Ant Death Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Time functions on all four dimensions of the universe. Space also functions on the same four dimensions. As time and space share the same axes, any change of position in space is also a change of position in time. This provides a fixed constant linear relationship between space and time where 299792458m of space = 1s of time. The units of space (metres) can now be converted into the units of time (seconds) and vice versa. The axis of each dimension exists at 90o to the axes of the other three dimensions so we must apply Pythagoras Theorem. For each inertial frame: TIME (s)2 = Duration (s)2 + Distance (s)2 Time is universal and equal for all observers. Duration is as recorded by clocks and unique to each observer dependant upon change of position (distance) within the universe irregardless of the rate of change (velocity). Distance is total change of position on the axes of the universe, not net change of position. All motion is therefore cumulative irrespective of its direction. An inertial rest frame (relative to the universe) has a distance value of zero metres so with absence of motion, time and duration have the same value. An inertial motion frame has a distance value greater than zero so duration values are less than time values. Inertial speed of light frame has a duration value of zero seconds so for light, time and distance have the same value. There is no length contraction due to velocity. Length is a physical property of the universe that is constant for all observers. True velocity = motion frame distance (m) / motion frame duration (s) Inertial rest frame velocity = 0m/1s = 0 metres / infinite seconds Inertial light frame velocity = 299792458m/0s = infinite metres / zero seconds These are the two extremes of possibility when it comes to velocity. The relative difference between the two frames is equal to 1 second for every 299792458m. There is no mass increase due to velocity. It would take infinite energy to accelerate any mass to infinite velocity (speed of light). Light can attain infinite speed (and must) because light is not a mass so the restrictions of a mass value (even that of zero) does not apply to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 24 minutes ago, Ant Death said: There is no length contraction due to velocity. Length is a physical property of the universe that is constant for all observers. True velocity = motion frame distance (m) / motion frame duration (s) How about comparing your conjecture with the known relativistic effects of muon decay in the atmosphere Quote It would take infinite energy to accelerate any mass to infinite velocity (speed of light). The speed of light is not infinite Quote Light can attain infinite speed (and must) because light is not a mass so the restrictions of a mass value (even that of zero) does not apply to light. Then why does it take a noticeable/measurable amount of time for light to travel to/from a satellite? Why do experiments measure a finite value of about 3 x 10^8 m/s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md65536 Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 51 minutes ago, Ant Death said: Duration is as recorded by clocks and unique to each observer dependant upon change of position (distance) within the universe irregardless of the rate of change (velocity). [...] An inertial motion frame has a distance value greater than zero so duration values are less than time values. [...] Inertial light frame velocity = 299792458m/0s = infinite metres / zero seconds You're making up definitions but it sounds like you're using "duration" to describe proper time. You're not talking about velocity here. Velocity is a measure of distance/time as measured by a single observer (aka inertial frame). There is a measure of rate of motion called proper velocity or celerity that instead of measuring time using the observer's clock, it uses proper time as measured by the moving clock. Celerity approaches infinity as velocity approaches c. It's not a measure of velocity because you're measuring distance in one frame and time in another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Death Posted August 5, 2021 Author Share Posted August 5, 2021 Thanks for responding Swansont. 1: I have compared my theory to the experiments done on muon decay and it is fully consistent with the results. The time values of my theory are identical to the time values of Einstein's theory however, Einstein's theory puts velocity as distance measured in rest frame/rest frame duration (clock time) whereas with my theory (without length contraction) true velocity = distance/motion frame duration (clock time). The rest frame has moved a distance of zero metres so the only distance value that can be applied to a rest clock and inertial rest frame is zero metres. The distance value belongs to the motion frame, not the rest frame so the motion frame clock reading is the key variable. 2: The speed of light in its own inertial frame is infinite, even in Einstein's version of relativity. In Einstein's version, time dilates to zero at the speed of light. 299792458m/0s ergo infinite metres/0s is is also the result of putting V=c into the Lorentz Transformation. 3: You ask: Then why does it take a noticeable/measurable amount of time for light to travel to/from a satellite? Why do experiments measure a finite value of about 3 x 10^8 m/s? Glad you asked. In short, while we have moved 1s on the future axis, light has moved 299792458m (=1s) on one of the three non-future axes and the fixed constant linear relationship between time and space is that a change in space of 299792458m is also a change in time of 1s as both time and space use the same four dimensions. Inertial frame of light: 1s time squared = 0s duration squared + 1s distance time squared Where 1s distance is equivalent to 299792458m on that axis of the 4 dimensional universe. Standard Velocity of Light (as measured) = 299,792,458m/1s Time True Velocity of Light (c) = 299,792,458m/0s Duration = Infinite m/0s Duration If space distance from Location A to Location B = X metres Location B relative to location A: time distance = Xm /299,792,458m x1s Event 1: Light departs location A Inertial frame of rest observer: Universe time = 0s; Duration = 0s; Distance = 0s Inertial frame of light at location A: Universe time = 0s; Duration = 0s; Distance = 0s Event 2: Light arrives at location B For both inertial frames, Universe time = X/299,792,458s Inertial frame of rest observer: Duration (rest frame) = X/299,792,458s: Distance = 0s (0 metres) Inertial frame of light: Duration (light frame) = 0s: Distance = X/299,792,458s Inertial motion frames measuring light: If motion frame true velocity = Ym/1s duration (motion clock) Light frame true velocity = Infinite m/0s future time = Ym/0s future time Variance between motion frame and light frame = 0m/1s future time. The exact same variance as the variance between the light frame and the rest frame. The speed of light is a derived constant relative to all other inertial frames. Light has moved 299792458m and the observer has moved 1s and that is why the speed of light is constant 299792458m/1s relative to all other inertial frames. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of variable time, not the cause. 3 minutes ago, md65536 said: You're making up definitions but it sounds like you're using "duration" to describe proper time. You're not talking about velocity here. Velocity is a measure of distance/time as measured by a single observer (aka inertial frame). There is a measure of rate of motion called proper velocity or celerity that instead of measuring time using the observer's clock, it uses proper time as measured by the moving clock. Celerity approaches infinity as velocity approaches c. It's not a measure of velocity because you're measuring distance in one frame and time in another. I am saying that distance, not velocity, is the key to understanding relativity. There is no length contraction so a distance measurement is the same when measured from any inertial frame. However, only an inertial frame's clock reading can be applied to that inertial frames distance of motion to determine velocity. The historical calculation of velocity is motion frame distance/rest frame clock reading but that cross-matches reference frames. True velocity of any motion frame is motion frame distance/motion frame clock reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Ant Death said: I have compared my theory to the experiments done on muon decay and it is fully consistent with the results. Then you can share the analysis here. 1 minute ago, Ant Death said: The time values of my theory are identical to the time values of Einstein's theory however, Einstein's theory puts velocity as distance measured in rest frame/rest frame duration (clock time) whereas with my theory (without length contraction) true velocity = distance/motion frame duration (clock time). The rest frame has moved a distance of zero metres so the only distance value that can be applied to a rest clock and inertial rest frame is zero metres. The distance value belongs to the motion frame, not the rest frame so the motion frame clock reading is the key variable. There's no distance in the rest frame? I can see a building that looks to be 100m from me, and neither of us is moving. It's not actually 100m away? Or if I have an imaginary starting line for muons that's 10 km above the earth, it's not actually 10 km above the earth, because we're in the same frame? Quote 2: The speed of light in its own inertial frame is infinite, even in Einstein's version of relativity. In Einstein's version, time dilates to zero at the speed of light. 299792458m/0s ergo infinite metres/0s is is also the result of putting V=c into the Lorentz Transformation. Light does not have an inertial frame in relativity. The results diverge; you can't transform into that frame or out of it. e.g. for my example above, if I told you that light took no time in its own frame to get to me from an adjacent building, could you tell me how far away the building was? As none of us are photons, this shouldn't be a problem for analysis. We only have to worry about the lab (rest) frame and the frame of some moving, massive object. Quote 3: You ask: Then why does it take a noticeable/measurable amount of time for light to travel to/from a satellite? Why do experiments measure a finite value of about 3 x 10^8 m/s? Glad you asked. In short, while we have moved 1s on the future axis, light has moved 299792458m (=1s) on one of the three non-future axes Future axis? Non-future axis? Those are things you've added; they aren't in the OP. Is your model in the OP not sufficient to do analysis? We need the whole model. Quote and the fixed constant linear relationship between time and space is that a change in space of 299792458m is also a change in time of 1s as both time and space use the same four dimensions. Inertial frame of light: 1s time squared = 0s duration squared + 1s distance time squared Units matter here. The relativistic way of dealing with this is to use ct as a distance. Or, I suppose you could use t = d/c. But use proper and consistent units, please. 1 second is not a distance. Quote Where 1s distance is equivalent to 299792458m on that axis of the 4 dimensional universe. Standard Velocity of Light (as measured) = 299,792,458m/1s Time True Velocity of Light (c) = 299,792,458m/0s Duration = Infinite m/0s Duration If space distance from Location A to Location B = X metres Location B relative to location A: time distance = Xm /299,792,458m x1s Event 1: Light departs location A Inertial frame of rest observer: Universe time = 0s; Duration = 0s; Distance = 0s Inertial frame of light at location A: Universe time = 0s; Duration = 0s; Distance = 0s I'm not asking what happens in light's "frame" None of the questions I have asked or will ask require an analysis in light's frame. As I said, none of us are photons. I want answers that will be the result of measurements taken by (massive) observers in a given frame. Quote Event 2: Light arrives at location B For both inertial frames, Universe time = X/299,792,458s Inertial frame of rest observer: Duration (rest frame) = X/299,792,458s: Distance = 0s (0 metres) Inertial frame of light: Duration (light frame) = 0s: Distance = X/299,792,458s Inertial motion frames measuring light: If motion frame true velocity = Ym/1s duration (motion clock) Light frame true velocity = Infinite m/0s future time = Ym/0s future time Variance between motion frame and light frame = 0m/1s future time. The exact same variance as the variance between the light frame and the rest frame. The speed of light is a derived constant relative to all other inertial frames. It's a derived constant? Please derive it. But not until after you provide us with your analysis of the muon experiment in the earth frame and muon frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Death Posted August 5, 2021 Author Share Posted August 5, 2021 For the whole model see my webpage url deleted although I have changed the terminology since writing the webpage due to questions received so I hope that doesn't confuse the reader with regards to the concept of my theory. In essence, time is a physical property of the universe and functions on all four dimensions (so does space) but clocks only record the change of position on one of the four dimensions. You are not understanding the concept of my theory. Time and space are using the same axes so if you move on the axes of space and time uses those same axes then you have moved on the axes of time as well. It is positively Newtonian in nature. Any change of location in space is an equal but opposite change of location in time. You cannot apply the philosophy and conclusions of Einstein's theory to my theory. They are completely different theories of variable time The Muon experiment. EINSTEIN'S THEORY Velocity of Muons = 0.95c = 284800000m/s (same for rest frame and muon frame) Time dilation: Muon frame clock time 0.0975s per 1s rest frame clock time = 0.975 seconds of muon decay Length contraction: 1000m rest frame equates to 97.5m muon frame. My theory produces the exact same time values as Einstein's theory but without length contraction and mass increase) Muon inertial frame clock reading still = 0.0975s (0.0975 seconds of muon decay, just the same as in Einstein's version of relativity) The only difference is in the muon frame distance value and velocity. Einstein's theory predicts that velocity is the same for both inertial frames but distance is less when measured in the motion frame. My theory predicts that distance measurements are the same for both inertial frames and velocity is higher when measured in the motion frame. To answer another query. yes you can see the building that is 100m away from you but your inertial frame has not crossed that 100m distance so it would be logically inconsistent for your clock reading to be applied to that 100m. EXPERIMENT Place an atomic clock and a distance measuring device at the end of a 2m rotating arm (motion frame). The floor circumference (rest frame) of its rotation equals 12.566m. Place another synchronised atomic clock to the side and set the rotating arm in motion (at any velocity) long enough for their to be a calculable and noticeable difference between the motion frame (end of rotating arm) and the rest frame (floor circumference). Both theories predict the same time difference between atomic clocks. Einstein's theory predicts the distance travelled by the end of the arm will be less than the 12.5666m floor circumference * number of rotations due to length contraction. I say both distance measurements will be identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, Ant Death said: For the whole model see my webpage url deleted although I have changed the terminology since writing the webpage due to questions received so I hope that doesn't confuse the reader with regards to the concept of my theory. No, you need to post information here, to comply with rule 2.7 Quote In essence, time is a physical property of the universe and functions on all four dimensions (so does space) but clocks only record the change of position on one of the four dimensions. That doesn't really make sense. What about a clocks on the earth? They are changing more than one spatial coordinate. Quote You are not understanding the concept of my theory. No, clearly I am not. How about you explain it to me. Quote Time and space are using the same axes so if you move on the axes of space and time uses those same axes then you have moved on the axes of time as well. It is positively Newtonian in nature. Any change of location in space is an equal but opposite change of location in time. So moving in the +x direction makes time go backwards? Quote You cannot apply the philosophy and conclusions of Einstein's theory to my theory. They are completely different theories of variable time That's not a problem. But you must not use relativity terminology, and we'll just focus on experimental results, which are independent of theory. Quote The Muon experiment. EINSTEIN'S THEORY Velocity of Muons = 0.95c = 284800000m/s (same for rest frame and muon frame) Time dilation: Muon frame clock time 0.0975s per 1s rest frame clock time = 0.975 seconds of muon decay How do you get from 0.95c to " 0.0975s per 1s rest frame clock time"? Quote Length contraction: 1000m rest frame equates to 97.5m muon frame. The distance is 10km, not 1 km, but more importantly, I thought you claim that there is no length contraction in the muon frame. Everybody agrees on the length. ("Length is a physical property of the universe that is constant for all observers.") Quote My theory produces the exact same time values as Einstein's theory but without length contraction and mass increase) Muon inertial frame clock reading still = 0.0975s (0.0975 seconds of muon decay, just the same as in Einstein's version of relativity) The only difference is in the muon frame distance value and velocity. Einstein's theory predicts that velocity is the same for both inertial frames but distance is less when measured in the motion frame. My theory predicts that distance measurements are the same for both inertial frames and velocity is higher when measured in the motion frame. The velocity is higher? In the earth frame, at 10km, the muon experiences a little over 4 half-lives (while without relativity you would expect >22 half-lives) The time dilation factor is around 5. Without length contraction, to make the same trip means going ~5 times faster, or ~4.75 times the speed of light. Quote To answer another query. yes you can see the building that is 100m away from you but your inertial frame has not crossed that 100m distance so it would be logically inconsistent for your clock reading to be applied to that 100m. So how would I synchronize a clock in that building to mine? Quote EXPERIMENT Place an atomic clock and a distance measuring device at the end of a 2m rotating arm (motion frame). The floor circumference (rest frame) of its rotation equals 12.566m. Place another synchronised atomic clock to the side and set the rotating arm in motion (at any velocity) long enough for their to be a calculable and noticeable difference between the motion frame (end of rotating arm) and the rest frame (floor circumference). Both theories predict the same time difference between atomic clocks. Einstein's theory predicts the distance travelled by the end of the arm will be less than the 12.5666m floor circumference * number of rotations due to length contraction. I say both distance measurements will be identical. How do you measure this distance? The amount of timing difference can be measured because we can measure time very precisely. Put another way: you need to propose an experiment where it's possible to actually measure the results to see if predictions hold up. The key to relativity is to understand that measurements in two frames of reference must agree, with the same physics being applied. You don't have one set of rules for one frame, and a different set of rules in another frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 Not about to visit your web page; we should be able to discuss what is presented here. 3 hours ago, Ant Death said: Time functions on all four dimensions of the universe. Space also functions on the same four dimensions. As time and space share the same axes, any change of position in space is also a change of position in time. Your first two lines are wrong, making the rest moot. Time and space do not function in the four dimensions ( what exactly do you think dimension means ? ), but ARE the four dimensions of space-time. You can, and do, change position along the time axis without changing position along the three space axis. Try it; you'll get old even if sitting still. There is only one thing stopping a change of spatial position without temporal change, and that is the limited speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Death Posted August 5, 2021 Author Share Posted August 5, 2021 9 minutes ago, swansont said: No, you need to post information here, to comply with rule 2.7 That doesn't really make sense. What about a clocks on the earth? They are changing more than one spatial coordinate. No, clearly I am not. How about you explain it to me. So moving in the x direction makes time go backwards? That's not a problem. But you must not use relativity terminology, and we'll just focus on experimental results, which are independent of theory. How do you get from 0.95c to " 0.0975s per 1s rest frame clock time"? The distance is 10km, not 1 km, but more importantly, I thought you claim that there is no length contraction in the muon frame. Everybody agrees on the length. ("Length is a physical property of the universe that is constant for all observers.") The velocity is higher? In the earth frame, at 10km, the muon experiences a little over 4 half-lives (while without relativity you would expect >22 half-lives) The time dilation factor is around 5. Without length contraction, to make the same trip means going ~5 times faster, or ~4.75 times the speed of light. So how would I synchronize a clock in that building to mine? How do you measure this distance? The amount of timing difference can be measured because we can measure time very precisely. The key to relativity is to understand that measurements in two frames of reference must agree, with the same physics being applied. You don't have one set of rules for one frame, and a different set of rules in another frame. 1: First of all my apologies for posting a URL. I wasn't aware that was against the rules, sorry, wont happen again, though it does confuse me as to why here is a link icon for URLs on the reply toolbar. 2: yes Earth clocks are moving in more than one spatial dimension. Motion is cumulative irregardless of direction (as it is with Einstein's time values) but each dimension is at 90o to the other three so just apply Pythagoras Theorem which equates to Time2=duration2 + X distance2 + Y distance2 + Z distance2 3: In its simplest form the concept is that time and space are equal and opposite. Time is a property of the universe that applies to everything inside the universe and functions across all four dimensions. A change of position on any dimension is a change of position in space and a change of position in time. All motion is cumulative irrespective of direction, just as it is in Einstein's version. Clocks only measure change in time on one of the four dimensions. Length does not contract and is a physical property of the universe. Time(s)2 = Duration(s)2 + Distance(s)2 therefore Duration(s)2 = Time2 - Distance(s)2 which is equivalent to time dilation. A rest clock moves 0m so its distance(s) is also 0, time and duration are equal for an observer at rest within the universe. All Newton's laws remain valid. True velocity = motion distance/motion clock duration. F=ma when a is calculated using motion clock readings.prort We can represent each observer in the form of a right angled triangle where the vertical is observer clock time (duration), the horizontal is observer change of location in space and time Xm/299792458m*1s and the hypotenuse is universe time (the amount of future) which is the same for all observers. 4: I got from 0.95c to 0.0975s because I embarrassingly put a typo in the excel formula when doing the quick calculation for your reply. My apologies (again). Corrected version Halflife of muon = 1.56x10-6 Einstein's version Observer frame: d = 10km; t = 34x10-6s = 21.8 halflives: Velocity = 294117647m/s: Muon frame: d = 2km; t = 6.6x10-6s = 4.23 halflives My version Observer frame: d = 0km = 0m/299792458m*1s = 0s: (observer frame & clock are not moving); observer clock t= 34x10-6s = 21.8 halflives Universe time (34x10-6s)2 = observer clock (34x10-6s)2 + observer distance (0s)2 Muon frame: Universe time is the same for all frames: d = 10km (no length contraction) = 10000m/299792458m*1s = 33.4x10-6s Universe time (34x10-6s)2 = muon clock duration (???) + muon distance (33.4x10-6s)2 Therefore Muon clock duration = universe time (34x10-6)2 - muon distance time (33.4x10-6)2 = 6.4x10-6 = 4.1 halflives. 5: Not 4.75 times speed of light. In my theory, observed velocity of light is 299792458m/1s rest frame clock duration but true velocity of light is 299792458m/0s light frame clock duration which equates to infinite m/0s. Observation is flawed. Observation dictates the sun goes round the earth and it was the logic of Dr Copernicus that corrected the observation error. Observation dictates that a star is one position but the logic of Stellar parallax defines its true position. Even Einstein's gravitational lensing proved observation is flawed yet his theory of relativity relies solely upon one inertial frame observing another. 6: The established method of synchronising clocks that are at rest relative to each other is more than sufficient because the distance time element is at ninety degrees to the future and not recorded by clocks. However once synchronised they cannot be moved or they will fall out if synchronicity, exactly the same as they would according to Einstein's theory. 7: I don't have one set of rules for one frame and one set of rules for another. For every individual reference frame: Universe time (s)2 = motion frame clock duration (s)2 + motion frame distance (s)2 When comparing one reference frame with another (relativity) universe time is constant to all reference frames, clock duration (s) and distance (s) therefore depend upon motion (m). The fixed constant relationship between space and time is 299792458m to 1s. Einstein's equation should have been 1/root(1-d2/c2) where c is 299792458m distance not m/s velocity. If you can understand Einstein's theory then you should understand mine because mine is simpler. My explanations of it might not seem that way but that's an error in my wording, not my logic. I'm now off to bed. Thank you all for your questions and queries. Apologies if I missed replying to any as there have been quite a few. I'll reply to any further queries when time allows. Regards Ant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 28 minutes ago, Ant Death said: 1: First of all my apologies for posting a URL. I wasn't aware that was against the rules, sorry, wont happen again, though it does confuse me as to why here is a link icon for URLs on the reply toolbar. `Generally, you don't just post a url. The url is added to a body of information at the end. Things get complicated with personal blogs and websites because many use their membership just to encourage traffic to them aka spammers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Death Posted August 5, 2021 Author Share Posted August 5, 2021 2 hours ago, MigL said: Not about to visit your web page; we should be able to discuss what is presented here. Your first two lines are wrong, making the rest moot. Time and space do not function in the four dimensions ( what exactly do you think dimension means ? ), but ARE the four dimensions of space-time. You can, and do, change position along the time axis without changing position along the three space axis. Try it; you'll get old even if sitting still. There is only one thing stopping a change of spatial position without temporal change, and that is the limited speed of light. Well I was off tto bed until I realised I'd missed your comment and I respectfully disagree with your comment. You are explaining how we have historically perceived the four dimensions, i.e. 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension but if time does not function on the 3 axes of space then Einstein's theory cannot work either. I am saying that time is not a dimension in itself but functions on the four dimensions just as a train functions on train tracks. Of course I still get older when sitting still because I am only stationary on three out of the four dimensions. If I add movement on one of the other three (space) dimensions then I age slower because my duration is less but the universe ages at the same rate no matter what I do. Even in Einstein's theory we all age a day but with velocity we can take less than 86,400 seconds to complete the 86,400 second long day. As for the limited speed of light, inertial frame of light when observed from all other frames is a limited 299792458m/1s but (even according to Einstein's time dilation) time stands =0s when travelling at the speed of light (299792458m/0s in the inertial frame of light) so if velocity of light could be measured from the inertial frame of light it would equal 299792458m/0s which equates to infinite true velocity. Infinity is also the result when V=c is input into the Lorentz Transformation formula however, according to Einstein, length (space) has also disappeared to zero so the universe of space and time would cease to exist at the speed of light according to Einstein's theory yet light physically achieves velocity of light within the universe. My theory also removes all the twin paradoxes, grandad paradox and rigid object/hole paradox. Now I'm definitely off to bed. Thank you all for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 39 minutes ago, Ant Death said: 1: First of all my apologies for posting a URL. I wasn't aware that was against the rules, sorry, wont happen again, though it does confuse me as to why here is a link icon for URLs on the reply toolbar. ! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, Ant Death said: Now I'm definitely off to bed. Thank you all for your input. Yes, get a good night's rest. Perhaps when you wake up you will have some new inspirations that don't mangle the mathematics. Division by zero is mathematically undefined in the systems you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, Ant Death said: Observer frame: d = 0km = 0m/299792458m*1s = 0s: (observer frame & clock are not moving); observer clock t= 34x10-6s = 21.8 halflives Universe time (34x10-6s)2 = observer clock (34x10-6s)2 + observer distance (0s)2 Muon frame: Universe time is the same for all frames: d = 10km (no length contraction) = 10000m/299792458m*1s = 33.4x10-6s Universe time (34x10-6s)2 = muon clock duration (???) + muon distance (33.4x10-6s)2 Therefore Muon clock duration = universe time (34x10-6)2 - muon distance time (33.4x10-6)2 = 6.4x10-6 = 4.1 halflives. Universe times disagree - your value for the muon frame isn’t the same as the other places you give it. Which one is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now