I'm presently trying to figure out a set of illustrations with math, if I can, to aid in my explanations, here. It may take a bit of time to prepare.That's fine, take all the time you need.
Nice, kkwan. Sweet dreams…
Mike Hawkins has observed nearly 900 hundred quasars over 28 years.Great. Maybe he is at something. But I bet with you 2 envelopes with money that SR will not fall because of that, except maybe in some not yet known extreme case. (You know how to make much more money from these envelopes!)
How does the constancy of the speed of light, time dilation and length contraction follow from the simple principle which is an assumption?You can't google the derivation of the Lorenz transformations? :question: Here]. Show us where the error is. Or is the error that the derivations are boring? Don't forget those many experiments that support the conclusions (link with a list of experiments a few postings above). For the rest I hope I can stay out of the further discussion between such heavy weight physicists. If one of you is right, then you can be sure you win the Nobel price. Oh, no, I forget: the scientific establishment will not give you a chance. Nobody ever got a Nobel price for a revolutionary scientific idea... (I hope you know where to put the irony tags. A little knowledge of science and science history should suffice...) PS You could have found it easily yourself, but here] is a simple but correct derivation of the time dilation and length contraction in SR. PPS You also find a simple derivation of the famous E=mc² there. It is also based on the same single simple principle of observer independence. I assume you have another explanation of why E=mc² is true? Or is it a lie? PPPS I found this pearl in the above pages:
As you can see from the lectures so far, although Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity solves the problem posed by the Michelson-Morley experiment—the nonexistence of an ether—it is at a price. The simple assertion that the speed of a flash of light is always c in any inertial frame leads to consequences that defy common sense. When this was pointed out somewhat forcefully to Einstein, his response was that common sense is the layer of prejudices put down before the age of eighteen. All our intuition about space, time and motion is based on childhood observation of a world in which no objects move at speeds comparable to that of light. Perhaps if we had been raised in a civilization zipping around the universe in spaceships moving at relativistic speeds, Einstein’s assertions about space and time would just seem to be common sense. The real question, from a scientific point of view, is not whether Special Relativity defies common sense, but whether it can be shown to lead to a contradiction. If that is so, common sense wins. Ever since the theory was published, people have been writing papers claiming it does lead to contradictions.
I can not keep up, but this subject has very interesting thoughts.
One thing that has always amazed me was how light hitting an object can change direction so fast. I can not think of any other matter that can do this.
One thing that has always amazed me was how light hitting an object can change direction so fast. I can not think of any other matter that can do this.Obviously, you've never chased a toddler before. :lol: Take care, Derek
.kj,
Glad to hear you’re working on your proofs, Scott. Albert Einstein and David Hilbert spent 10 years working independently to derive the General Theory of Relativity from the Special Theory. Einstein barely beat Hilbert to the conclusion. I am sure, given your training, skills and intellect, that in a few months you’ll have no problem going beyond what Einstein and Hilbert accomplished in a decade.
One thing that strikes me about crackpot physicists is their overwhelming hubris. Even though they lack formal math and science training, crackpots believe they can explain things that some of the greatest intellectual minds in human history could not explain. They place themselves alongside Maxwell, Einstein and Feynman, but without the education. Scott, nothing you have posted here or on scienceforums.net indicates you even understand Relativity, much less have the training and intellect to modify or go beyond it. Frankly, if you were that smart and creative you’d be working on your ideas 24/7 and not bothering the world with them until you had a fully formulated theory.
Then you come here stamping your feet about the moderator as scienceforums moving your crackpot idea to the trash can. Well, that is your misconception. Your post is in the the Speculations forum, which is one level above the Trash Can. You are letting your hurt feelings cloud your judgment. The one guy who said he was trying to engage you was trying to tell you that you are the one not engaging in rational discussion.
What most scientists do not appreciate, however, is someone telling them that the current theory is wrong without demonstrating a better alternative, because in the end scientists are very practical -- the theory that makes the best predictions are the most useful.You have nothing that makes predictions, thus your idea is not useful. And the guy who said science is not a democracy? He's the moderator who locked your thread after warning you to address the critiques rather than ignore them.
]oyk
I feel for you Scott. I once posted something on a Physics forum, where I stated unequivocally, that my post was just an idea, and that I was just a layman. In my case however (and this was you’re big mistake) I made no mention of current theories being wrong, famous scientists being wrong, etc. And I consciously tried to be deferential, humble, etc. and not try to act above my station so to speak. Geez I found out in a hurry just how snobbish and cliquish physicists could be. You’d think they were above being impressed by “the fancy jewelry” of degrees. They weren’t. Einstein OTOH I would venture to guess would have given me (and you) a fair listen, then set us down gently without resorting to name calling and derision.
And the funny thing was, not one person actually understood what I was saying even though I know I was stating things correctly (since my idea was basically a slight take off of something Feynman posited. I basically used HIS OWN WORDS! plus a slight extension in the ideas. I guarantee - if Feynman was alive and posted the same exact thing, the reactions from others would be the exact opposite. Alas physicists are people too 
with the same prejudices.)
My advice at this point is: 1) It’s a different world now. Simply being smart and having great ideas just isn’t enough. You need the “jewelry” to make it in mainstream theoretical physics OR you need to know someone who has the jewelry and can front for you. 2) Go back and start “math first”. Thought experiments are great, but AE had the math to back them up. You need to too. Then re-post when the time comes under new names, etc.
And stay humble. It’s what AE would’ve done.
sdkgjjjg
I feel for you Scott. I once posted something on a Physics forum, where I stated unequivocally, that my post was just an idea, and that I was just a layman. In my case however (and this was you're big mistake) I made no mention of current theories being wrong, famous scientists being wrong, etc. And I consciously tried to be deferential, humble, etc. and not try to act above my station so to speak. Geez I found out in a hurry just how snobbish and cliquish physicists could be. You'd think they were above being impressed by "the fancy jewelry" of degrees. They weren't. Einstein OTOH I would venture to guess would have given me (and you) a fair listen, then set us down gently without resorting to name calling and derision. And the funny thing was, not one person actually understood what I was saying even though I know I was stating things correctly (since my idea was basically a slight take off of something Feynman posited. I basically used HIS OWN WORDS! plus a slight extension in the ideas. I guarantee - if Feynman was alive and posted the same exact thing, the reactions from others would be the exact opposite. Alas physicists are people too ;) with the same prejudices.) My advice at this point is: 1) It's a different world now. Simply being smart and having great ideas just isn't enough. You need the "jewelry" to make it in mainstream theoretical physics OR you need to know someone who has the jewelry and can front for you. 2) Go back and start "math first". Thought experiments are great, but AE had the math to back them up. You need to too. Then re-post when the time comes under new names, etc. And stay humble. It's what AE would've done.Thanks for this. I do recognize I'm being unusually bold in how I'm approaching it. And I am trying to catch up. I'm a little impatient with keeping it to myself without expressing myself before I die (I could get hit by a car tomorrow.) If it is not the best etiquette, I won't apologize for it. I mean no harm to anyone by expressing myself now. I respect the educational institutions but know that with some people, like myself, we don't always learn nor effectively communicate things in the same way. If I allow myself to respect one unique way to be acceptable, nothing may come of what I said. Is it fair to assume, for instance, that everyone must have a legitimate degree in a qualified university to speak on any intellectual matters? Even our past heroes of science and philosophy have usually been odd-balls in some significant way. I'm glad for this day that we have a forum like this that we can be free to speak. On the other hand, I didn't respect the other forum for direct discrimination and belittling on the get go. There is only one reason for having a section like the one they sent me too. It was a means to insult, belittle and discourage those for whom they find are unnecessarily muddying the waters to truth (at least the ones they are certain of.) I'm not religious, but I wouldn't dismiss them by placing them in a dark backroom so they couldn't be heard. And I certainly wouldn't add a note on that backdoor with a sign saying, "morons"! Thanks again.
jjgflkjdglr
One thing that has always amazed me was how light hitting an object can change direction so fast. I can not think of any other matter that can do this.Obviously, you've never chased a toddler before. :lol: Take care, Derek Ha. Very true! Lois
jjjt
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
The problem I see is that you are using Newtonian physics to examine relativistic effects, but Newtonian physics breaks down at relativistic velocities. You need more advanced math to analyze your scenario.
Great. Maybe he is at something. But I bet with you 2 envelopes with money that SR will not fall because of that, except maybe in some not yet known extreme case. (You know how to make much more money from these envelopes!)From Mike Hawkins's paper http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/405/3/1940.full.pdf+html From section 5. Interpretation of results:
The results of Section 4 provide strong evidence that the effects of time dilation are not seen in quasar light curves.Perhaps you would read it without prejudice? No bets, as in the TEP. SR will not fall as yet, but the underlying assumption of SR (that the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum) is not found in real space as vacuums don't exist in reality. Consequently, the speed of light is not a constant in real space and therefore the variable speed of light (VSL) hypothesis is relevant and coherent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
Variable speed of light (VSL) is a hypothesis that states that the speed of light, usually denoted by c, may be a function of space and time.Modern VSL theories as an alternative to cosmic inflation:
The idea from Moffat and the team Albrecht–Magueijo is that light propagated as much as 60 orders of magnitude faster in the early universe, thus distant regions of the expanding universe have had time to interact at the beginning of the universe.This solves the horizon problem and is an alternative to cosmic inflation. Photons are massless, as then and only then can they travel at the speed of light. However, it is conceivable and possible that with with enough energy they can exceed that speed in the early universe. VSL can also account for light from the nearer (6 billion light years) and distant (10 billion light years) quasars taking the same time to reach the earth as found by Mike Hawkins, with no time dilation. The light from the distant and older quasar traveled much faster to arrive at the same time compared to the light from the nearer and younger quasar. Incidently, time dilation and length contraction were absurd concepts first proposed by Lorentz, not Einstein and predates SR.
You can't google the derivation of the Lorenz transformations?Just waiting for you to do that. :) From your wiki you cited on the LT: Rationale of the LT:
It was the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame,The LT predates SR:
The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived well before special relativity.The LT and SR:
The crucial insight of Einstein's clock-setting method is the idea that time is relative. In essence, each observer's frame of reference is associated with a unique set of clocks, the result being that time as measured for a location passes at different rates for different observers. This was a direct result of the Lorentz transformations and is called time dilation.If clocks do run slower in a moving frame of reference, it could be precisely that and not time which runs slower, notwithstanding the LT. Hence, there is no time dilation per se. We can then say clocks are relative, but time is a constant. Let's analyse the chronology of Lorentz wrt his LT, his proposal of the preposterous concepts of length contraction, time dilation, conviction of "true time", belief in the existence of the aether and his influence on Einstein's SR. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz 1. Length contraction:
In 1892, with the attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz also proposed that moving bodies contract in the direction of motion (see length contraction; George FitzGerald had already arrived at this conclusion in 1889).2. Time dilation:
In 1899 and again in 1904, Lorentz added time dilation to his transformations and published what Poincaré in 1905 named Lorentz transformations.3. Lorentz and special relativity:
In 1905, Einstein would use many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed to write his paper entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", known today as the theory of special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this theory was originally called the Lorentz-Einstein theory.4. Lorentz's "true time" and the aether:
Though Lorentz still maintained that there is an (undetectable) aether in which resting clocks indicate the "true time": 1909: Yet, I think, something may also be claimed in favour of the form in which I have presented the theory. I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. 1910: Provided that there is an aether, then under all systems x, y, z, t, one is preferred by the fact, that the coordinate axes as well as the clocks are resting in the aether. If one connects with this the idea (which I would abandon only reluctantly) that space and time are completely different things, and that there is a "true time" (simultaneity thus would be independent of the location, in agreement with the circumstance that we can have the idea of infinitely great velocities), then it can be easily seen that this true time should be indicated by clocks at rest in the aether. However, if the relativity principle had general validity in nature, one wouldn't be in the position to determine, whether the reference system just used is the preferred one. Then one comes to the same results, as if one (following Einstein and Minkowski) deny the existence of the aether and of true time, and to see all reference systems as equally valid. Which of these two ways of thinking one is following, can surely be left to the individualWe do live in interesting times. :cheese:
kkwan, which of all your citations about the LT is in contradiction with what I wrote here]:
The true story is that Lorenz gave his Lorenz transformations as ad-hoc explanation for several problems concerning the theory of the electron and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's contribution was that he was able to derive the Lorenz transformation based on only one principle: the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move with constant speed relative to each other.Bold added.
If clocks do run slower in a moving frame of reference, it could be precisely that and not time which runs slower, notwithstanding the LT. Hence, there is no time dilation per se. We can then say clocks are relative, but time is a constant.So all processes slow down, including clocks, without a physical cause (remember, to change the movement of anything, there must be a physical cause, a force), but time itself is absolute? That is: everything physically measurable slows down, and the only thing that cannot be measured does not change?
1909: Yet, I think, ... 1910: Provided that there is an aether,... We do live in interesting times.I live in 2013. You?
Perhaps you would read it without prejudice?Perhaps you could read the article, and understand it? None of the possible solutions Hawkins gives are in contradiction with SR. 2 of the solutions are complete in accordance with the standard cosmological model ('Black hole growth' and 'Microlensing'), the other 2 contradict present common ideas of cosmology ('Static universe' and 'Quasar distances'), not SR.
From http://www.examiner.com/article/new-research-shows-speed-of-light-is-a-variableThat doesn't touch the idea of the speed of light as absolute as used in SR at all. Light is slower in a medium, and when outer space contains enough particles to slow down light then that is a discovery about space, not about SR. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/light-traveled-faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html is not fringe science, but just highly speculative. It is much too early to know if it is correct or not. Because of (principal?) lack of empirical data, this might stay an open question. Of course it is true that there are circumstances where SR breaks down, we know that already: when gravitational forces get strong, so that it is impossible even to define an inertial frame. Sorry kkwan, you behave like an absolute dilettante, you have no idea what you are quoting, and where your quotations stand in relation to modern science.
The point being that by intimidation to what one doesn't know, doesn't assure the one making the argument is certainly correct.Of course not. But the proofs] are pretty easy. In my referred article 3 of them (2.1 - 2.3) one only assumes you know that x = vt, and Pythagoras, and know a little algebra (equations with squares and square roots). To repeat: the one] mentioned in my PS, is even easier, as it limits itself to time dilation and length contraction only, not the complete Lorentz transformations. Your 'derivation' only takes the frame of reference of Earth and Moon into account: it shows the time differences as they are seen by an observer in the Earth-Moon inertial system. Therefore you implicitly assume that the lightspeed is not a constant, that it is different in different directions for the spaceship, which defies all tests concerning measuring lightspeed. Don't spoil your time with this, Scott. The more energy you put into it, the greater the disappointment and/or frustration will be.