illusion experienced by an observer on Earth. This is the immanent technical feature of these clocks. Doppler measurements according to Newtonian physics will thus show for observers on both sides the same frequency of the clocks but related to the local second, which on the spacecraft is longer than on Earth. I have already answered this question in my post dated July 15: 1. What date shown on the clock display on Earth, will be seen and photographed by the observer on the spacecraft the day before reaching Earth? Traveling at a speed of v = 180 000 km /s back and forth to an object 1,5 light years away, will take 5 years according to the clocks on Earth. Thus, the day before the spacecraft returns, the clock on Earth will show on its screen the date 31.12.2024. And this date will be seen and photographed by the observer on the spacecraft.
×
×
  • 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.