TimeContinuum Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) E= m•lightsecond²/time It's the same formula. But we separate speed of light into time and distance. Since both things can pretty much be warped. PERSON A is moving away from PERSON B at 13,000 m/s I'm person B, a lightsecond for person A in his direction is 299,805,458m, in the opposite direction it's 299,779,458m. This proposal postulates that time is actually constant but perspectives can be bent based on energy difference. It's a minor change, but it solves a lot, I think... Am I allowed to do this? Edited January 9, 2012 by TimeContinuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Are you aware of how that equation is derived and that it is a simplification for a specific case? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeContinuum Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Are you aware of how that equation is derived and that it is a simplification for a specific case? Yes I understand it. Do you understand what I'm saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Yes I understand it. Do you understand what I'm saying? You appear to be applying an equation for a specific case to one for which it is not valid. Also, if you allow the speed of light to vary maxwell's equations fail. We know they don't so c must be constant, hence using c as the constant and not something else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeContinuum Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 You appear to be applying an equation for a specific case to one for which it is not valid. Also, if you allow the speed of light to vary maxwell's equations fail. We know they don't so c must be constant, hence using c as the constant and not something else. How am I allowing the speed of light to change? It's a constant silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 How am I allowing the speed of light to change? It's a constant silly. If you are forcing time to be invariant then both distance and the speed of light cannot also be invariant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeContinuum Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 If you are forcing time to be invariant then both distance and the speed of light cannot also be invariant. Well, time is a variant of ▲E so I lied. The equation already explains this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think your OP is confusing me somewhat then, you state that time is constant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeContinuum Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Can you keep this topic in relativity please? I don't feel as if I'm deviating from proper relativity theory. Maybe my model of the universe varies from some modern post-Einstein models? But I feel as if I remain within the laws of relativity in everything I've said thus far. Once again, I'm person B 1s = 1s. But I measure person A's 1s to = 0.999956636667624s (this number is based upon velocity difference, not energy difference, real world would be different). But person A's 1s still equals 1s to him. It's just our perception of time is relative to ▲E. So basically, Lorrentz transformation is explained in the same simplified formula. Now let's make a theoretical: You're travelling away from me at 600,000,000 m/s I view your time as -2t, and you view my time as -2t. You turn around and come back to me, at 600,000,000 m/s Now it's 2t. We meet each other on a linear path back where we started. t experienced for person A = t experience for person B. Do a circle around the world, it becomes a different story, because we're not dealing with straight lines anymore. Get what I'm trying to say? because t is constant, time travel is not possible. Slight bending of time based on ▲E? You bet your ass! But we'll all experience 1s as 1s in this equation because t is constant! Simple. It's all relativity. Now I hate theoreticals... so here's a real world test of a lightwave going so fast it goes back in time, illustrating exactly what i just said: http://rochester.edu...hotos/light.swf Edited January 9, 2012 by TimeContinuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maciej Marosz Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 please forget about Einstein ( sorry for my english but please look to the end) x222g.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 please forget about Einstein ( sorry for my english but please look to the end) ! Moderator Note You've started your own thread on this please do not derail other discussions with it. Please do not reply to this modnote. Can you keep this topic in relativity please? I don't feel as if I'm deviating from proper relativity theory. Maybe my model of the universe varies from some modern post-Einstein models? But I feel as if I remain within the laws of relativity in everything I've said thus far. Once again, I'm person B 1s = 1s. But I measure person A's 1s to = 0.999956636667624s (this number is based upon velocity difference, not energy difference, real world would be different). But person A's 1s still equals 1s to him. It's just our perception of time is relative to ▲E. So here you are using the normal special relativistic equation to find person A's time in B's frame? So basically, Lorrentz transformation is explained in the same simplified formula. Now let's make a theoretical: You're travelling away from me at 600,000,000 m/s That's 20c isn't it? I view your time as -2t, and you view my time as -2t. You turn around and come back to me, at 600,000,000 m/s Now it's 2t. We meet each other on a linear path back where we started. t experienced for person A = t experience for person B. You have accelerations through the speed of light here. If you're prepared to break the laws of physics you can draw any conclusion you desire. Do a circle around the world, it becomes a different story, because we're not dealing with straight lines anymore. Get what I'm trying to say? Yes I'd agree entirely, the acceleration is constant. SR is going to fail here as there are accelerations. because t is constant, time travel is not possible. Sorry, time is constant? How does that work, in a single inertial frame I would agree that t is constant, but that is not the situation we have here. Slight bending of time based on ▲E? You bet your ass! But we'll all experience 1s as 1s in this equation because t is constant! Simple. It's all relativity. Now I hate theoreticals... so here's a real world test of a lightwave going so fast it goes back in time, illustrating exactly what i just said: http://rochester.edu...hotos/light.swf Your link has nothing to do with relativity, it's about group velocities and metamaterials. Which I'll happily talk to you about (it is an area I'm professionally involved in), but they bare no consequences for relativity, information transfer is always below c. (That's c, not the speed of light in a material, which is more complicated as shown by the link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Now I hate theoreticals... so here's a real world test of a lightwave going so fast it goes back in time, illustrating exactly what i just said: http://rochester.edu...hotos/light.swf No, that's not what is happening. It's amplified pulse reshaping. http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544 "Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd. "The pulse of light is shaped like a hump with a peak and long leading and trailing edges. The leading edge carries with it all the information about the pulse and enters the fiber first. By the time the peak enters the fiber, the leading edge is already well ahead, exiting. From the information in that leading edge, the fiber essentially 'reconstructs' the pulse at the far end, sending one version out the fiber, and another backward toward the beginning of the fiber." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeContinuum Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 OK! Now we're talking. The purpose of the animation wasn't to show any "relativity breaking". In fact the animation is as swansont stated, pulse reshaping. But remember, I'm not trying to argue the characteristics of light. The purpose of the animation was to help you visualize what it would look like if matter was breaking light speed relative to you, entering a negative time frame, then decelerating back into an observable positive timeframe. Just because we're always chasing light, doesn't mean matter can't break that speed relative to each other. I believe it's much more like the Alcubierre Metric (which is a plausible solve for relativity, it just falls a little short and I'm trying to help physicists visualize how it can be fixed) than you know. If you visualize stars as your kind of Energetic, space and time warping mediums, you will understand exactly why NASA space probe clocks decelerate as they approach the sun, accelerate as they exit the solar system, and why galaxy rotations happen the way they do! Also it should give a better understanding of lensing without resorting to dark-matter theory. It really does fall within relativity theory, you just need to allow your mind to break free of the concept that matter traveling greater than light speed relative to each other is impossible. All the while keeping relativity intact!! There is an extremely elegant way of expressing this, I'd like to work with a physicist to formulate it. Consider light more like a relative distance in time, and perception of time more like a constant. I agree that timeframes will vary! But if you deal in straight lines, the timescapes will balance after they meet in space. In order to fully understand this, a new model of the atom which can be interchanged with lightwaves and electromagnetic force needs to be birthed as well. So I don't expect for the average classically studied physicist to give me an easy time. I'm just trying to find that one open-minded guy who isn't too far lost in modern-theory. But I digress... 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