Jump to content

Relativity equations are correct but possibly for different reasons than dilation of time and shortening of lengths.


tar
 Share

Recommended Posts

I got shut down with the two nows idea because SwansonT thought I was going against mainstream science.  I am absolutely not going against the results of the experiments.  GPS works.  What I am suggesting is that you can arrive at thre same equations without distorting space and time.  Most  clocks these days, like the heated Cesium ones work on the basis of a certain frequency of light being given off by a certain drop of an electron in the Cesium atom to a lower energy level.  This particular frequency is always 9,192,631,770Hz.

Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light.  It will be blue shifted.  The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened.  The space however is not shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases.  Time does not speed up or slow down.  Space does not lengthen or contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, tar said:

I got shut down with the two nows idea because SwansonT thought I was going against mainstream science.  I am absolutely not going against the results of the experiments.  GPS works.  What I am suggesting is that you can arrive at thre same equations without distorting space and time.  Most  clocks these days, like the heated Cesium ones work on the basis of a certain frequency of light being given off by a certain drop of an electron in the Cesium atom to a lower energy level.  This particular frequency is always 9,192,631,770Hz.

Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light.  It will be blue shifted.  The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened.  The space however is not shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases.  Time does not speed up or slow down.  Space does not lengthen or contract. 

There is no distortion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tar said:

I got shut down with the two nows idea because SwansonT thought I was going against mainstream science.  I am absolutely not going against the results of the experiments.  GPS works.  What I am suggesting is that you can arrive at thre same equations without distorting space and time.  Most  clocks these days, like the heated Cesium ones work on the basis of a certain frequency of light being given off by a certain drop of an electron in the Cesium atom to a lower energy level.  This particular frequency is always 9,192,631,770Hz.

Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light.  It will be blue shifted.  The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened.  The space however is not shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases.  Time does not speed up or slow down.  Space does not lengthen or contract. 

I am not sure how far the moderators will allow you to reiterate your conjectures but I agree that Einstein's relativity (both SR and GR) are not the only solutions to the original observational issue(s).

Quote

What I am suggesting is that you can arrive at thre same equations without distorting space and time.

Please state what equations you are talking  about.

The transformation equations of Lorenz-Fitzgerald are derived in SR as consequences, they are not postulated as basic.

Einstein thought long and hard about what physics to abandon and what to continue with in developing SR,
As did others both before and after.

If you wish to make a different choice, please indicate so that we can discuss the consequences of alternatives.

I do agree with exchemist that there is no 'distortion' of space or time.
This would imply there exists some sort of underlying absolute space and time to be 'distorted'.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tar said:

Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light.  It will be blue shifted.  The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened.  The space however is not shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases.  Time does not speed up or slow down.  Space does not lengthen or contract

What is your theoretical and experimental evidence to support this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tar said:

Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light.  It will be blue shifted.  The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened.  The space however is not shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases.

What do you mean the speed of light remains the same?  Do you mean the speed of light as measured from the moving frame is still c?  if so how is that possible without time dilation and length contraction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tar said:

I got shut down with the two nows idea because SwansonT thought I was going against mainstream science. 

That is incorrect. You were using incorrect science.

7 hours ago, tar said:

Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light.  It will be blue shifted.  The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases.  Time does not speed up or slow down. 

Frequency is cycles per unit time.
The 'space' these cycles occur in is actually the time domain.
If you shorten the TIME that these CYCLES occurr in, you get a blue-shift, or increased frequency.
So yes, if you detect a frequency change between two heights in a potential well ( from the same source ) it has to be due to a change in the duration of the time unit between each cycle. Either a lengthening ( dilation ) or shortening ( contraction ).

Again you risk being shut down for using incorrect science.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tar said:

Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light.  It will be blue shifted.  The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened.  The space however is not shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases.  Time does not speed up or slow down.  Space does not lengthen or contract. 

Suppose an observer B is in a circular orbit around an observer A. Note that this means A and B are separated with the same distance at all times. Questions: 
1: Per your ideas, will a clock at observer A remain in synch with a clock traveling with observer B?
2: Will A and B agree on the measurement of the length of B's orbit? (A and B measure in their respective frame of reference)
3: What is the mathematics that gives the answer to questions above?
4: How does 1-3 compare with established models in relativity theories?
5: How is red shift or blue shift involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, swansont said:

What is your theoretical and experimental evidence to support this?

doppler shift is well studied

17 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

What do you mean the speed of light remains the same?  Do you mean the speed of light as measured from the moving frame is still c?  if so how is that possible without time dilation and length contraction?

I mean the photons do not know who is receiving them.  They move along at the speed of light no matter what.  Consider the two nows idea and you will understand how something can look blue shifted without the frequency of the initial vibration of the source being slowed or quickened.

Consider again the pulsar thought experiment.  Using the idea of two nows, one local and the other universal, there are in actuality all the waves of light the pulsar is putting out, right now in space, that we will see for the 10 thousand years or however far away the pulsar is.  If you move quickly toward the pulsar you will experience the pulsars beat as speeding up.  It has not sped up.  Your space craft has not shrunk.  Space has not deformed.

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Tar, you work towards understanding the theory before trying to offer solutions. I'm surprised you  are even questioning this, given how long you've been here and the evidence that has passed before you. 

understood 

but I am not discounting observations

I am understanding what is going on, and providing a way to understand actual reality without requiring it be wierd. 

17 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

What do you mean the speed of light remains the same?  Do you mean the speed of light as measured from the moving frame is still c?  if so how is that possible without time dilation and length contraction?

a bot or watcher is confounding my entry screen.  

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Tar, you work towards understanding the theory before trying to offer solutions. I'm surprised you  are even questioning this, given how long you've been here and the evidence that has passed before you. 

I have tried, but time dilation and length contraction do not work out in my thought experiments. 

14 hours ago, MigL said:

That is incorrect. You were using incorrect science.

Frequency is cycles per unit time.
The 'space' these cycles occur in is actually the time domain.
If you shorten the TIME that these CYCLES occurr in, you get a blue-shift, or increased frequency.
So yes, if you detect a frequency change between two heights in a potential well ( from the same source ) it has to be due to a change in the duration of the time unit between each cycle. Either a lengthening ( dilation ) or shortening ( contraction ).

Again you risk being shut down for using incorrect science.

What does the term incorrect science mean to you.

That I don't see the world correctly or that I don't adhere to the assumptions and applications of accepted theory.

I think the universe makes sense.  Excepted theory requires the universe be wierd.

Whose view is more sensible?

14 hours ago, MigL said:

That is incorrect. You were using incorrect science.

Frequency is cycles per unit time.
The 'space' these cycles occur in is actually the time domain.
If you shorten the TIME that these CYCLES occurr in, you get a blue-shift, or increased frequency.
So yes, if you detect a frequency change between two heights in a potential well ( from the same source ) it has to be due to a change in the duration of the time unit between each cycle. Either a lengthening ( dilation ) or shortening ( contraction ).

Again you risk being shut down for using incorrect science.

I don't think you can get shut down in a science forum for being a skeptic.

I am after looking at the experiments from a common sense point of view where everything adds back correctly. 

14 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Suppose an observer B is in a circular orbit around an observer A. Note that this means A and B are separated with the same distance at all times. Questions: 
1: Per your ideas, will a clock at observer A remain in synch with a clock traveling with observer B?
2: Will A and B agree on the measurement of the length of B's orbit? (A and B measure in their respective frame of reference)
3: What is the mathematics that gives the answer to questions above?
4: How does 1-3 compare with established models in relativity theories?
5: How is red shift or blue shift involved?

I tried to answer but was confounded by the entry screen again.  Was a good answer, by the way, but was deleted.

it requires the universal now to parse that experiment and requires a knowledge of how far away the third observer is from the experiment and at what angle he is viewing the situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you have against what I said, but once again, I am the only one prepared to accept anything at all you have said.

Which is your loss if you do not want to know what has already been studied in relation to your thoughts.

I entirely sympathise with those battling the unfriendly input editor here.

1 hour ago, tar said:

I tried to answer but was confounded by the entry screen again.  Was a good answer, by the way, but was deleted.

 

Edited by studiot
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asked to explain what a stationary observer would measure concerning the clocks and distances of an orbiting observer.  I would need, to properly predict, to know the distance of the third observer and the angle of view of the experiment.

And I would have to be allowed to use the two nows. One universal now where everything only happens once. And one local now experienced by each of the separate observers.

Additionally it would be useful to establish an external clock, like a pulsar and establish a starting count relative to that clock for each of the three observers.

and i would have to know the distance and position of the pulsar relative to the experiment and experiment observer.

Consider an observer right now on a planet orbiting alpha proxima or some star 3 to 5 light years from here, looking at the Earth with a really powerful telescope.  If they would look at my dad’s house in NJ they might see him leaving the house or sitting outside.   However in our local now my father has passed away.  

The many local nows are separated by distance which translates to time, as the Mars rover has already done, 24 minutes ago, anything we see it do now.  But my contention is the Mars rover is only doing one thing at a time and it is doing something right now.  The signals that recorded that event will reach us in 24 minutes, or however far away Mars is from Earth right now.  Mars is actually 24 minutes advanced in its orbit from where we see it, but to grasp that you have to consider two nows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tar said:

doppler shift is well studied

Please don’t be obtuse. You are not being asked to support the doppler shift. You are being asked to support your claims that are contrary to mainstream physics.

2 hours ago, tar said:

Consider the two nows idea and you will understand how something can look blue shifted without the frequency of the initial vibration of the source being slowed or quickened.

Consider again the pulsar thought experiment.  Using the idea of two nows, one local and the other universal, there are in actuality all the waves of light the pulsar is putting out, right now in space, that we will see for the 10 thousand years or however far away the pulsar is.  If you move quickly toward the pulsar you will experience the pulsars beat as speeding up.  It has not sped up.  Your space craft has not shrunk.  Space has not deformed

!

Moderator Note

The thread on this was closed. You passed up your chance to make your case, and aren’t getting another bite at the apple.

 
On 11/6/2021 at 10:38 AM, tar said:

I got shut down with the two nows idea because SwansonT thought I was going against mainstream science. 

!

Moderator Note

You were going against mainstream science, and you refused to provide the required model and/or evidence. Heaven knows why you think the same hand-waving tactic is going to work

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.