Darron,
I had trouble trying to summarize it for fitting in the limits of, what was it, 75kB. This was only an illustration, using simple math of the point I was trying to make. I understand what you and Gdb are thinking, but what this shows, although it is certain to be understood by most, if not all, astrophysicists dealing with space travel, is that since this difference from the outside observer demonstrates that the actual light (being represented by the hour-length program from two different directions are sincerely different phenomena. If one were in the spacecraft, with their apparent time-dilation slowed down, even, those particular wavelengths that they could observe (had is been light) is not the same as the very light that they could measure in the craft.
What I’m saying is that any light they perceive that they use as a measure, is non-representative of light from the background, or non-moving position. For instance, if you were going at near the speed of light toward a source of light from outside the ship, that very light would move shift to higher than gamma rays, while a source from behind would move down to sound waves. The actual light sources wouldn’t be seen because those shifts actually represent different wavelengths and speeds relative to the ship.
It would obviously be different if an astronauts used a light source from within the ship as the light source is moving with them. So their measure would be c because the atoms creating the source within the ship has slowed down due to a the transfer of energy in translation with the direction of the ship.
__
I will have to delve in to a digression into philosophy and logic in order to present my case positively. I’ve previously written four or five chapters on just the intro philosophical proportion of my complete theory. It is a lot of work to summarize it justly yet.
What you are describing, Scott, is freshman astronomy stuff. I think you meant “radio waves” not “sound waves.” Even so, you would be wrong. Light gets redshifted all the way to the infrared, and astronomers (as well as space travelers) can locate the light source, then identify its realtive velocity by observing how far the emission spectrum is shifted toward red or blue. Further, there is no static reference point in the universe. You need to wrap your head around these introductory astronomy/physics ideas before wasting any more of your time.
Edit: clarified how astronomers use redshift
If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated. Otherwise, what could time itself be dilating with reference too? You couldn’t claim that something that is going at a faster relative velocity from you, that time from the perspective of something within that faster frame is either slowing down or speeding up. Therefore, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant would be meaningless.
Lorentz transformations can only be true given there is a fixed space. The resulting formulation of that math IS true. But it cannot follow logically from fixed space. If space is not fixed, just merely stating that the speed of light is constant is meaningless; trying to fix it by the ad hoc assumption that time dilates doesn’t actually solve this because the dilation itself is a dependent measure of a further assumption that such one time frame in one inertial aspect is fixed relative to another in a specific way.
Nor does relativity prove itself just because it has practical predictable results. In logic, it requires that the theory is proven absolutely unique – it would have to demonstrate that no other possible explanations can account for the same results.
You can choose to diminish that what I say is either overly elementary and requires a further step of education, but that isn’t a relevant issue since the advances beyond it are based on the elementary foundation. If this wasn’t the case, you would be certifying that no elementary study of relativity has justification. So why should anybody trust a further investigation without any prior cause? My analogy to one claiming that I must read the Bible completely in order to disprove the existence of God, still holds to this style of arguing. You can tell me that I require an advanced degree or understanding to determine the truth or falsity of relativity, but besides the logical arguments I can maintain to certainty that something is NOT the case without a further lesson, what reason should I have to invest further? I’m certain that I can learn other things regarding other issues or aspects by studying more. But it’s not relevant to the argument at hand. I can study the Bible completely, for instance, to learn how recorded scripture is connected to real history, but I wouldn’t do so in order to assure that God really doesn’t exist, as defined.
If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated. Otherwise, what could time itself be dilating with reference too? You couldn't claim that something that is going at a faster relative velocity from you, that time from the perspective of something within that faster frame is either slowing down or speeding up. Therefore, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant would be meaningless.Again, so wrong! Say, you do an experiment to determine the velocity of light (see here] for several possibilities). You get the well known value of c. Now you accelerate, and from your acceleration you can deduce what your velocity is compared to the moment you did the experiment. Now you measure c again. It turns out to have the same value. Or: you measured the velocity of light, then you give your experiment utilities to somebody in a rocket, and let him measure. He flies along you, you measure his speed, and when he comes back, you ask what value of c he found. It turns out to be the same value of c again. Time is dilating relative to your own measurements of clocks that are in rest compared to you. If you also give your rocketeer a clock, you will see it slowed down against your own clock. There is no necessity for another frame in 'absolute rest'.
Lorentz transformations can only be true given there is a fixed space. The resulting formulation of that math IS true. But it cannot follow logically from fixed space. If space is not fixed, just merely stating that the speed of light is constant is meaningless; trying to fix it by the ad hoc assumption that time dilates doesn't actually solve this because the dilation itself is a dependent measure of a further assumption that such one time frame in one inertial aspect is fixed relative to another in a specific way.The speed of light being constant just means that if you measure it in a laboratory that is in the same reference frame as you are, is always the same. If you speed up, and measure again, you get the same value.
Nor does relativity prove itself just because it has practical predictable results. In logic, it requires that the theory is proven absolutely unique -- it would have to demonstrate that no other possible explanations can account for the same results.What you do is adding a superfluous fixed point. If Einstein would have been wrong, then Poincaré would be known as the discoverer of relativity theory (see here] and here]): in his thought he could not get rid of an absolute frame of reference. The only interesting option for 'other explanations' would be if you can base your theory on even less then on which Einstein built it: the principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observer in inertial frames.
You can choose to diminish that what I say is either overly elementary and requires a further step of education, but that isn't a relevant issue since the advances beyond it are based on the elementary foundation. If this wasn't the case, you would be certifying that no elementary study of relativity has justification. So why should anybody trust a further investigation without any prior cause? My analogy to one claiming that I must read the Bible completely in order to disprove the existence of God, still holds to this style of arguing. You can tell me that I require an advanced degree or understanding to determine the truth or falsity of relativity, but besides the logical arguments I can maintain to certainty that something is NOT the case without a further lesson, what reason should I have to invest further? I'm certain that I can learn other things regarding other issues or aspects by studying more. But it's not relevant to the argument at hand. I can study the Bible completely, for instance, to learn how recorded scripture is connected to real history, but I wouldn't do so in order to assure that God really doesn't exist, as defined.It seems to me that you do not believe in empirical evidence. All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.
If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated.Right. So in your example the static reference points are the earth and the moon, on which clocks run at the same speed and rulers are the same length, whilst on the space ship rulers are shorter and clocks run slower. Arguing over this will just be semantics. Stephen
What we are seeing here is a real-time example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect].
Scott, your religion/science analogy is a false analogy. Religion is mythology; science is observation, hypothesis, and testing. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, “It’s mathematics, son. You can argue with me but you can’t argue with figures.”
kkwan, which of all your citations about the LT is in contradiction with what I wrote here]:Is that so? From my post 77: 1. The LT predates SR: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.
The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived well before special relativity.2. The LT and SR:
This was a direct result of the Lorentz transformations and is called time dilation.From the analysis of the chronology: 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.By considering the chronology of 1,2 and 3: So, if Einstein used many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results of Lorentz to write his paper on SR, was SR exclusively his achievement and where is the evidence that he derived LT from the principle of invariance (which is common sense)? OTOH from www.researchgate.net/...Einstein_-_Lorentz.../d912f50746b61cbd52.pdf
Now solid reasoning and new data not available to Einstein and Lorentz show that Lorentz was correct and that Einstein's Theory of Relativity should correctly be termed Einstein's Principle of Invariance. It is shown that Einstein's comprehensive relativity and denial of an absolute frame of reference for the universe are incorrect and that the universe has an absolute universal prime frame of reference.You wrote:
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?From my post 41: How moving clocks show a different clock rate:
The fact that the one-way velocity of light equal to c is only apparent, has been explained (5, 6, 7) previously. This illusion is due to a phenomenon involving the increase of kinetic energy needed to carry (the atoms of) the clock from the rest frame to the moving frame. Using quantum mechanics, it has been shown (5, 6, 7) that using the principle of mass-energy conservation, the increase of velocity (kinetic energy) produces a change of energy (quantum levels) to the electrons in atoms, which is responsible for a shift of quantum levels of all atoms in the moving frame. That shift of quantum levels (5, 6, 7) makes the moving clocks run at a different rateConclusion:
We must conclude that there is no need of any weird interpretation requiring non-realistic physics and the denial of conventional logic. There is no need of space contraction, or time dilation. The size of matter changes, due to the change of Bohr radius, that also makes clocks run at a different rate. Everything can be explained naturally using conventional logic, mass-energy conservation, and the equations of quantum mechanics.Why cannot time be a constant even though all clocks are relative in all moving frames of reference? OTOH, if we could have a clock at rest in the aether as Lorentz believed, that would indicate the "true time". And is the concept of the aether so incoherent? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories General relativity:
Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support. We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.Quantum vacuum:
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics: It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.Conjectures and proposals:
According to the philosophical point of view of Einstein, Dirac, Bell, Polyakov, ’t Hooft and few other theorists, there might be some non-material space filling medium enabling the observed physical processes, an Aether, occupying every point in space. As yet, there is no a corresponding theoryJohn Bell:
John Bell in 1986, interviewed by Paul Davies in "The Ghost in the Atom" has suggested that an Aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster than light. He suggests Lorentz contraction is perfectly coherent, not inconsistent with relativity, and could produce an aether theory perfectly consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist" [p. 49]. Einstein found the non-aether theory simpler and more elegant, but Bell suggests that doesn't rule it out. Besides the arguments based on his interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bell also suggests resurrecting the aether because it is a useful pedagogical device. That is, many problems are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an aether.Bold added by me. So, what is "true time" and the aether and are they the reference frames of the universe?
I live in 2013. You?So do I, and these are interesting times.
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.But, without confirmation by observation and experiment, those 2 of his possible solutions cannot be taken to adequately explain the anomaly of the absence of time dilation which SR predicts per se. So, we are still clueless.
That 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.Why not? Are you inferring real space with it's virtual particles is a medium as well?
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.From the same article:
Joao Magueijo concludes: "One dramatic possibility is that the speed of light is a dynamic variable. If so we may indeed expect the above phenomena to be true. In addition, it could be that near black holes the speed of light congeals to zero, preventing observers from approaching the ``singularity'' and invalidating most current black hole theories. It might also be true that in the vicinity of cosmic strings the speed of light is much higher, allowing for high-speed travel without the annoyances associated with time dilation effects. Yet another possibility is that time variations in c cause the energy stored in the cosmological constant to be converted into normal matter. This process might even account for the creation of the Universe. Or perhaps something even more unpalatable to the unimaginative physicist is behind our existence.Bold added by me.
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.GdB, your naivety, gullibility and prejudice is showing. It appears you are caught in a time warp circa 1980 or thereabouts because you have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by received wisdom that you do not know how to think critically in order perceive that "the Emperor is naked". :-)
kkwan,
Your thunderstorm of quotations does not change the simple fact:
All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.And to add: all tests that tried to falsify failed. See e.g. here]. Arguing against the validity of SR under daily circumstances is absolute pointless.
If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated. Otherwise, what could time itself be dilating with reference too? You couldn't claim that something that is going at a faster relative velocity from you, that time from the perspective of something within that faster frame is either slowing down or speeding up. Therefore, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant would be meaningless.Again, so wrong! Say, you do an experiment to determine the velocity of light (see here] for several possibilities). You get the well known value of c. Now you accelerate, and from your acceleration you can deduce what your velocity is compared to the moment you did the experiment. Now you measure c again. It turns out to have the same value. Or: you measured the velocity of light, then you give your experiment utilities to somebody in a rocket, and let him measure. He flies along you, you measure his speed, and when he comes back, you ask what value of c he found. It turns out to be the same value of c again. Time is dilating relative to your own measurements of clocks that are in rest compared to you. If you also give your rocketeer a clock, you will see it slowed down against your own clock. There is no necessity for another frame in 'absolute rest'.
Lorentz transformations can only be true given there is a fixed space. The resulting formulation of that math IS true. But it cannot follow logically from fixed space. If space is not fixed, just merely stating that the speed of light is constant is meaningless; trying to fix it by the ad hoc assumption that time dilates doesn't actually solve this because the dilation itself is a dependent measure of a further assumption that such one time frame in one inertial aspect is fixed relative to another in a specific way.The speed of light being constant just means that if you measure it in a laboratory that is in the same reference frame as you are, is always the same. If you speed up, and measure again, you get the same value. You seem to be assuming that I don't think that these experiments are as they are. I agree that all of what you say regarding what actually occurs indeed actually occurs. The fact that we are able to determine our relative velocities from each other indicates a fixed relationship such that we can predict both the dilation factors as well as the direction relative to any given frame of reference. By direction, here, I am referring to the dilation in time. Something in inertial velocity faster than your perspective has positive dilation while one going slower than you has negative dilation. Since the assumption is that no frame of reference is special, then it is inferred that from any given frame, there will always be another frame of inertia slower than you infinitely. It's time dilation would have to be such that someone going slower than your frame will have any one given duration of time speed up (-dilation) with respect to yours. With no limiting factor, this should technically enable the existence of an infinite duration of time to be realized an infinitely slower inertial frame. Now you add the further assumption that time itself is limited to c, and that matter itself dilates. Then something in a slower frame of reference would have an effect on matter that causes it to dilate negatively (inflates in its direction of velocity). Since it couldn't inflate faster than the speed of light either, a limit would have to be reached such that the smaller inertial frame of reference's time requires it's infinite period of time be reduced to zero (it's calculated approach or limit). In other words, even with all assumptions regarding c, there has to be a real fixed point in space and time that you can point to (that limit), even if reality could not achieve it in practice. As the solutions of Zeno's paradox demonstrates, even though a fixed reference point can be argued to not exist, the limits do actually exist as reality. Thus, there are fixed points in space. Relativity is corrected by abandoning the notion that time & space has no fixed Cartesian reality AND adding that nothing actually goes slower than c; that the speed of reality is a constant relative to every real point of reference (not vector-wise) -- only the directions, which represent dimensional factors, differ.
You are not recognizing nor understanding the limitation that was imposed on the [non-Perfect] Cosmological assumption. The Laws of nature were assumed the same for all observers (except for time, itself). This ignores that even all inertial frames of reference are impossible. That is, you cannot have an inertial frame faster than the speed of light. And for those frames of inertia that approach the speed of light, it would have to be demonstrated that nothing could alter its physics. Such experiments, if they could possibly even be done, would have to show that nothing from other slower inertial frames can alter anything in that frame it in any way. It's not sufficient, for example, to illustrate the effectiveness of relativity by showing that clocks placed on an airplane differ once they return. Such airplane speeds are relatively much slower than the speed of light. It's easier to claim, for instance, that the clocks on the planes were altered because the external background of space (fixed) slowed down the atoms that make up the clock due to its translation through it. To assume that time itself altered isolates the clock in the moving plane from being effected by the relative (external) inertial frame. This has an absurd resulting conclusion that you could technically prevent yourself from being effected from any other frame by changing your inertia. You would be able to do things like pass through the Earth if you were in a craft that was going close to the speed of light without being destroyed!Nor does relativity prove itself just because it has practical predictable results. In logic, it requires that the theory is proven absolutely unique -- it would have to demonstrate that no other possible explanations can account for the same results.What you do is adding a superfluous fixed point. If Einstein would have been wrong, then Poincaré would be known as the discoverer of relativity theory (see here] and here]): in his thought he could not get rid of an absolute frame of reference. The only interesting option for 'other explanations' would be if you can base your theory on even less then on which Einstein built it: the principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observer in inertial frames.
This is an absurd conclusion on anything I said. Empirical evidence is the set of observations for reality, not the actual explanation for reality itself. The theories or explanations that rationalize reality are not immune to being false even if they fit in a conditions of a pragmatic reality. Nor does science fall by altering the explanations to ones with other validity. Einstein's particular explanation leads to contradictions that what I proposed doesn't.You can choose to diminish that what I say is either overly elementary and requires a further step of education, but that isn't a relevant issue since the advances beyond it are based on the elementary foundation. If this wasn't the case, you would be certifying that no elementary study of relativity has justification. So why should anybody trust a further investigation without any prior cause? My analogy to one claiming that I must read the Bible completely in order to disprove the existence of God, still holds to this style of arguing. You can tell me that I require an advanced degree or understanding to determine the truth or falsity of relativity, but besides the logical arguments I can maintain to certainty that something is NOT the case without a further lesson, what reason should I have to invest further? I'm certain that I can learn other things regarding other issues or aspects by studying more. But it's not relevant to the argument at hand. I can study the Bible completely, for instance, to learn how recorded scripture is connected to real history, but I wouldn't do so in order to assure that God really doesn't exist, as defined.It seems to me that you do not believe in empirical evidence. All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.
What we are seeing here is a real-time example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect]. Scott, your religion/science analogy is a false analogy. Religion is mythology; science is observation, hypothesis, and testing. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "It's mathematics, son. You can argue with me but you can't argue with figures."I know that you have sincere compassion of heart and justice from other correspondence with you (not necessarily towards me). So I will try not to take offense at your presumptions of my mental deficiencies. I ask you, however, is it possible that you could be in error?
Scott Mayers, What I add to the theory is that the speed of all reality is constantAs a layman, this is really profound, IMO. It brought several questions to mind. a) Does physical reality manifest itself at a constant speed? b) Is the speed of light the fastest way reality can "refresh" itself? c) At FTL can reality become manifest (Inflation), or MUST it slow down to "c" to become manifest as spacetime ? d) Is this related to quantum, i.e. do quantum events happen at a constant rate? e) Does a quantum event happen @ "c"?
Something in inertial velocity faster than your perspective has positive dilation while one going slower than you has negative dilation. Since the assumption is that no frame of reference is special, then it is inferred that from any given frame, there will always be another frame of inertia slower than you infinitely. It's time dilation would have to be such that someone going slower than your frame will have any one given duration of time speed up (-dilation) with respect to yours. With no limiting factor, this should technically enable the existence of an infinite duration of time to be realized an infinitely slower inertial frame.Sorry Scott, this all does not make any sense. Negative dilation? Something being infinitely slower? When e.g. two observers fly away from each other, they will agree on their relative velocity when they both measure in their own inertial frame. So none is slower than the other, it just does not make sense. When you have three observers, one observer can measure that one of the others moves faster from him than the other, in this context 'slower' or 'faster' makes sense. However the two observers will not agree on the velocity of the third one.
Now you add the further assumption that time itself is limited to c, and that matter itself dilates. Then something in a slower frame of reference would have an effect on matter that causes it to dilate negatively (inflates in its direction of velocity). Since it couldn't inflate faster than the speed of light either, a limit would have to be reached such that the smaller inertial frame of reference's time requires it's infinite period of time be reduced to zero (it's calculated approach or limit). In other words, even with all assumptions regarding c, there has to be a real fixed point in space and time that you can point to (that limit), even if reality could not achieve it in practice.Slower compared to what? How can you compare time with the a velocity? ('time itself is limited to c'). Is one second faster than c? A year then? Sorry, your thinking is as fuzzy as can be.
The Laws of nature were assumed the same for all observers (except for time, itself).Since when is time a law of nature? Again, you are totally confused.
It's not sufficient, for example, to illustrate the effectiveness of relativity by showing that clocks placed on an airplane differ once they return. Such airplane speeds are relatively much slower than the speed of light. It's easier to claim, for instance, that the clocks on the planes were altered because the external background of space (fixed) slowed down the atoms that make up the clock due to its translation through it.Why would that be easier? As a stick seems shorter when it is not exactly perpendicular to your point of view, so time seems to slow down when another inertial frame is not in rest in yours. (And btw, the stick never becomes longer when it rotates, its projection is at most as long as the stick itself. The Lorentz Transformations describe, mathematically seen, a rotation in space-time. So how could we have 'negative dilation'?)
To assume that time itself altered isolates the clock in the moving plane from being effected by the relative (external) inertial frame. This has an absurd resulting conclusion that you could technically prevent yourself from being effected from any other frame by changing your inertia. You would be able to do things like pass through the Earth if you were in a craft that was going close to the speed of light without being destroyed!This is not even wrong, it makes no sense at all. How do you change your inertia? (I do it by eating...).
This is an absurd conclusion on anything I said. Empirical evidence is the set of observations for reality, not the actual explanation for reality itself. The theories or explanations that rationalize reality are not immune to being false even if they fit in a conditions of a pragmatic reality. Nor does science fall by altering the explanations to ones with other validity. Einstein's particular explanation leads to contradictions that what I proposed doesn't.RT is commonly accepted by the scientific community as internally consistent, and consistent with empirical evidence. Is also based on an absolute minimum of assumptions, namely (once again), that the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames. You are adding extras (a 'fixed background'). Poincaré had such an understanding of relativity, so you are saying nothing new. And the scientific community has found out more than 100 years ago that it is not needed: the 'fixed background' just drops out of all the equations and explanations. If you can't measure it, if you do not need it to explain anything, then why stick to it? Because it is not according to your 'common sense'? You think you are better than 4 generations of physicists.
What we are seeing here is a real-time example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect]. Scott, your religion/science analogy is a false analogy. Religion is mythology; science is observation, hypothesis, and testing. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "It's mathematics, son. You can argue with me but you can't argue with figures."I know that you have sincere compassion of heart and justice from other correspondence with you (not necessarily towards me). So I will try not to take offense at your presumptions of my mental deficiencies. I ask you, however, is it possible that you could be in error? Of course it is possible I am wrong, Scott. It is also possible the universe will someday wink out of existence and be replaced by something even more bizarre and incomprehensible, but that is only slightly less likely than someone with no formal training in physics and math will prove Einstein was wrong about time dilation and reference frames. You realize you'll win a Nobel prize if you can prove your idea, don't you? You'll also be placed among Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as one of the greatest physicists of all time. How likely does that sound?
All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.Not necessarily so, that physics would fall apart and technologies would not work. 1. What are the consequences if the speed of light is not a constant, but it is a dynamic variable? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light Relation to relativity and definition of c:
In relativity, space-time is 4 dimensions of the same physical property of either space or time, depending on which perspective is chosen. The conversion factor of length=i*c*time is described in Appendix 2 of Einstein's Relativity. A changing c in relativity would mean the imaginary dimension of time is changing compared to the other three real-valued spacial dimensions of space-time. Specifically regarding VSL, if the SI meter definition was reverted to its pre-1960 definition as a length on a prototype bar (making it possible for the measure of c to change), then a conceivable change in c (the reciprocal of the amount of time taken for light to travel this prototype length) could be more fundamentally interpreted as a change in the dimensionless ratio of the meter prototype to the Planck length or as the dimensionless ratio of the SI second to the Planck time or a change in both. If the number of atoms making up the meter prototype remains unchanged (as it should for a stable prototype), then a perceived change in the value of c would be the consequence of the more fundamental change in the dimensionless ratio of the Planck length to the sizes of atoms or to the Bohr radius or, alternatively, as the dimensionless ratio of the Planck time to the period of a particular caesium-133 radiation or both.2. What are the consequences if time is a constant but all moving clocks are relative and there is no time dilation or length contraction? Even if all clocks are relative to all moving frames of reference, it does not mean that technologies will not work. For instance, if a clock on the earth (which is a moving frame of reference) is compared to the clock in a GPS satellite (which is another moving frame of reference wrt the earth), it is feasible and doable to adjust for the difference in timing to make the GPS system work, notwithstanding that time is a constant.
Arguing against the validity of SR under daily circumstances is absolute pointless.I am not arguing against the validity of SR or GR. What I am saying is: 1. We cannot assume that the speed of light is a constant in the universe. 2.. We cannot assume time is relative as clocks could be relative in all moving frames of reference and they don't directly measure time per se. If time is relative, then causality is problematic. OTOH, if time and it's unidirectionality is primal in the universe for causality to hold, that implies it is a constant. 3. We cannot assume that there is time dilation or length contraction as there is no compelling evidence for them at all. OTOH, the anomaly of the quasars does not support time dilation. 4. We cannot assume that there is no aether in the universe as real space is never empty. Not making any of the assumptions in 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not invalidate SR or GR and as such there is no necessity to make those assumptions in SR or GR. Occam's Razor.
1. We cannot assume that the speed of light is a constant in the universe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light
If time is relative, then causality is problematic.Huh? The only condition for causality being unproblematic is that a cause lies in the past light cone of an event, there is no frame of reference in which a cause precedes its effect. This is consistently described by SR.
3. We cannot assume that there is time dilation or length contraction as there is no compelling evidence for them at all. OTOH, the anomaly of the quasars does not support time dilation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
4. We cannot assume that there is no aether in the universe as real space is never empty.And why should events in a 'nearly empty space' be a system in absolute rest, what the ether is supposed to be? Does an observer that flies with 150,000 km/s see the virtual particles move in a different way?
Not making any of the assumptions in 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not invalidate SR or GR and as such there is no necessity to make those assumptions in SR or GR. Occam's Razor.There is only one assumption in SR: that the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames of reference. If you can explain the slowing down of clocks, length contraction and E=mc² with less assumptions, be my guest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_lightApart from more precise laser or maser light sources and optical resonators, all these modern variants of the M-M experiment depend on clocks for timing. If all moving clocks are relative, they do not measure time directly and as the experiments are local, then we cannot conclusively determine that the speed of light is a constant in the universe.
Huh? The only condition for causality being unproblematic is that a cause lies in the past light cone of an event, there is no frame of reference in which a cause precedes its effect. This is consistently described by SR.Quite so, but how do we determine universal causality wrt two or more moving frames of reference in the universe if time is relative? Causality is primal in the universe and must hold everywhere in the universe. This can only be so if and only if time is a constant in the universe. Newton and Lorentz were correct with their concepts of "universal time" or "true time" to preserve causality in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmationFrom your citation:
In 2010 time dilation was observed at speeds of less than 10 meters per second using optical atomic clocks connected by 75 meters of optical fiber.We have the problem of the relativity of the moving clocks and that they do not measure time directly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verificationsAgain, from your citation:
In addition, even in such a non-co-moving frame, direct experimental confirmations of Lorentz contraction are hard to achieve, because at the current state of technology, objects of considerable extension cannot be accelerated to relativistic speeds. And the only objects traveling with the speed required are atomic particles, yet whose spatial extensions are too small to allow a direct measurement of contraction.So, all these experiments for time dilation and/or length contraction are not compelling evidence of the universality of these weird concepts first proposed by Lorentz.
And why should events in a 'nearly empty space' be a system in absolute rest, what the ether is supposed to be? Does an observer that flies with 150,000 km/s see the virtual particles move in a different way?Because space is universal in the universe, there is no reason to reject space and/or the aether as a system in absolute rest. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science.You wrote:
There is only one assumption in SR: that the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames of reference. If you can explain the slowing down of clocks, length contraction and E=mc² with less assumptions, be my guest.The invariance principle is not an issue as it is intuitive and reasonable to make that assumption with the proviso that time is absolute and is a constant to preserve causality and also there is a fixed frame of reference which is space and/or the aether (whatever it is) in the universe. Time dilation and length contraction do not need an explanation because they are incoherent concepts.
Apart from more precise laser or maser light sources and optical resonators, all these modern variants of the M-M experiment depend on clocks for timing. If all moving clocks are relative, they do not measure time directly and as the experiments are local, then we cannot conclusively determine that the speed of light is a constant in the universe.The original MMX is not dependent on a clock, just as many of its later variants. They are based on detecting a difference in light speed, not even measuring it.
Causality is primal in the universe and must hold everywhere in the universe. This can only be so if and only if time is a constant in the universe.Time must not be constant, only the timely order of events. The Lorentz transformations are exactly so that causality is always preserved for every observer.
We have the problem of the relativity of the moving clocks and that they do not measure time directly.So your absolute time cannot be observed or measured, it has no causal influence, and it is not needed to explain anything. Normally we say then that such a thing does not exist.
So, all these experiments for time dilation and/or length contraction are not compelling evidence of the universality of these weird concepts first proposed by Lorentz.Except that they give a consistent view on the physical universe, that they are confirmed many times in experiments and astronomical observations. The few anomalies you mentioned are open to interpretation, and can possibly be explained by error in the theories on which the observations are based, or that the objects under scrutiny are different than we thought. SR is the most unlikely candidate to be wrong.
Because space is universal in the universe, there is no reason to reject space and/or the aether as a system in absolute rest.Except that it cannot be measured independently, and that from its non-existence (i.e. the laws of nature are the same for observer in inertial frames) the LT can be derived which are confirmed in many experiments, yes, you are completely right: why should we reject the existence something we cannot detect at all? In the end, there is also no proof that God does not exist!
Time dilation and length contraction do not need an explanation because they are incoherent concepts.You say you do not claim SR is invalid, you do not claim the LT are invalid, but you claim that time dilation and length contraction are incoherent, which follow from the LT??? SR is selfconsistent, consistent with other laws of nature, and with experiments that were devised to falsify or confirm SR.
Something in inertial velocity faster than your perspective has positive dilation while one going slower than you has negative dilation. Since the assumption is that no frame of reference is special, then it is inferred that from any given frame, there will always be another frame of inertia slower than you infinitely. It's time dilation would have to be such that someone going slower than your frame will have any one given duration of time speed up (-dilation) with respect to yours. With no limiting factor, this should technically enable the existence of an infinite duration of time to be realized an infinitely slower inertial frame.Sorry Scott, this all does not make any sense. Negative dilation? Something being infinitely slower? When e.g. two observers fly away from each other, they will agree on their relative velocity when they both measure in their own inertial frame. So none is slower than the other, it just does not make sense. When you have three observers, one observer can measure that one of the others moves faster from him than the other, in this context 'slower' or 'faster' makes sense. However the two observers will not agree on the velocity of the third one. "Dilation" would lose meaning if it didn't imply a direction. To say, for instance, that your eyes dilate, your pupils get larger. In the airplane-with-clock experiment, shouldn't someone equally argue that the clocks on Earth should be discovered to "slow down" using the clock he caries with him on the plane? This isn't the case. Both will agree that the clock with the plane slowed with respect to clocks on Earth. There is a favorable direction that can be determined whether one perspective was going faster or slower to a background, even if the exact background isn't known. That is, you can determine that one object in some inertial frame is going faster or slower with respect to you. If only one of them accelerates away, you can be certain to know this as only one of them would feel it. Yet they are both accelerating away from each other at the same rate. This can only happen is there is a fixed frame of reference. Now if you somehow couldn't 'feel' this acceleration, you would still be able to determine which one was going faster than the other if their velocities relative to a background differed. There clock times will differ and one will certainly demonstrate a later time while the other one, an earlier time.
The original MMX is not dependent on a clock, just as many of its later variants. They are based on detecting a difference in light speed, not even measuring it.Apart from the issue of locality, there is a fundamental flaw in the designs of all the experiments in detecting a difference without a clock instead of measuring the speed of light with a clock. All these experiments involve the two-way speed of light (the average) and not the one-way speed of light. That type of experiment would depend on a clock. From http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/
In the first are experiments like the famous Michelson Morely interferometer which measure the round trip speed of light along some closed loop. This is essentially its average speed over some distance and back again. No variation has ever been found but these experiments leave open the possibility that the speed of light is different over each leg of the journey. So there is another category of experiments which attempt to measure the one-way speed of light.Important consequences:
The work may have important consequences. Ahmed and co point out that string theory predicts a violation of the constancy of the speed of light as does another idea which proposes that a variable speed of light would solve various problems in cosmology.Bold added by me.
Time must not be constant, only the timely order of events. The Lorentz transformations are exactly so that causality is always preserved for every observer.That is only in any particular frame of reference, but causality must be preserved throughout the universe and that can only be so if time is a constant.
So your absolute time cannot be observed or measured, it has no causal influence, and it is not needed to explain anything. Normally we say then that such a thing does not exist.Time by itself has no causal influence, but the constancy of time preserves causality throughout the universe, irrespective of any frame of reference.
Except that they give a consistent view on the physical universe, that they are confirmed many times in experiments and astronomical observations. The few anomalies you mentioned are open to interpretation, and can possibly be explained by error in the theories on which the observations are based, or that the objects under scrutiny are different than we thought. SR is the most unlikely candidate to be wrong.We cannot extend results from local experiments to the universe. The anomaly of no time dilation of the quasars is disturbing with no explanation from SR.
Except that it cannot be measured independently, and that from its non-existence (i.e. the laws of nature are the same for observer in inertial frames) the LT can be derived which are confirmed in many experiments, yes, you are completely right: why should we reject the existence something we cannot detect at all? In the end, there is also no proof that God does not exist!What cannot be measured? Space? Space is universal in the universe and the universe is at rest as a complete entity.
You say you do not claim SR is invalid, you do not claim the LT are invalid, but you claim that time dilation and length contraction are incoherent, which follow from the LT??? SR is selfconsistent, consistent with other laws of nature, and with experiments that were devised to falsify or confirm SR.If the constancy of the speed of light is not assumed, there is no necessity for time dilation or length contraction in LT and SR to be valid.
In the airplane-with-clock experiment, shouldn't someone equally argue that the clocks on Earth should be discovered to "slow down" using the clock he caries with him on the plane? This isn't the case. Both will agree that the clock with the plane slowed with respect to clocks on Earth. There is a favorable direction that can be determined whether one perspective was going faster or slower to a background, even if the exact background isn't known.No. The simple fact is that the plane is not in an inertial frame, so the situation is not symmetrical. Read about the so called twin paradox], to get some insight. Do understand why it is no paradox at all.
Yet they are both accelerating away from each other at the same rate.No. The one who accelerates observes inertial forces, the one who does not accelerate doesn't.
This can only happen is there is a fixed frame of reference.As both frames of reference differ, one being an inertial frame and the other not, we do not need a fixed frame at all.
Now if you somehow couldn't 'feel' this acceleration,...And now you just leave out the essence of what acceleration is: the possibility to 'feel' it because of the unavoidable inertial forces. Scott: you show in no way that you really have understood what relativity is about. Please read some good books about it, see that you really understand it. You could gain a lot of rewarding insight, and you will avoid the frustrating experience that nobody will accept your ideas. My recommendation: read the few chapters about special relativity from the Feynman lectures (PM me if you are interested), or look at the 'theoretical minimum' lectures of Leonard Susskind about special relativity on Youtube.