Einstein's gravity theory passes toughest test yet: Bizarre binary star system pushes study of relativity to new limits

Bizarre binary star system pushes study of relativity to new limits
This artist's impression shows the exotic double object that consists of a tiny, but very heavy neutron star that spins 25 times each second, orbited every two and a half hours by a white dwarf star. The neutron star is a pulsar named PSR J0348+0432 that is giving off radio waves that can be picked up on Earth by radio telescopes. Although this unusual pair is very interesting in its own right, it is also a unique laboratory for testing the limits of physical theories. Credit: ESO
(Phys.org) —A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

Once again, Albert Einstein's , published in 1915, comes out on top.

At some point, however, scientists expect Einstein's model to be invalid under extreme conditions. General Relativity, for example, is incompatible with . Physicists hope to find an alternate description of gravity that would eliminate that incompatibility.

A newly-discovered pulsar—a spinning neutron star with twice the mass of the Sun—and its white-, orbiting each other once every two and a half hours, has put gravitational theories to the most extreme test yet. Observations of the system, dubbed PSR J0348+0432, produced results consistent with the predictions of General Relativity.

The tightly-orbiting pair was discovered with the National Science Foundation's Green Bank Telescope (GBT), and subsequently studied in visible light with the Apache Point telescope in New Mexico, the Very Large Telescope in Chile, and the William Herschel Telescope in the Canary Islands. Extensive radio observations with the Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico and the Effelsberg telescope in Germany yielded vital data on subtle changes in the pair's orbit.

In such a system, the orbits decay and are emitted, carrying energy from the system. By very precisely measuring the time of arrival of the pulsar's radio pulses over a long period of time, astronomers can determine the rate of decay and the amount of emitted. The large mass of the neutron star in PSR J0348+0432, the closeness of its orbit with its companion, and the fact that the companion white dwarf is compact but not another neutron star, all make the system an unprecedented opportunity for testing alternative theories of gravity.

Under the extreme conditions of this system, some scientists thought that the equations of General Relativity might not accurately predict the amount of gravitational radiation emitted, and thus change the rate of orbital decay. Competing gravitational theories, they thought, might prove more accurate in this system.

Einstein's gravity theory passes toughest test yet
Superdense neutron star, emitting beams of radio waves as a pulsar, center, is closely paired with a compact white-dwarf star. Together, the two provide physicists with an unprecedented natural, cosmic "laboratory" for studying the nature of gravity. The grid background illustrates the distortions of spacetime caused by the gravitational effect of the two objects. Credit: Antoniadis, et al.
"We thought this system might be extreme enough to show a breakdown in , but instead, Einstein's predictions held up quite well," said Paulo Freire, of the Max Planck Institute for Radioastronomy in Germany.

That's good news, the scientists say, for researchers hoping to make the first direct detection of gravitational waves with advanced instruments. Researchers using such instruments hope to detect the gravitational waves emitted as such dense pairs as and black holes spiral inward toward violent collisions.

Gravitational waves are extremely difficult to detect and even with the best instruments, physicists expect they will need to know the characteristics of the waves they seek, which will be buried in "noise" from their detectors. Knowing the characteristics of the waves they seek will allow them to extract the signal they seek from that noise.

"Our results indicate that the filtering techniques planned for these advanced instruments remain valid," said Ryan Lynch, of McGill University.

Freire and Lynch worked with a large international team of researchers. They reported their results in the journal Science.


Explore further

Pulsars: The Universe's gift to physics

More information: "A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary," by J. Antoniadis et al. Science, 2013
Journal information: Science

Citation: Einstein's gravity theory passes toughest test yet: Bizarre binary star system pushes study of relativity to new limits (2013, April 25) retrieved 24 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-04-einstein-gravity-theory-toughest-bizarre.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 25, 2013
the orbits decay and gravitational waves are emitted
It's somewhat bizarre, just the phenomena which confirms general relativity most firmly violates it most pronouncedly - the gravitational waves aren't waves from perspective of AWT at all, but the CMBR noise.

Apr 25, 2013
"General Relativity, for example, is incompatible with quantum theory."

No, or you couldn't porpose gravitons. GR is actually perfectly compatible as long as it is analogous to any vacuum field at low energies. It is when you run up against its non-linearities it turns out to be a mere effective description.

In fact, it remains for an upgraded LISA to test GR low-energy compatibility (existence of gravitons).

@Crackpot: Since aether theory isn't science at all of the last century, it is *that* which is bizarre. As gravitational waves are tested (caused) by many pulsar systems as per the article, we know it isn't caused by CMB "noise".

Really, don't comment on science as long as you can't make stick to the subject. What you are claiming is equivalent to that since we see airplanes fly, therefore unicorns. Even a typical 5 year old would squirm in your deluded presence, they are both smarter and more experienced than you.

Apr 25, 2013
That's good news, the scientists say, for researchers hoping to make the first direct detection of gravitational waves with advanced instruments. Researchers using such instruments hope to detect the gravitational waves emitted as such dense pairs as neutron stars and black holes spiral inward toward violent collisions…

The bad news is that even scientists could detect the gravitational waves; they still cannot explain (by General relativity) how the wave could propagate though the empty space! Maybe this physical view could help…
http://www.vacuum...18〈=en

Apr 25, 2013
It seems to me that more tests are being made against Einstein's theory than against quantum theory. Thus far Einstein's theory has held against amazing experiments. It seems to me that Quantum theory needs to be reevaluated and not Einstein's. After all, Einstein's theory can predict where a star will appear after the gravitation effects on its light. It predicted weird phenomena like black holes long before they where found. It even predicted things that not Eisenstein believed and he called it his greatest blunder yet the theory was right. At this point quantum theory can't even predict with certainty where and atom could be at any moment.

Apr 25, 2013
"At this point quantum theory can't even predict with certainty where and atom could be at any moment."

LOL, nice one. Subtle jokes are the best kind :)

Apr 25, 2013
The bad news is that even scientists could detect the gravitational waves; they still cannot explain (by General relativity) how the wave could propagate though the empty space!


No matter how many times ya post that, it remains just as untrue today as any other. Just because ya can't understand their explanations, doesn't mean they can't explain it.

All it means is they can't explain it to ya (and that is your shortcoming, not theirs.)

Apr 25, 2013
It seems to me that Quantum theory needs to be reevaluated and not Einstein's.

It's not really a question of "either this OR that is incomplete". In the end both have to be revised.

More precisely: a unified theory of quantum gravitation will be different from either. However, it will render either as a result of some simplification which applies at large sacles (which will give you GR) and another simplification at small scales (which will give you QM).

The thing we have to figure out is: which are these implicit assumptions we currently make.

Apr 25, 2013
Anti is correct. Most opposing positions find agreement somewhere around a center. However, GR has been tested the most with no significant margin of error, ergo...

Apr 25, 2013
The bad news is that even scientists could detect the gravitational waves; they still cannot explain (by General relativity) how the wave could propagate though the empty space!

Empty space is not empty. It is filled with a sea of virtual particles.

Apr 25, 2013
Certainly one key measure of a theory's validity is it's predictive power. Another is the ability to design new physical systems based on the theory, and make them real. In both regards, Relativity and QM are spectacular successes. Both are behind technology nearly everyone uses daily. For instance, components that exploit quantum effects receive and process GPS signals that are accurately corrected for relativistic effects; a very practical blend of both theories. These two theories are definitely not competing for superiority, rather, they are seeking harmony.

Apr 25, 2013
The bad news is that even scientists could detect the gravitational waves; they still cannot explain (by General relativity) how the wave could propagate though the empty space!

Empty space is not empty. It is filled with a sea of virtual particles.

And an ALMOST equal number of empty spaces...

Apr 26, 2013
I wonder if a better gravitational field and wave detector will await the discovery and use of 'dark energy' fields. In truth, since we do not know about it might it not be a number of fundamental energy fields in an expanded 'new standard model' now in three dimensions that may include temporal fields as well. Left or right hand rule manipulations of these forces may generate gravitational positive and negative fields, and useful long distance communication inasmuch as these can propagate independent of spacial constraint......brane theory of gravitational fields being felt from hidden other universes at specific places in our universe.......Just ruminating... but then a lot of ideas come from such.

Apr 26, 2013
Question: I haven't found any information on if gravity waves would alter starlight passing near the source, or if there would be an effect on light emitted from a nebula that could be detected. Anyone seen such an article or discussion?

Apr 26, 2013
However, GR has been tested the most with no significant margin of error, ergo...

..only in its sphere of applicability (i.e. anything that is 'large' for a given value of 'large')

QM has also been tested with no significant error observed within its sphere of applicability (i.e. for anything 'small' for a given value of 'small')

The point is that GR requires smooth space with definite spatial relations while QM requires uncertainty. These two demands are mutually exclusive. So something (and probably both) has to give.

Apr 26, 2013
As gravitational waves are tested (caused) by many pulsar systems as per the article, we know it isn't caused by CMB "noise"
The trick is, the energy is radiated in superluminal form, but in the intensity which general relativity predicts. So that you cannot prove the existence of gravitational waves with pulsar experiments, only radiation of gravity field energy into outside.
Since aether theory isn't science at all of the last century, it is *that* which is bizarre
Dense aether model just enables to understand these seeming paradoxes. You can model it like the radiation of energy with splash at the water surface, but the energy will be released in form of underwater waves, so it will propagate like the noise at the water surface.

Apr 26, 2013
Relativity theory is wrong and the spacetime doesn't exist.
Gravitational waves are not waves of spacetime, they are
waves of acceleration or force and must be detected with
accelerometers. Gravitational waves can be generated and
detected in a lab. c^2t^2 - x^2 = 1.9121x10^-34m2

Apr 26, 2013
The pulsar pair PSR J0348+0432 discussed is an interesting system because it is composed of compact objects in a tight, highly relativistic binary (v/c~=0.002) and the mass ratio is large. That last part is important for testing dark matter theories like scalar-tensor theories of gravity. Unfortunately, the popular article headline totally overstates the importance of this system for general relativity confirmation. The measurement of orbital change perirod represents only a 10% observation, which is uninteresting. Secondly the binary has a very low eccentricity (10E-6 ). The lowest order post-Keplerian effect would precession of the pericenter of the binary, which you can't measure when the eccentricity is so low. That measurement is way better for say the Hulse-Taylor pulsar binary than the change of orbital period measurement. The precession measurement in Hulse-Taylor pulsar is good to 6 decimal places, whereas the change of orbital period in H-T pulsar is only a few percent.

Apr 26, 2013
The conclusion is, the PSR J0348+0432 is a cool system, but isn't interesting enough for tests of GR right now.

Relativity theory is wrong and the spacetime doesn't exist
Why to throw out the baby with the bath water? The fact, some aspects of greneral relativity were misunderstood with dumb Einstein's followers (even Einstein opposed the gravitational waves originally) doesn't mean, everything about relativity is wrong. I do agree, that the gravitational waves can be detected with accelerometers in the lab (Podkletnov, Taimar and others), but they do represent the scalar waves (Tesla, Dollard, Meyl etc.) as well.

Apr 26, 2013
Sigh. The article contains many words but does not explain clearly what is really measured and how much the accuracy is better than before. Treating readership for good-news-worshippers is an insult.

Apr 26, 2013
@Theon: It's not an insult, but an intention. You laymen are supposed to pay the experiments and safe life for physicists. But not to understand it, which would enable the critique.

brt
Apr 26, 2013
@Theon: It's not an insult, but an intention. You laymen are supposed to pay the experiments and safe life for physicists. But not to understand it, which would enable the critique.


It's sad that you are such a combination of arrogance, stupidity, and delusion. There's nothing I can tell you that you haven't already been told, so I'll leave it at that.

brt
Apr 26, 2013
Anti is correct. Most opposing positions find agreement somewhere around a center. However, GR has been tested the most with no significant margin of error, ergo...


except for Dark Matter... until we find particle candidates anyway.

Apr 26, 2013
Troubling Solar System: Dennis Sciama wrote a small but very useful book: The Physical Foundations of General Relativity in 1969. In the preface he says: Isaac Newton's laws of motion are logically incomplete and that situation leads us, step by step, to full complexity of Albert Einstein's General Relativity. However, it must be noted that Prof. Frank Wilczek (the present 62-year old American leader of theoretical physics and a Nobel Laureate) had lot of trouble in learning "classical" mechanics about 45 years ago – when he was in school / college, in Physics Today, October 2004. My research in physics education shows that the "logical" incompleteness of Newton's laws has not been fully understood as yet and so i) still there are some global and chronic problems in learning a very basic topic – that is circular motion and ii) that is why physics is not adequately popular in society – as indicated by the events to popularize physics in the Einstein Year: 2005. So, I hope, although "ex

Apr 26, 2013
GR is by David Hilbert, not by Albert Einstein. Not many know that also Newton's gravity theory predicts correctly the deflection of sun light during a solar eclipse. Einstein was mistaken about Soldner's Newtonean calculation of the deflection angle (misused a factor 2, in his favour). Einstein was the biggest plagiarist and academic fraud (by misinterpretation of the scientific results of other scientists) in the history of science. So many good experiments were performed that show results in total disagreement with Hilbert's GR, it is a scam.

Apr 26, 2013
Anti is correct. Most opposing positions find agreement somewhere around a center. However, GR has been tested the most with no significant margin of error, ergo...


except for Dark Matter... until we find particle candidates anyway.


That's a true thing ya say, as long as ya remember that Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism worked just as 40 years before the discovery of the electron and proton as they do today some 100 plus years after their discovery.

The good theories always predict the particles to be found. If a theory or model is working ya keep it. If the particle it predicts is found and fits, that's good. If the particle doesn't fit the theory ya modify the theory. So far GR works better than any other. It has worked so well, the best bet is trust in the "dark particle" which is predicted at least until a better general theory is found

Quantum theory lead to the discovery of the fundamental particles, it wasn't the particles leading to the theory.

brt
Apr 26, 2013
yeah, I guess that's true. I may have been intentionally provocative in my statement because I lean towards a modification of gravity for dark matter.

Apr 26, 2013
yeah, I guess that's true. I may have been intentionally provocative in my statement because I lean towards a modification of gravity for dark matter.


MOND and TeVeS are very constructive avenues of inquiring. The science and method of them is generally very good. The only thing in their disfavor is that they have yet to home-in on the consistent applicability across different phenomena. The answer may in deed be found somewhere there. Personally I don't think so, but that is more opinion than a "certain" pronouncement.

Any of the modified gravity theorists can take heart in the fact that the most successful of all models in physics, QM/QT was in the exact same position 80 years ago. (Having to use different formulas/models in applications to particular phenomena)

Apr 26, 2013
QM requires equations of motion to be solved by separation of variables with time as an orthogonal coordinate. GR works at scales where the velocities are a significant fraction of c by utilizing rotations in Minkowski 4-space, so time is not an orthogonal coordinate.

Apr 26, 2013
Any of the modified gravity theorists can take heart in the fact that the most successful of all models in physics, QM/QT was in the exact same position 80 years ago. (Having to use different formulas/models in applications to particular phenomena)


It is STILL in that position! Wake up my boy!


Apr 26, 2013
Any of the modified gravity theorists can take heart in the fact that the most successful of all models in physics, QM/QT was in the exact same position 80 years ago. (Having to use different formulas/models in applications to particular phenomena)


It is STILL in that position! Wake up my boy!



Ya are correct. It is a humbling awaking indeed.

Apr 26, 2013
yeah, I guess that's true. I may have been intentionally provocative in my statement because I lean towards a modification of gravity for dark matter.


It's interesting and may lead to new finds in maths but it's unlikely to replace dark matter, in fact I think it's been shown by observations of some clusters that MOND would still need a dark matter component as well.

More importantly, the large scale density measurements need it and the growth of structure was bottom up (stars first, then small proto-galaxies merging into larger galaxies, clusters and finally super-clusters) whereas it would be the other way round without dark matter and I believe the details of nucleogenesis also require dark matter.

Apr 27, 2013
Anti is correct. Most opposing positions find agreement somewhere around a center. However, GR has been tested the most with no significant margin of error, ergo...


except for Dark Matter... until we find particle candidates anyway.


Dark matter is a based on assumed orbital velocities calculated using Newtonian gravity. Simulations using GR put an upper limit on dark matter, or in some simulations eliminate the need for it at all. Now for the next generation of supercomputers to increase the simulation size.

Apr 27, 2013
Gravity and the other three fundamental forces are all part of the same spectrum. One unified force, waves and eddies in the fabric of space/time. We have different names for each wave and eddie, just as we have names for each cloud, but in the end aren't all clouds just water vapor?

Apr 28, 2013
Gravity and the other three fundamental forces are all part of the same spectrum. One unified force, waves and eddies in the fabric of space/time. We have different names for each wave and eddie, just as we have names for each cloud, but in the end aren't all clouds just water vapor?


A receiver that can detect EM at 100Hz will not detect gravitational waves of the same frequency. Each phenomenon has its own spectrum.

Apr 28, 2013
Dark matter is a based on assumed orbital velocities calculated using Newtonian gravity.


They are based on use of the virial theorem and since the gravitational effects are "weak field", GR and the Newtonian approximation give equivalent results.

Simulations using GR put an upper limit on dark matter, ..


It also sets a lower limit.

or in some simulations eliminate the need for it at all.


Not with GR, only MOND based theories like TeVeS get close but even they still need DM when tested accurately enough.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3932

Apr 29, 2013
Spacetime doesn't exist.
Relativity theory is all wrong.

Antonio Jose Saraiva

Apr 29, 2013
Relativity theory is all wrong.


It fits the experimental results, that makes it right.

Apr 29, 2013
Relativity theory is all wrong.


No, it is not ALL wrong! Only some deductions from it are wrong: Like time-dilation and length contraction.


Apr 29, 2013
Relativity theory is all wrong.


No, it is not ALL wrong! Only some deductions from it are wrong: Like time-dilation and length contraction.


Both of those are observed phenomena, in the Michelson-Morley and Ives-Stilwell experiments respectively for example.

Apr 29, 2013
Relativity theory is all wrong.


No, it is not ALL wrong! Only some deductions from it are wrong: Like time-dilation and length contraction.


Both of those are observed phenomena, in the Michelson-Morley and Ives-Stilwell experiments respectively for example.


Exactly so, and those two experiments point directly to the HOW "deductions from it are wrong" confuse most people. They mix up the place where SR leaves off and GR picks up.

And most people don't realize the magnitude of problems that have been caused when basic science education teaches mechanics in term of "mass" and "forces" rather than the approach both Newton and Einstein used,,, i.e. "inertia", "momentum" and "change in momentum". Real physics, the deep stuff, requires that most people go back and relearn the basics all over again in terms of momentum.

At least for relativistic classical physics. QT is not my area so I am not sure if that is as true there.

Apr 29, 2013
Only some deductions from it are wrong: Like time-dilation and length contraction.
Time dilation was proven for muons in colliders, for example: when they're moving with respect to observer, they're more stable. The time dilation in gravity field is routinely measured with few meters altitude elevation.

Apr 30, 2013
Relativity theory is all wrong.


No, it is not ALL wrong! Only some deductions from it are wrong: Like time-dilation and length contraction.


Both of those are observed phenomena, in the Michelson-Morley and Ives-Stilwell experiments respectively for example.


Incorrectly interpreted:

The time difference given by the Lorentz transformation is NOT simultaneously on the two clocks since they keep exactly the same time. This is easy to prove by deriving this time difference correctly by means of Einstein's clock. This does model the Michelson Morley experiment correctly.

It is also easy to prove from the Lorentz transformation that a rod passing at a speed v MUST become longer owing to its de Broglie wavelength. Length contraction is only valid when the speed of light is NOT the same within all inertial reference frames. This was already proved by Lorentz LOOONG before Einstein postulated his Special Theory of Relativity.

Apr 30, 2013
Only some deductions from it are wrong: Like time-dilation and length contraction.
Time dilation was proven for muons in colliders, for example: when they're moving with respect to observer, they're more stable. The time dilation in gravity field is routinely measured with few meters altitude elevation.


It is NOT time dilation, but the DIFFERENCE IN TIME (ON TWO CLOCKS KEEPING TIME AT EXACTLY THE SAME RATE) at which the same event is observed within two inertial reference-frames moving with a speed v relative to one another. I refer you AGAIN to: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

The "time-dilation" of a muon is correctly derived in this document. Not that a BIGOT like you will read it. This is proved by the fact that I have posted this reference at least 4 times before and you have not yet read it so that you can come back with valid criticisms. All you are able to do is to parrot mainstream dogma!

Apr 30, 2013
It is NOT time dilation, but the DIFFERENCE IN TIME
This is just a semantical game. Of course it's possible to derive the time dilatation with various means (which are mutually equivalent on background) but at the moment, when these results aren't distinguishable experimentally, -


Wrong again! The results ARE distinguishable experimentally and logically! As usual Natello, ValeriaT AKAK does not want facts to confuse his/her prejudices. AGAIN I post that YOU should read, if you can and can follow logic, the following:
http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

then the more consistent and comprehensive theory (Einstein's one) should be preferred.


Einstein's postulates for STR are indeed consistent and comprehensive: It is just a pity that his derivation of "time-dilation", "length-contraction" and his thought experiment to explain non-simultaneity of simultaneous events, all violate his second postulate.


Apr 30, 2013
results ARE distinguishable experimentally and logically!


After then your theory is wrong, because the life-time of muon was measured in colliders repeatedly and it fits the Einstein's theory well.


It also fits my derivation which does not violate Einstein's second postulate as Einstein's derivation does. How can Einstein's concept of "time-dilation" be correct if it violates Einstein's own postulate on which he based his Special Theory of Relativity?

BTW if fast muon decays faster, it just means, that the time runs faster for it from its beginning to end - it's not just "shifted".


WRONG! Why do you refuse to read my correct derivation of the increase in the muon's lifetime? I AGAIN give you the reference: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

And the AWT explains, why is it so.


Oh my God! Again garbage from Cloud Cuckoo Land. There are no electromagnetic aether waves: Therefore light and matter waves do not require an aether!!

Apr 30, 2013
This is inherent property of all theories. It can be demonstrated, every testable theory must be based on mutually inconsistent postulate set.


I believe that in your case this is so since you dwell in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Einstein's two postulates are NOT mutually inconsistent at all. The first postulate gives the reason why the speed of light must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And the second postulate states that this must be so since the first postulate requires that it must be so! Where are they mutually inconsistent?

If the postulates would be consistent, they could be substituted each other and whole the theory would change into tautology. I'm illustrating it with gravitational lensing here in trivial way.


You are using words that you are incapable of understanding and will NEVER understand with your limited brain capacity!


Apr 30, 2013
Do you think, that the gravitational lens are possible in theory, in which the light spreads with constant speed, so we cannot observe any refractive phenomena?


If you knew any physics you would have known that the speed of light slows down within a gravitational field, that is why you get lensing. It is only in STR that the speed of light is constant.

Why do you refuse to read my correct derivation of the increase in the muon's lifetime
How it differs from Einstein's prediction? If it doesn't differ, why I should read about it?


It differs in the same way from Einstein's prediction as Kepler's laws differed from Ptolemy's epicycles: Both gave the same paths for the planets as viewed from earth but one of them is wrong physics.

If it differs, then it violates the experimental confirmations of it - so I shouldn't read about it


You would have made a perfect inquisitor in the time of Galileo. Another demonstration of your narrow-minded bigotry!


Apr 30, 2013
Only some deductions from it are wrong: Like time-dilation and length contraction.


Both of those are observed phenomena, in the Michelson-Morley and Ives-Stilwell experiments respectively for example.


Incorrectly interpreted:

The time difference given by the Lorentz transformation is NOT simultaneously on the two clocks since they keep exactly the same time.


For time dilation, in the Ives-Stilwell experiment, the moving ions demonstrate a frequency shift greater than predicted by classical Doppler. The difference is what we call the time dilation factor. There is no "interpretation" involved, just a simple empirical observation.

For length contraction, see any text book on the MMX. While there is degeneracy with time dilation in the basic version, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment resolved that.

Apr 30, 2013
For time dilation, in the Ives-Stilwell experiment, the moving ions demonstrate a frequency shift greater than predicted by classical Doppler. The difference is what we call the time dilation factor. There is no "interpretation" involved, just a simple empirical observation.


Of course there is an interpretation involved: Your interpretation is that a "moving clock keeps slower time than a stationary clock": Interpretation A. The correct interpretation is that an event occurring within the "moving" IRF is observed within the moving IRF BEFORE it is observed within the "stationary" IRF. The equations for the relativistic Doppler shift remains the same without violating Einstein's first postulate as interpretation A does!

For length contraction, see any text book on the MMX. While there is degeneracy with time dilation in the basic version, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment resolved that.


I know the text books far better than you with your feeble mind can ever know them.

Apr 30, 2013
In order to derive length-contraction the nose and tail coordinates are transformed from the IRF relative to which the rod is moving AS IF the rod is stationary within this reference frame: WHICH it is NOT.

To find out what the rod will be within the IRF relative to which it is moving you MUST transform its nose and tail coordinates from the IRF within which it is stationary into the IRF relative to which it is moving. You then find that the rod is LONGER, and that there is a time difference across it caused by the phase relating to its coherent de Broglie wavelength.

See http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

Or do you also do not want facts to confuse your irrational dogmatic beliefs?

Apr 30, 2013
: Your interpretation is that a "moving clock keeps slower time than a stationary clock": Interpretation A


And it is correct interpretation, because if you rotate the clock hanging on the rope, it will run more slowly than the stationary clock during it and it will remain delayed even after such an experiment - for ever.


Why do you have to rotate the clock to get this result? This can only mean that the clocks you are using are not perfect since their capability of keeping time is controlled by their orientations relative to one another. Are you using grandfather clocks? This can hardly be a relativistic effect!

You're ignoring the deBroglie wave effect here in the same way, like in your naive "all is the wave" interpretation of QM.


Where am I ignoring the de Broglie wave effect? In fact the derivation of length contraction is ignoring the de Broglie wave effect: My length dilation does NOT!


Apr 30, 2013
My length dilation does NOT!
LOL, your "length dilation" even doesn't contain the "Broglie" word...:-)


Why do you refuse to read and check my calculations derived with impeccable mathematics from the Lorentz transformation. I refer you AGAIN to: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

Why are you such a closed-minded bigot who is not willing to even look at any evidence which do not suit your religious beliefs?

Apr 30, 2013
For time dilation, in the Ives-Stilwell experiment, the moving ions demonstrate a frequency shift greater than predicted by classical Doppler. The difference is what we call the time dilation factor. There is no "interpretation" involved, just a simple empirical observation.


Of course there is an interpretation involved: Your interpretation is that a "moving clock keeps slower time than a stationary clock": Interpretation A.


The observation is that the moving ions' spectral line is shifted. You could interpret that with aether theory or SR, but I didn't do either.

The correct interpretation is that an event occurring within the "moving" IRF is observed within the moving IRF BEFORE it is observed within the "stationary" IRF.


There are no measurements of times of events involved in that experiment. There is no comparison of discrete times so 'before' has no meaning in the context. Perhaps you should find out a bit more about the experiment before commenting.

Apr 30, 2013
The observation is that the moving ions' spectral line is shifted. You could interpret that with aether theory


How? Please give the equations.

or SR, but I didn't do either.


Oh my God it is again Natello, ValeriaT, and now "Fleetfood" AKAK! The same shit over and over again.

There are no measurements of times of events involved in that experiment. There is no comparison of discrete times so 'before' has no meaning in the context.


The time relationship that explains this shift is derived from the Lorentz-transformation and the Lorentz transformation for different times is NOT different clocks keeping time at different rates, but different times on different clocks that keep the SAME time-rate. To an idiot it will seem like Einstein's time-dilation but it is NOT.

Apr 30, 2013
@johanfprins

I have taken a brief look at the papers you wrote. Something you said in http://www.cathod...tion.pdf confused me. You wrote,
At that instant in time any point-position within IRF=K, which coincides with a point-position within IRF=K', has the same values for its coordinates within both IRF=K and IRF=K'.


To me, this sounds like you are saying that an object that exists at -3 meters away from the origin in K, also at exists at -3 meters away from the origin in K', when t = t' = 0. Is that what you are saying? If not, what are you saying?

Apr 30, 2013
Please give the equations.


The observed empirical formula is:

f'/f = c/(c+v) * sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

The first term is the classical effect, the second is the time dilation factor.

The time relationship that explains this shift is derived from the Lorentz-transformation


In the Ives-Stilwell experiment, all measurements are made in the lab frame so no transforms are used at all. It is simply an observed result without any theoretical derivation.

and the Lorentz transformation for different times is NOT different clocks keeping time at different rates


Clocks running at different rates in the ratio of the time dilation factor would be an aether-based interpretation.

but different times on different clocks that keep the SAME time-rate.


Clocks running at the same rate with the time dilation factor caused by geometric projection would be the SR interpretation.

To an idiot it will seem like Einstein's time-dilation but it is NOT.


Both match the result.

May 01, 2013
@johanfprins

I have taken a brief look at the papers you wrote.


Thank you: This is the only way in which one must discuss physics!

To me, this sounds like you are saying that an object that exists at -3 meters away from the origin in K, also at exists at -3 meters away from the origin in K', when t = t' = 0. Is that what you are saying? If not, what are you saying?


Yes that is what I am saying: of the instantaneous position of any object. These coordinates are determined by the Galilean transformation.

For example, after a time t has elapsed in K the distance between the origins is D=v*t. If the time that elapsed on the clock in K/ is t/, the distance between the origins is D=v*t/, and since this distance is a SINGLE distance one MUST have that v*t/=v*t: i.e. that t/=t. Thus the clocks MUST keep the same time.

If, however, at this instant t/=t an event occurs at (say) the origin of K/, this event is observed at a a LATER time t(e)=(gamma)*t within K.

May 01, 2013
If, however, at this instant t/=t an event occurs at (say) the origin of K/, this event is observed at a a LATER time t(e)=(gamma)*t within K.


This is so since the information that an event has occurred at the origin of K/ cannot reach the origin of K at a speed faster than light-speed.

In fact, if the origin of K/ moves towards the origin of K (not away from it) and an event occurs at the origin of K/ at the same synchronous time on both clocks, the time at which the event is recorded within K is BEFORE the clocks reach the time t. This sounds like a breach of causality, but it is not since the event will not be recorded within K unless it occurs within K/.

I have gone great pains in my manuscripts to prove this by direct derivations from the Lorentz transformation.


May 01, 2013
Please give the equations.


The observed empirical formula is:

f'/f = c/(c+v) * sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

The first term is the classical effect, the second is the time dilation factor.


The second term is NOT caused by two clocks keeping time at different rates but by a difference in time on both clocks which keep the same time-rate. If the two clocks did keep time at different rates, it will violate both postulates on which Einstein based his Special Theory of Relativity.

Clocks running at the same rate with the time dilation factor caused by geometric projection would be the SR interpretation.


What do you mean by geometric projection? Stop posting nonsense and first read my manuscripts if you can understand mathematics. An PLEASE if you want to use aether, derive and post the mathematical formulas to prove that this non-theory works!


May 01, 2013
If the two clocks did keep time at different rates, it will violate both postulates on which Einstein based his Special Theory of Relativity
It's easy to say, but why?

May 01, 2013
If the two clocks did keep time at different rates, it will violate both postulates on which Einstein based his Special Theory of Relativity
It's easy to say, but why?


Einstein's first postulate: The laws of physics are the SAME within ALL inertial reference frames.

If two clocks within two different inertial reference frames do not keep the same time, the laws of physics cannot be the same within the two inertial reference frames. The mechanisms of the clocks are determined by the laws of physics. So if the two clocks are identical, how can they keep different times if the laws of physics are not different within the two inertial reference frames?

It is so simple that any idiot, except YOU of course, should be able to understand the logic!

May 01, 2013
Einstein's first postulate: The laws of physics are the SAME within ALL inertial reference frames.
Well, this is the actual source of your problem with contemporary physics: you even don't know the special relativity - yet you're determined to correct it. The first postulate of special relativity actually sounds:
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other
BTW You've been reported for usage of rude language.

May 01, 2013
Einstein's first postulate: The laws of physics are the SAME within ALL inertial reference frames.


Well, this is the actual source of your problem with contemporary physics: you even don't know the special relativity - yet you're determined to correct it. The first postulate of special relativity actually sounds: The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other

BTW You've been reported for usage of rude language.


The consequences of the two statements are exactly the same as can be verified by reading different text books on physics; and not just depending on WIKI like you are doing. May I again suggest that you at least take a simple course on elementary physics and read more than WIKI?. Quite clearly you do not even understand the physics which is nowadays being taught in secondary schools.

May 01, 2013
Please give the equations.


The observed empirical formula is:

f'/f = c/(c+v) * sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

The first term is the classical effect, the second is the time dilation factor.


The second term is NOT caused by ...


I emphasized that the above relationship is empirical, it presumes no specific cause. You asked for the equation and that's what I gave you.

Clocks running at the same rate with the time dilation factor caused by geometric projection would be the SR interpretation.


What do you mean by geometric projection? Stop posting nonsense ..


That is the standard SR explanation for time dilation. If you don't even recognise it, perhaps you should read a textbook on the subject.

An PLEASE if you want to use aether, ...


I have only a historical interest in obsolete aether theories but you contrasted two explanations, one was that based on an aether and the other was that from SR, hence the second and third parts in my reply.

May 01, 2013

Einstein's first postulate: The laws of physics are the SAME within ALL inertial reference frames.

If two clocks within two different inertial reference frames do not keep the same time, the laws of physics cannot be the same within the two inertial reference frames.


I have to read the papers you submitted before commenting further on them, but I would like to comment on this. You are misinterpreting the first postulate and its consequences in a variety of ways.

This postulate arose from Einstein's thought experiments regarding Maxwell's equations, not as is commonly thought from the Michaelson-Morley experiments. Specifically, Einstein realized that Maxwell's equations yield a set of differential equations whose form would change depending on the inertial reference frame. To elucidate, these equations predict that any oscillating electromagnetic field must travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. [This will be continued in my next comment.]

May 01, 2013
[part 2]
This expression is a function of the constants, magnetic permeability, and electric permittivity. Therefore, the speed that light is measured travelling at directly determines the values that these constants should take, which, in turn, affects what Maxwell's equations should be. Since these are constants, then, they can't depend on anything, including a change of coordinate system. Hence, Einstein postulated that they, and indeed, the differential equations describing the laws of physics must not depend on inertial reference frame.
So, when you read that postulate, you should take it to mean that the differential equations governing physics don't vary. That doesn't, however, mean that we can't measure the same thing differently depending on our IRF.
This brings me to the second place where I think you are confused. You are correct in saying that the same physical situation cannot have two different outcomes (at least in the continuum limit). [To be continued]

May 01, 2013
I emphasized that the above relationship is empirical, it presumes no specific cause.


Nonsense, this result is a direct consequence of the postulates of the Special Theory of Relativity: And the experiment was done to test this. The result was just incorrectly interpreted as a proof of "time-dilation" which does NOT occur! To claim the result has been empirically discovered is another one of your blatant lies!

That is the standard SR explanation for time dilation. If you don't even recognise it, perhaps you should read a textbook on the subject.


No it is NOT! YOU should read some elementary physics!

I have only a historical interest in obsolete aether theories


Another lie since AWT is YOUR mantra.

but you contrasted two explanations, one was that based on an aether and the other was that from SR, hence the second and third parts in my reply.


I most certainly DID NOT! Why would I contrast ANYTHING with an absurd aether which DOES NOT exist?

May 01, 2013
[part 3]
However, two different people can measure same thing and get different results. We see this all the time when cars pass each other on the highway. If I am on a sidewalk, and I see two cars approach and pass each other at 60 mph, each car will measure the other's speed at 120 mph. Therefore, some values depend on the coordinate system. There are, however, values that are invariant of coordinate system. In regular old galilean relativity, this is just Euclidean distance. In that case, no matter how fast Alice and Bob are moving relative to eachother, they will always measure a mile to be the same size. In relativity, because of the first postulate, Euclidean distance is no longer invariant. However, a new measure, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 is invariant, hence that is what guarantees that physics remains consistent. I have more to say but I have to get back to work now...

May 01, 2013
This postulate arose from Einstein's thought experiments regarding Maxwell's equations, not as is commonly thought from the Michaelson-Morley experiments.


I have NOT stated this since ANY FOOL who have read Einstein paper will know that he did NOT quote the MM experiment, although he referred to it in an oblique manner; which unfortunately reflects badly on Einstein's scientific integrity.

Specifically, Einstein realized that Maxwell's equations yield a set of differential equations whose form would change depending on the inertial reference frame. To elucidate, these equations predict that any oscillating electromagnetic field must travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.


Not correct: Einstein argued that according to Galileo's explanation of relativity, the speed of light must be constant or else you will be able to do an experiment within an IRF to determine whether the IRF is moving or not. He extrapolated Galileo's logic to include light speed!

May 01, 2013
Thus to keep laws of physics independent of the motion of the IRF the speed of light must be the same within ALL IRF's.

So, when you read that postulate, you should take it to mean that the differential equations governing physics don't vary. That doesn't, however, mean that we can't measure the same thing differently depending on our IRF.


Where have I stated this? I am NOT a moron! Obviously if you look at the physics happening in an IRF from a passing IRF you will not see the same physics. Why do you think that I do NOT know this?

However, two different people can measure same thing and get different results. We see this all the time when cars pass each other on the highway. If I am on a sidewalk, and I see two cars approach and pass each other at 60 mph, each car will measure the other's speed at 120 mph. Therefore, some values depend on the coordinate system.


WE ALL know this! It does not change one iota what I have claimed above.

May 01, 2013
In relativity, because of the first postulate, Euclidean distance is no longer invariant.


WRONG: Euclidean distance is still instantaneously invariant. If you suddenly stop all motion of the IRF's, the coordinate relationship of distance will be exactly the same as in the Euclidean-Galilean case.

However, a new measure, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 is invariant, hence that is what guarantees that physics remains consistent.


Wrong! It cannot be so since the coordinates x,y,z and ict are NOT linearly independent and NEVER will be linearly independent. Thus, unique "time-space" intervals cannot exist within such a space. There is NO Minkowski-space and NO Lorentz-group of transformations. It is not mathematically allowed!

I have more to say but I have to get back to work now..


I suggest that you read an elementary book on linear algebra and especially concentrate on the linear independence of coordinates.


May 01, 2013
@johanprins: my experience with you from many discussions about particle-wave duality here is, you're refusing some concept (particles), whereas you're introducing another ones (boundary conditions, etc.), which are impossible without re-introduction of particle concept on background - or which are even directly equivalent to it (the boundary condition for flat wave is just the density gradient of vacuum, which represents the particle in AWT). So that - despite I still don't understand your point regarding SR clearly - I'm pretty sure, that after many hours of vigorous discussion we will all again realize, you're describing the same stuff, like Einstein did - just with your own words. The inability of yours to present some experimental falsification of your interpretation of special relativity speaks for itself in this direction. For me it's the simply waste of time, because I do understand your naive flat-world philosophy already - so I can see its limits in advance.

May 01, 2013
@johanprins: my experience with you from many discussions about particle-wave duality here is, you're refusing some concept (particles), whereas you're introducing another ones (boundary conditions, etc.), which are impossible without re-introduction of particle concept on background -


Prove to me mathematically why it is "impossible without introduction of particle concept on background".

(the boundary condition for flat wave is just the density gradient of vacuum, which represents the particle in AWT).


Again prove to me mathematically that this absurd assertion of yours is logically valid!

I'm pretty sure, that after many hours of vigorous discussion we will all again realize, you're describing the same stuff, like Einstein did - just with your own words.


How can you be sure if you refuse to even read my mathematically quantitative arguments that I am NOT deriving the "same stuff" like "time dilation" and "length contraction" as Einstein did!


May 01, 2013
The inability of yours to present some experimental falsification of your interpretation of special relativity speaks for itself in this direction.


How must I falsify something that is correct?

For me it's the simply waste of time, because I do understand your naive flat-world philosophy already - so I can see its limits in advance.


Your "time is valueless"! I wish you would keep it to yourself: Nobody with brains is interested in your ideas. You cannot even see that you are a certifiable moron: How can you judge anybody else's insights. Please go and play with your rubber ducks in your foam bath while your mommy washes you stinking asshole while telling you what a "genius" you are.

May 01, 2013
How must I falsify something that is correct?
You have to present some feasible easy to follow experiment, which will prove your interpretation of Lorentz/Einstein transforms valid and the classical interpretation invalid. The juggling with equations will not impress anybody here, as the people have their own experience with forty years standing development of string theory equations already.
go and play with your rubber ducks in your foam bath while your mommy washes you stinking asshole while telling you what a "genius" you
I'm not a genius. Just because I'm inherently silly, I'm experienced with handling of theories like the black box while looking for their results and experimental predictions. It's surprisingly powerful approach: you can recognize an aged egg without being hen, or even without being able to lay eggs. The details of theories don't bother me, I don't even need to know, how they're built in - I only need to become familiar with their logics and arguments.

May 01, 2013
I emphasized that the above relationship is empirical, it presumes no specific cause.


Nonsense, this result is a direct consequence of the postulates of the Special Theory of Relativity:


The experiment was designed as a test as you say but the fact remains that the result can be obtained from the result empirically and the confirmed formula is independent of your presumptions about the cause.

To claim the result has been empirically discovered is another one of your blatant lies!


I didn't claim it was, but you can run the same experiment today and check that the formula applies REGARDLESS of what explanation you espouse.

That is the standard SR explanation for time dilation. If you don't even recognise it, perhaps you should read a textbook on the subject.


No it is NOT!


Clocks in SR produce ticks at the same interval of proper time irrespective of its velocity and those then project onto the observer's coordinate time axis.

May 01, 2013
I have only a historical interest in obsolete aether theories


Another lie since AWT is YOUR mantra.


Not me, AWT is an acronym used by "Valeria", there is actually no such theory and his comments on it are nonsensical as I regularly point out to him.

but you contrasted two explanations, one was that based on an aether and the other was that from SR, hence the second and third parts in my reply.


I most certainly DID NOT!


Well maybe I misunderstood, here is what you said:

the Lorentz transformation for different times is NOT different clocks keeping time at different rates, but different times on different clocks that keep the SAME time-rate.


Differently moving clocks running at different rates is the aether explanation for the Lorentz transforms while differently moving clocks running at the same rate but with a scaling factor from the projection onto coordinate axes is SR. If not that, what were you contrasting?

May 01, 2013

WRONG: Euclidean distance is still instantaneously invariant. If you suddenly stop all motion of the IRF's, the coordinate relationship of distance will be exactly the same as in the Euclidean-Galilean case.

Yes, if everything suddenly moves at rest with everything else, everything will agree on length, but I don't see how that applies. I have the nagging feeling that you think that because you can look at the evolution of a differential equation as a continuum of distinct "snapshots" that each of those snapshots can be treated as static--that is to say lacking any velocity component.

May 01, 2013
However, a new measure, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 is invariant, ..


Wrong! It cannot be so since the coordinates x,y,z and ict are NOT linearly independent and NEVER will be linearly independent....

I suggest that you read an elementary book on linear algebra and especially concentrate on the linear independence of coordinates.


You are the one who needs to open a textbook, 'thefurlong' is completely correct. The value is called the "invariant interval" for that reason:

http://en.wikiped...ntervals

May 01, 2013
However, a new measure, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 is invariant, ..


Wrong! It cannot be so since the coordinates x,y,z and ict are NOT linearly independent and NEVER will be linearly independent....

I suggest that you read an elementary book on linear algebra and especially concentrate on the linear independence of coordinates.


You are the one who needs to open a textbook, 'thefurlong' is completely correct. The value is called the "invariant interval" for that reason:

http://en.wikiped...ntervals


I'm just chiming in to agree. That why Einstein's SR & GR have been so successful, and the greatest gift to modern physics, Space is relative to the observer. Time is relative to the observer, spacetime is invariant for any and all observers. He leveled the cosmic playing field.

May 01, 2013
I have the nagging feeling that you think that because you can look at the evolution of a differential equation as a continuum of distinct "snapshots" that each of those snapshots can be treated as static--that is to say lacking any velocity component.


Yeah, but... I am getting the nagging feeling you think a series of "snapshots" don't actually represent that velocity component... Call them a series of "experiments", if you will.

May 02, 2013
You have to present some feasible easy to follow experiment, which will prove your interpretation of Lorentz/Einstein transforms valid and the classical interpretation invalid.


I agree: And the only feasible experiment would be to compare two clocks which has moved linearly relative to one another after they have moved a distance apart. The only problem is to bring the two clocks back together again: This involves deceleration and acceleration. That time might change during acceleration and deceleration is possible if Einstein's principle of equivalence is really valid. The flying clocks experiment can thus not test time dilation for Special Relativity without making extra assumptions.

But even without being able to do such an experiment, logic tells you that Einstein's first postulate can ONLY be valid if the two clocks keep exactly the same time.This has also been repeatedly pointed out by other scientists. Nobody with brains can get past this argument EVER!


May 02, 2013
I'm experienced with handling of theories like the black box while looking for their results and experimental predictions.


You are unduly flattering yourself since it is clear that you do not and NEVER has understood the black box approach. It is useful but should be handled with care by somebody who has brains: This excludes YOU!

The details of theories don't bother me, I don't even need to know, how they're built in - I only need to become familiar with their logics and arguments.


A good summary of why you should not attempt to even argue physics. If your model cannot explain the details it is not a model, but like your AWT, nothing else than pie in the sky! Nonsense, claptrap and the hallucinations of a crackpot!

And please accept that you have proved time and again on this forum that you are not able to understand what logic is!


May 02, 2013
The experiment was designed as a test as you say but the fact remains that the result can be obtained from the result empirically and the confirmed formula is independent of your presumptions about the cause.


The formula will not be "empirically" measured if does not have a cause. Do you want to argue that it does not have a cause?

I didn't claim it was, but you can run the same experiment today and check that the formula applies REGARDLESS of what explanation you espouse.


This is the way physics is: Why are you raising this stupid argument as if this is not the case when doing other measurements? You are really confused!

Clocks in SR produce ticks at the same interval of proper time irrespective of its velocity and those then project onto the observer's coordinate time axis.


"Proper" time in SR is the exact same time that is simultaneously kept by ALL clocks in a gravity-free universe, no matter with what speed they are moving relative to one another!

May 02, 2013
I have only a historical interest in obsolete aether theories


Another lie since AWT is YOUR mantra.


Not me, AWT is an acronym used by "Valeria", there is actually no such theory and his comments on it are nonsensical as I regularly point out to him.


Thank God that you are NOT ValeriaT under another name: You nearly fooled me!!

Differently moving clocks running at different rates is the aether explanation for the Lorentz transforms while differently moving clocks running at the same rate but with a scaling factor from the projection onto coordinate axes is SR. If not that, what were you contrasting?


You are a bit more coherent here. I could not follow what you meant by a projection. Obviously it comes from your religious belief in a non-existing Minkowski space. There is NO "proper time" as defined within the Miinkowski paradigm. So there is no projection from this "proper time" onto the coordinate axes of SR. There is only absolute time!


May 02, 2013
The difference in time demanded by the Lorentz transformation comes purely from the fact that the information that an event has occurred at a coordinate position within another inertial "moving" reference frame cannot reach the origin of the "stationary" reference frame faster than the speed of light.

There are no unique space-time distances as Minkowski has claimed, since the coordinates x,y,z,and ict are NOT linearly independent: This means that there are more than one coordinate point which have coordinates 0,0,0,0: To have unique four-dimensional distances ONLY the origin of a four-dimensional space can be 0,0,0,0. This IS NOT SO IN MINKOWSKI SPACE!

May 02, 2013
Yes, if everything suddenly moves at rest with everything else, everything will agree on length, but I don't see how that applies.


It does apply: At any instant in time an event occurs at the same coincident space and time coordinates as determined by the Galilean transformation. An observer at the origin of the "stationary" IRF observes this event at a different position and time since the information that the event occurred cannot reach the observer faster than the speed of light. If the information could have reached him instantaneously, he would would have seen the event as if the Galilean transformation applies.

I have the nagging feeling that you think that because you can look at the evolution of a differential equation as a continuum of distinct "snapshots" that each of those snapshots can be treated as static.


This is what calculus does: You take instantaneous "static snapshots" at times (delta)t apart and let (delta)t go to zero to get the velocity!

May 02, 2013
You are the one who needs to open a textbook, 'thefurlong' is completely correct. The value is called the "invariant interval" for that reason:


An interval within a four-dimensional space can only be invariant when the four coordinates are linearly independent so that just one "position" in that space has the coordinates 0,0,0,0. This is simple first year mathematics.

This means that when x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=0, one MUST have that if x=0, y=0, z=0, and t=0. This expression cannot be zero for any other set of coordinates if invariant distances exist.

This condition for invariant ditances is NOT VALID in Minkowski space since for any point on a spherical wave-front one must have that x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=0, even though in this case x need not be zero, y need not be zero, z need not be zero and t need not be zero; as is demanded that they must be for invariant space-time distances to exist.

May 02, 2013
I'm just chiming in to agree. That why Einstein's SR & GR have been so successful, and the greatest gift to modern physics, Space is relative to the observer. Time is relative to the observer, spacetime is invariant for any and all observers. He leveled the cosmic playing field.


I know that this is the official dogma; but my analyses indicates that it STR and GTR are successful in spite of being wrongly interpreted. Einstein used time-dilation and length contraction to motivate his GTR. But it is easy to show that time dilation and length contraction cannot be derived from the Lorentz transformation. I refer you again to: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf and
http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

So why does Einstein's GTR work if the arguments that Einstein used to justify non-Euclidean coordinates are wrong?

May 02, 2013
I believe that this was fortuitous since the non-Euclidean coordinates are NOT required owing to any relativity effects, but are required since matter consists of waves which distort space-time around them. This distortion is wrongly interpreted as "tunneling tails".

I am at present busy investigating this possibility.

Nonetheless, it does not remove the fact that Einstein used "length contraction" and "time dilation" in STR, to justify his theory of GTR, even though the Lorentz transformation cannot be used to prove that "time-dilation" and "length contraction" are possible; unless Einstein's second postulate is wrong: i.e. unless the speed of light IS NOT the same within all IRF's.


May 02, 2013
The experiment was designed as a test as you say but the fact remains that the result can be obtained from the result empirically and the confirmed formula is independent of your presumptions about the cause.


The formula will not be "empirically" measured if does not have a cause. Do you want to argue that it does not have a cause?


This is the sense in which I am using the term:

http://en.wikiped...tionship

Clocks in SR produce ticks at the same interval of proper time irrespective of its velocity and those then project onto the observer's coordinate time axis.


"Proper" time in SR is the exact same time that is simultaneously kept by ALL clocks in a gravity-free universe, no matter with what speed they are moving relative to one another!


No, proper time is the line integral of tau accumulated along a worldline and applies equally well to accelerated motion and in gravity:

http://en.wikiped...per_time

May 02, 2013
Differently moving clocks running at different rates is the aether explanation for the Lorentz transforms while differently moving clocks running at the same rate but with a scaling factor from the projection onto coordinate axes is SR. If not that, what were you contrasting?


You are a bit more coherent here. I could not follow what you meant by a projection. Obviously it comes from your religious belief in a non-existing Minkowski space. There is NO "proper time" as defined within the Miinkowski paradigm.


As I said in another reply, proper time is defined as the line integral along a path in any metric solution.

So there is no projection from this "proper time" onto the coordinate axes of SR. There is only absolute time!


That maybe the source of the previous confusion, there is no absolute time in SR but it is the fundamental to aether theory.

May 02, 2013
The formula will not be "empirically" measured if does not have a cause. Do you want to argue that it does not have a cause?


This is the sense in which I am using the term:

http://en.wikiped...tionship


Fom your own reference: "Sometimes theoretical explanations for what were initially empirical relationships are found, in which case the relationships are no longer considered empirical."

No, proper time is the line integral of tau accumulated along a worldline and applies equally well to accelerated motion and in gravity:


I know the official dogma better than you can EVER know it. This definition is not physically nor mathematically possible since one cannot define a "world-line" unless the time and position coordinates are linearly independent. This is not the case in Galilean space and also not within Minkowski space. Time is absolute and the same at all positions and within all inertial reference frames at the same instant in time.

May 02, 2013
There are no unique space-time distances as Minkowski has claimed, since the coordinates x,y,z,and ict are NOT linearly independent: This means that there are more than one coordinate point which have coordinates 0,0,0,0: To have unique four-dimensional distances ONLY the origin of a four-dimensional space can be 0,0,0,0. This IS NOT SO IN MINKOWSKI SPACE!


Here's an analog: Place a cocktail stick on a table and place a transparent sheet of graph paper over it. Read off the coordinates of each end as (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), then calculate

s^2 = (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2

Move and rotate the sheet and read off the new values. The new value of s will be the same as the first, obviously it is just the length of the stick calculated using Pythagoras. The origin of the graph may well have moved, it doesn't matter. In SR, the invariant interval is the same thing but in 4 dimensions, it has a single value between events regardless of the origin or rotation of the axes.

May 02, 2013
It can only argued that time is only "not absolute" within the body of a coherent wave since the wave has a phase angle that gives different phase-times along the wave. But time does not change from position to position within space itself!

Thus you can formulate Maxwell's equations as if time is not absolute, but not space-time itself!

May 02, 2013
The formula will not be "empirically" measured if does not have a cause. Do you want to argue that it does not have a cause?


This is the sense in which I am using the term:

http://en.wikiped...tionship


Fom your own reference: "Sometimes theoretical explanations for what were initially empirical relationships are found, in which case the relationships are no longer considered empirical."


First line: "In science, an empirical relationship is one based solely on observation rather than theory."

No, proper time is the line integral of tau accumulated along a worldline and applies equally well to accelerated motion and in gravity:


I know the official dogma better than you can EVER know it.

Apparently you don't.

This definition is not physically nor mathematically possible ..


You opinion is irrelevant, the fact remains that that IS the definition of proper time.

May 02, 2013
Here's an analog: Place a cocktail stick on a table and place a transparent sheet of graph paper over it. Read off the coordinates of each end as (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), then calculate

s^2 = (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2

Move and rotate the sheet and read off the new values. The new value of s will be the same as the first, obviously it is just the length of the stick calculated using Pythagoras. The origin of the graph may well have moved, it doesn't matter.


Although the position of the origin does not matter, one must have an origin from which you measure the coordinates x1, x2, y1 and y2. This requires that the coordinates must be linearly independent: i.e. that s^2=x^2+y^2 can only give s=0 when x=0 and y=0. Only then your expression for s is unique.

This is not the case for the coordinates x, y, z and ict, which supposedly define unique distances within M-space: Since within M-space you can have that s=0 while x,y,z,ict need not be zero. It is just simple mathematics!


May 02, 2013
First line: "In science, an empirical relationship is one based solely on observation rather than theory."


Only a fool will only read the first line and think that this contains the whole definition!

No, proper time is the line integral of tau accumulated along a worldline and applies equally well to accelerated motion and in gravity:


I know the official dogma better than you can EVER know it.


Apparently you don't.


Oh I do! I just do not agree with it since it violates the most basic rules of mathematics.

This definition is not physically nor mathematically possible .


You opinion is irrelevant, the fact remains that that IS the definition of proper time.


"Opinion"? I have proved above that a space-time distance s within M-space can be zero without having that x, y, z, and t must all also be zero. Thus, these coordinates are NOT linearly-independent and can thus not define unique four-dimensional distances and a "proper time".

May 02, 2013
Consider a four-dimensional linear space with coordinates x,y,z,u. The distance of a coordinate point s from the origin at (0,0,0,0) is thus given by:

s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2. If s=0 without x=0, y=0, z=0 and u=0, one will have a coordinate point x,y,z,u which is not the origin, but which is situated at the origin since s=0. This is obviously nonsense.

In the case of Minkowski space any point on a spherical wave-front around the spatial origin x=0, y=0, z=0, is given by the equation:

x^2+y^2+z^2=(ct)^2 which demands that

x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=0 without also demanding that x must be 0, y must be 0, z must be zero AND t must be zero. Thus for such a point on the wave-front you have that the corresponding coordinates within M-space need not be zero for the distance of these coordinates to be zero as measured from the origin (0,0,0,0). Thus, clearly one does not have a unique space-time distance from the origin for all points within M-space. It is thus nonsensical to define a "world-line"

May 02, 2013
First line: "In science, an empirical relationship is one based solely on observation rather than theory."


Only a fool will only read the first line and think that this contains the whole definition!


Only a fool will cherry pick a single part and disregard the main body. If you compared the article as a whole with what I wrote, it should be obvious that my point is that you can perform the experiment, plot the frequency shift versus the velocity and confirm the equation empirically, without recourse to ANY theory. It then becomes a separate question as to whether or not any particular theory is compatible with that equation.

No, proper time is the line integral of tau accumulated along a worldline and applies equally well to accelerated motion and in gravity:


I know the official dogma better than you can EVER know it.


Apparently you don't.


Oh I do!


Then why make yourself look ignorant by deliberately getting it wrong?

May 02, 2013
Place a cocktail stick on a table and place a transparent sheet of graph paper over it. Read off the coordinates of each end as (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), then calculate

s^2 = (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2

Move and rotate the sheet and read off the new values. The new value of s will be the same as the first, obviously it is just the length of the stick calculated using Pythagoras. The origin of the graph may well have moved, it doesn't matter.


Although the position of the origin does not matter, one must have an origin from which you measure the coordinates x1, x2, y1 and y2.


No problem.

This requires that the coordinates must be linearly independent: i.e. that s^2=x^2+y^2 can only give s=0 when x=0 and y=0.


You have lost track, s is not zero. Try an example:

If (x1,y1) = (2,1) and (x2,y2) = (6,4), what is s?

Move the origin by (-2,-1):

If (x1,y1) = (4,2) and (x2,y2) = (8,5), what is s?

Rotate about (4,2):

If (x1,y1) = (4,2) and (x2,y2) = (7,6), what is s?

May 02, 2013
Only a fool will cherry pick a single part and disregard the main body. If you compared the article as a whole with what I wrote, it should be obvious that my point is that you can perform the experiment, plot the frequency shift versus the velocity and confirm the equation empirically, without recourse to ANY theory.


Where have I disputed this. Are YOU really SO stupid? YOU must be ValeriaT.

It then becomes a separate question as to whether or not any particular theory is compatible with that equation.


This is so in ALL physics! So what NEW are you trying to state? Please get brain-transplant!

So why make yourself look ignorant by deliberately getting it wrong?


Where did I get it wrong: Except within your demented mind. Do you not agree that a distance from the origin within a four-dimensional "space" is s=SQRT(x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2) and that s can only be zero when it is the origin. And in M-space you have that s=0 when the coordinates are NOT the origin?

May 02, 2013
This requires that the coordinates must be linearly independent: i.e. that s^2=x^2+y^2 can only give s=0 when x=0 and y=0.


You have lost track, s is not zero. Try an example:

If (x1,y1) = (2,1) and (x2,y2) = (6,4), what is s?

Obviously not in two-dimensional Euclidean space, but that is NOT what we are discussing We are discussing four-dimensional Minkowski space and in this case one does have FOR ANY "SPACE-TIME" POINT ON THE surface of a spherical wave-front surrounding the THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL ORIGIN that s=SQRT(x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2) MUST BE =0, even though the coordinates need NOT be individually ZERO!!

PLEASE buy a brain somewhere: You obviously have NOTHING between your ears!

May 02, 2013
Yeah, but... I am getting the nagging feeling you think a series of "snapshots" don't actually represent that velocity component... Call them a series of "experiments", if you will.


So what? It all just depends on what you use to measure time. You need to be careful that the time told by the device you use doesn't have unambiguous meaning, which is why we use light clocks. I mean, yes, you can look at things as a series of snapshots, but the only way you can do that is by designating a moment for each of those snapshots. That's important if you are going to use that snapshot to calculate a correct velocity value, but this is where we come full circle. You are ultimately using a light clock to measure relative velocity, but the behavior of the light clock depends on the relative velocity at every instant. Therefore, it seems that relative velocity must have a physical component at every instant.

May 02, 2013
You have lost track, s is not zero. Try an example:

If (x1,y1) = (2,1) and (x2,y2) = (6,4), what is s?


Obviously not in two-dimensional Euclidean space, but that is NOT what we are discussing We are discussing four-dimensional Minkowski space and in this case one does have FOR ANY "SPACE-TIME" POINT ON THE surface of a spherical wave-front surrounding the THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL ORIGIN that s=SQRT(x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2) MUST BE =0, even though the coordinates need NOT be individually ZERO!!

PLEASE buy a brain somewhere: You obviously have NOTHING between your ears!


He has a very good brain. This exactly why GR and QT can't be made to blend. Ya are using a very important variable incorrectly, the ict is subtracted in calculating Minkowsky spacetime.

s^2 = x^2 plus y^2 plus z^2 minus ict^2. Pythagoras won't work ya must subtract the time element. It's only way ALL observers will agree with "s". It's not overly difficult, give it a try.

May 02, 2013
Yeah, but... I am getting the nagging feeling you think a series of "snapshots" don't actually represent that velocity component... Call them a series of "experiments", if you will.


So what? It all just depends on what you use to measure time. You need to be careful that the time told by the device you use doesn't have unambiguous meaning, which is why we use light clocks. I mean, yes, you can look at things as a series of snapshots, but the only way you can do that is by designating a moment for each of those snapshots. That's important if you are going to use that snapshot to calculate a correct velocity value, but this is where we come full circle. You are ultimately using a light clock to measure relative velocity, but the behavior of the light clock depends on the relative velocity at every instant. Therefore, it seems that relative velocity must have a physical component at every instant.


Light clocks,,, ya are correct, because "c" is "c" for everyone.

May 02, 2013

At any instant in time an event occurs at the same coincident space and time coordinates as determined by the Galilean transformation.

Only when the laws of physics depend on the IRF.

An observer at the origin of the "stationary" IRF observes this event at a different position and time since the information that the event occurred cannot reach the observer faster than the speed of light.

You need to be careful not to confuse witnessing an event with measuring when it happened. If I fire a gun, a person standing a half a mile a way will hear the shot a split second after it has gone off. That doesn't mean the person won't be able to measure that it happened exactly when I fired it.

You take instantaneous "static snapshots" at times (delta)t apart and let (delta)t go to zero to get the velocity

Well, duh! But you still need to be able to measure time and distance correctly to take the right limit. Those values depend on relative velocity.

May 03, 2013
.. If you compared the article as a whole with what I wrote, it should be obvious that my point is that you can perform the experiment, plot the frequency shift versus the velocity and confirm the equation empirically, without recourse to ANY theory.


Where have I disputed this.


In your previous post where you insisted the formula I gave was derived from theory.

So what NEW are you trying to state?


Nothing, just teaching you some basics.

Do you not agree that a distance from the origin within a four-dimensional "space" is s=SQRT(x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2) and that s can only be zero when it is the origin.


Your error is that the point that is the origin in the first coordinate system is no longer (0,0) after the translation or rotation. The invariant interval is defined between two physically identified points (such as the ends of the cocktail stick) in 2D or between two events in 4D.

May 03, 2013
So what? It all just depends on what you use to measure time. You need to be careful that the time told by the device you use doesn't have unambiguous meaning, which is why we use light clocks.


ValeriaT: You refuse to read my manuscripts and are therefore wasting everybody's time on this forum. I am using a light clock to derive the difference in time correctly. AGAIN I refer you to http://www.cathod...ion.pdf. The correct derivation using a light clock proves that the two clocks keep the same time.

You are ultimately using a light clock to measure relative velocity,
I AM USING A LIGHT CLOCK!!! PLEASE first do your homework before proving time and again that you are a certifiable moron!


May 03, 2013
This requires that the coordinates must be linearly independent: i.e. that s^2=x^2+y^2 can only give s=0 when x=0 and y=0.


You have lost track, s is not zero. Try an example:

If (x1,y1) = (2,1) and (x2,y2) = (6,4), what is s?


Obviously not in two-dimensional Euclidean space, but that is NOT what we are discussing ..


I'm splitting the problem into two parts, it's easy to see your error in 2D and once we agree that part (which should be trivial) then I'll give you an equivalent example in 4D. Go along with the game for a moment and answer the three questions.

We are discussing four-dimensional Minkowski space


Specifically we are discussing the invariant interval in the Minkowski Metric.

FOR ANY "SPACE-TIME" POINT ON THE surface of a spherical wave-front surrounding the THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL ORIGIN that s=SQRT(x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2) MUST BE =0


Only if the wavefront was emitted from the origin and that need not be true when you change frames.

May 03, 2013
He has a very good brain. This exactly why GR and QT can't be made to blend. Ya are using a very important variable incorrectly, the ict is subtracted in calculating Minkowsky spacetime.

s^2 = x^2 plus y^2 plus z^2 minus ict^2


No it is NOT: According to Minkowski space-time s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2: NOT -(ict)^2

Thus you can have many points, other than the origin, for which s=0, even though the coordinates x, y,z, and t need not be zero. In such a four-dimensional space one CANNOT have unique space-time distances as is claimed that one has within MST.

Pythagoras won't work ya must subtract the time element. It's only way ALL observers will agree with "s". It's not overly difficult, give it a try.


Clearly it is not overly difficult for you to post claptrap!

May 03, 2013
We are discussing four-dimensional Minkowski space and in this case one does have FOR ANY "SPACE-TIME" POINT ON THE surface of a spherical wave-front surrounding the THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL ORIGIN that s=SQRT(x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2) MUST BE =0, even though the coordinates need NOT be individually ZERO!!


Let's correct your error (and I'm setting i^2 = -1 and c=1 just to clarify the typing):

s^2 = (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2 + (z2 - z1)^2 - (t2 - t1)^2 = 0

where (x2, y2, z2) is a point on the surface at time t2 and (x1, y1, z1) was the location from which the wavefront was emitted at time t1.

If you changes coordinate systems, all eight values must be transformed, not just the four you list. If (x1, y1, z1) happens to be the origin in your first frame, it may not be after the transform is applied.

May 03, 2013
Light clocks,,, ya are correct, because "c" is "c" for everyone


Correct and it is exactly for this reason why two clocks moving relative to one another must keep exactly the same time BUT why the same event occurs at different absolute times within two inertial reference frames which move relative to one another. PLEASE FOR GOD's sake first study my derivation using a light clock before flouting your massive ignorance further!

May 03, 2013
Thus you can have many points, other than the origin, for which s=0, even though the coordinates x, y,z, and t need not be zero. In such a four-dimensional space one CANNOT have unique space-time distances as is claimed that one has within MST.


There seems to be some confusion here. The value of s is invariant (which is what we were discussing) but it doesn't identify a unique event. In fact s=0 defines the whole set of events which lie on the surface of the future and past light cones.

May 03, 2013
At any instant in time an event occurs at the same coincident space and time coordinates as determined by the Galilean transformation.

Only when the laws of physics depend on the IRF.


Nope! When the event occurs at the instant that the two origins coincide, it occurs instantaneous-simultaneously within BOTH IRF's. Since the origins can be chosen at will it means that if you chose the origins to coincide at any event, this event will be instantaneous-simultaneously occurring within both IRF's.

It is only in the case where the origin is chosen not coincide with the event, which still occurs instantaneous-simultaneously within the two IRF's, that the event is referenced relative to this origin to occur at a different time and a different position than it is still actually and instantaneously occurring within both IRF's

I will be back later today!.


May 03, 2013
You need to be careful not to confuse witnessing an event with measuring when it happened.If I fire a gun, a person standing a half a mile a way will hear the shot a split second after it has gone off. That doesn't mean the person won't be able to measure that it happened exactly when I fired it.


A very good analogy: Let us apply it to STR.

Consider an event where a light switches on within an IRFK/ moving relative to an IRFK with speed v. If one chooses the two origins at the position of the light when it switches on, then it switches on simultaneously within both IRF's. (You are at the position of the gun being fired off within your example). Since one can choose the origins at will, one can in principle choose it at any event so that this event occurs simultaneously at the coincident coordinates of the light within both IRF's; which must thus also happen even when you are not at the position of the light (or gun in your example). Continued below

May 03, 2013
If your origin is not coincident with the moving light when it switches on, you have to determine from the speed of light and the time it reaches you when and where it has been switched on. If the gun is moving away from you the sound will approach you at a speed c-v.

But in STR, the light is approaching you with a speed c so that when you determine the position and time, where the light was switched on, you do NOT get the coincident time and position at which it actually switched on. Your calculation will give you a later time and a further position. This is the relativistic reality that you then experience. And it is astounding that this experience is real within IRFK.

If you could simultaneously have marked the coincident coordinate within IRFK at the time that the light switched on in IRFK/, you can afterwards take a tape measure and measure this position. You will then obviously find that this position IS NOT the longer relativistic distance given by the Lorentz transformation.

May 03, 2013
You take instantaneous "static snapshots" at times (delta)t apart and let (delta)t go to zero to get the velocity


Well, duh! But you still need to be able to measure time and distance correctly to take the right limit. Those values depend on relative velocity.


Correct! That is why you need an origin at which you also choose time to be zero, even in the Galilean case.

I assume that the "duh" occurred when the dummy fell out of your mouth.


May 03, 2013
Where have I disputed this.

In your previous post where you insisted the formula I gave was derived from theory.


You claimed that the formula "empirically" proved time dilation. You cannot claim this unless you can prove by theoretical derivation that this is so; and then the formula is NOT empirical anymore!

So what NEW are you trying to state?


Nothing, just teaching you some basics.


Basics? YOU?!!! LOL!

Your error is that the point that is the origin in the first coordinate system is no longer (0,0) after the translation or rotation.


And YOU want to teach ME basics?

The invariant interval is defined between two physically identified points (such as the ends of the cocktail stick) in 2D or between two events in 4D.


You cannot "identify two different points unless each of these points is referenced to an origin. In MST, points with different coordinates can be situated at a a distance s=0 from the origin.

May 03, 2013
This means that there are different four-dimensional coordinate points which are not separated by invariant intervals!!

May 03, 2013

Nope! When the event occurs at the instant that the two origins coincide, it occurs instantaneous-simultaneously within BOTH IRF's.


If the event occurs at both origins, then yes, but you can't assume that it occurs at the same time for points at other places. We can see this directly from the Lorentz Transformation. t' = gamma*(t- vx/c^2), where gamma's the lorentz factor.

It is only in the case where the origin is chosen not coincide with the event [...] that the event is referenced relative to this origin to occur at a different time and a different position than it is still actually and instantaneously occurring within both IRF's

Physics doesn't care which origins you use. You and I are only guaranteed to agree when and where the event happens when you, I, and it all occupy the same position simultaneously. We only use the origin because it allows for simpler calculations. We can use non-zero positions if we want to.

May 03, 2013
So

Yeah, but... I am getting the nagging feeling you think a series of "snapshots" don't actually represent that velocity component... Call them a series of "experiments", if you will.


So what? It all just depends on what you use to measure time. You need to be careful that the time told by the device you use doesn't have unambiguous meaning, which is why we use light clocks.

What do you mean by "unambiguous meaning"?
If you set 2 clocks (light clocks or Seiko's - I don't care) for the same time, send them in two different directions at different velocities keeping one on your desk for reference, won't they all at any given simultaneous moment still be set to the same time? We just can't measure that because of the boundary of c (limiting our ability to make that observation), right? It's not the clocks that have changed, it's just our measurements of them. So, assuming that time has no variance, time dilation is just our way of describing what it LOOKS like...

May 03, 2013
I'm splitting the problem into two parts, it's easy to see your error in 2D

There is no error in 2D since you only use space coordinates.

and once we agree that part (which should be trivial) then I'll give you an equivalent example in 4D.

The example can ONLY be equivalent if the fourth coordinate is also a space-coordinate NOT when it is a complex time-coordinate.

Go along with the game for a moment and answer the three questions.
Specifically we are discussing the invariant interval in the Minkowski Metric.

You cannot have an invariant interval between two points without first referencing the two points relative to an origin and then take the difference.

Only if the wavefront was emitted from the origin and that need not be true when you change frames.


A change in the origin CANNOT change non-linear coordinates into linear ones. If the coordinates allow unique distances it should also allow them when the wave-front is emitted from the origin.

May 03, 2013
Let's correct your error (and I'm setting i^2 = -1 and c=1 just to clarify the typing):

s^2 = (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2 + (z2 - z1)^2 - (t2 - t1)^2 = 0

where (x2, y2, z2) is a point on the surface at time t2

Which point on the wave-front? The wave front is a surface and there are an infinite number of points on it at the same time.

and (x1, y1, z1) was the location from which the wavefront was emitted at time t1.


If you changes coordinate systems, all eight values must be transformed,


And this should be the case for any values of x1,y1, and z1: Also when they are all ZERO. You then get that the distance from the origin in Minkowski space-time to the spherical wave-front must be zero for all the points on the wave-front. Thus you cannot have invariant space-time distances between the points on a wave-front.

PLEASE! Take a course in the simple algebra of linear spaces!

I am taking a break. It tires me out to try and explain simple mathematics and physics to you

May 03, 2013

What do you mean by "unambiguous meaning"?

Well, you and I can both agree that if we see a stationary clock, it keeps correct track of the time we experience. Of course, if we both see it as stationary, then we are also at rest with each other.

If you set 2 clocks (light clocks or Seiko's - I don't care) for the same time, send them in two different directions at different velocities keeping one on your desk for reference, won't they all at any given simultaneous moment still be set to the same time?

Why are you assuming they should?

It's not the clocks that have changed, it's just our measurements of them. So, assuming that time has no variance, time dilation is just our way of describing what it LOOKS like...

Well, if the clock measures that amount of time passing, so will your physical body, as long as it is at rest with the clock, so it's more than just how it "looks."

May 03, 2013

Correct! That is why you need an origin at which you also choose time to be zero, even in the Galilean case.

As I said in my last comment, you don't have to use the origin if you don't want to. This seems to be one major source of your incorrect thinking. I can see myself as standing 3 meters from the origin. All that matters is that when you and I occupy the same position, and a balloon pops there too, we both agree that the balloon popped at the same time. This has nothing to do with which position I designate as "0".

I assume that the "duh" occurred when the dummy fell out of your mouth.

For a person who wants his non-mainstream theories to be taken seriously, you certainly make very little effort to encourage it. I mean, how do you think someone like Planck got his theories accepted? Do you think he flipped the bird at his peers and told them to go read basic linear algebra textbooks?

May 03, 2013
You claimed that the formula "empirically" proved time dilation.


Not true, you asked me for the formula and I gave you only what you asked for. I explained identified the terms to give us a common basis for discussion. I made no claim that it was proof of anything.

The invariant interval is defined between two physically identified points (such as the ends of the cocktail stick) in 2D or between two events in 4D.


You cannot "identify two different points unless each of these points is referenced to an origin.


Obviously, they both have values from the same coordinate system, but you still need two to define an interval. Humour me, here is the example again:

If (x1,y1) = (2,1) and (x2,y2) = (6,4), what is s?

Move the origin by (-2,-1):

If (x1,y1) = (4,2) and (x2,y2) = (8,5), what is s?

Rotate about (4,2):

If (x1,y1) = (4,2) and (x2,y2) = (7,6), what is s?

This is trivial mental arithmetic for both of us but will illustrate a key point so please play along.

May 03, 2013
Let's correct your error (and I'm setting i^2 = -1 and c=1 just to clarify the typing):

s^2 = (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2 + (z2 - z1)^2 - (t2 - t1)^2 = 0

where (x2, y2, z2) is a point on the surface at time t2


Which point on the wave-front?


All of them, it is a parametric equation defining a surface, not a point.

and (x1, y1, z1) was the location from which the wavefront was emitted at time t1.

.. the distance from the origin in Minkowski space-time to the spherical wave-front must be zero for all the points on the wave-front.


Correct, that's why any path taken by light is called a "null geodesic".

Thus you cannot have invariant space-time distances between the points on a wave-front.


That is wrong but it will be easier to explain why if you answer my three questions on the cocktail stick example.

May 03, 2013
A change in the origin CANNOT change non-linear coordinates into linear ones.


The question doesn't arise, we are using a simple orthogonal cartesian coordinate scheme in each frame and the translation and rotation I applied in the 2D example are both linear operations.

If the coordinates allow unique distances it should also allow them when the wave-front is emitted from the origin.


The parametric equation (x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 = R^2 defines the set of points (x2,y2) as a circle of radius R about centre (x1,y1), not a unique point. Setting s=0 is the parametric equation defining the light cones in SR. I would be surprised if you weren't aware of that method of defining a surface.

May 03, 2013
It tires me out to try and explain simple mathematics and physics to you.


Part of the problem is that there is a disparity in our understanding of some terms. If you do the simple example, it will highlight that discrepancy and we can resolve it. It will make the conversation easier.

May 03, 2013

A very good analogy

Thank you

If one chooses the two origins at the position of the light when it switches on, then it switches on simultaneously within both IRF's. (You are at the position of the gun being fired off within your example).
Since one can choose the origins at will, one can in principle choose it at any event so that this event occurs simultaneously at the coincident coordinates of the light within both IRF's; which must thus also happen even when you are not at the position of the light (or gun in your example).

I cannot stress enough that this is a major source of your error. We only necessarily agree on the time and position of an event when it happens at 0 distance away from both of us. It has nothing to do with where I have designated the origin any more than if I use feet instead of meters.

May 03, 2013
If your origin is not coincident with the moving light when it switches on, you have to determine from the speed of light and the time it reaches you when and where it has been
switched on.

Only if the origin is not in the same place as me. If you and I designate the origin to be -3 feet away (hence, I am at position x = 3 feet), and the light goes off at x = 3 while I and I occupy the same position, you can, without conviction, say that I experienced it happen at the same time. Otherwise, you have to do measurements, as you said.
I think the error you are making is as follows. C sees A and B are at rest with each other and measures them to be a distance d away from each other. C and A share the same position at what they agree to be time t = t'. C then sees B jump at this time. If you were C, you would believe that A also thinks that B jumps at that time, but that just isn't an assumption you can make. That would only be necessarily true if d = 0 feet.

May 03, 2013
Well, also A, B, and C would agree that B jumped at the same time if they were all moving at the same velocity.

May 03, 2013
There seems to be some confusion here. The value of s is invariant (which is what we were discussing) but it doesn't identify a unique event. In fact s=0 defines the whole set of events which lie on the surface of the future and past light cones.


The value of s cannot be invariant since s can also be zero for coordinates that are NOT the origin.

The diagram for a light cone is done within a single inertial reference frame where the time is exactly the same at all points within this reference frame. It says NOTHING about different times within other inertial reference frames. Since the light cone construction can be done within any of all the possible inertial reference frames, you must have that time must be instantaneously the same within all inertial reference frames. Thus, clocks cannot run at different rates within different inertial reference frames. Thus the light cone violates your arguments.

I am now signing off for the rest of my day here in SA!

May 03, 2013
Well, also A, B, and C would agree that B jumped at the same time if they were all moving at the same velocity.


so, if a, b and c were all moving at different velocities when b jumped, a and c would see it at different times. what's so difficult about that? With time being the invariant, B still jumped. A and C must triangulate WHEN according to their positions which are a result of their velocities.
This is simple Euclidian triangulation that I don't understand why you guys are trying to make so difficult.

May 03, 2013

so, if a, b and c were all moving at different velocities when b jumped, a and c would see it at different times. what's so difficult about that?

Ok, again, we must distinguish between when A, B, and C, witness an event, and when they measure it to occur. The process of measuring is were the fundamental disagreement in physical values is.

With time being the invariant, B still jumped. A and C must triangulate WHEN according to their positions which are a result of their velocities.

Yes, and how are they going to measure the times? The canonical way to do it is to use light clocks, which leads to time dilation and length contraction.

This is simple Euclidian triangulation that I don't understand why you guys are trying to make so difficult.

Understanding special relativity IS difficult. That's why so many people get it wrong.

May 03, 2013
The value of s cannot be invariant since s can also be zero for coordinates that are NOT the origin.

The value of s IS invariant; it doesn't change. It's value is always 0 as long as the spacetime point lies in the light cone. Everyone can always agree that such points are always at s away from the given space-time coordinate, regardless of change of coordinate systems and IRF. What you mean to say is that the point that has space-time "distance" 0 to the origin is no longer unique. This distance is a spatial-temporal one. There is no law of physics or math saying that multiple points can't be 0 light-meters away from the origin.


The diagram for a light cone is done within a single inertial reference frame where the time is exactly the same at all points within this reference frame.

Sure, but if you do any lorentz transformation to switch IRF's, the space-time "distance" between two points will still be the same. Try it.

May 03, 2013
Ok, again, we must distinguish between when A, B, and C, witness an event, and when they measure it to occur. The process of measuring is were the fundamental disagreement in physical values is.

That is BS doubletalk. You measure to WITNESS. Measuring/witnessing an exact(timewise) event allows prediction/forecasting of future events that include only what we are looking at - 3 clocks. PICK something to be your reference point and stick to it.
With time being the invariant, B still jumped. A and C can triangulate WHEN according to their positions which are a result of their velocities.

Yes, and how are they going to measure the times? The canonical way to do it is to use light clocks, which leads to time dilation and length contraction.

Still BS. The light clock is just a triangulation point on another triangulation.
From all our experimentation the one thing that EVERYTHING else visible is in sync with - is time.

May 03, 2013
There seems to be some confusion here. The value of s is invariant (which is what we were discussing) but it doesn't identify a unique event. In fact s=0 defines the whole set of events which lie on the surface of the future and past light cones.


The value of s cannot be invariant since s can also be zero for coordinates that are NOT the origin.


You have a misunderstanding of the meaning of "invariant". If you answer my simple three question example, we can clear that up.

The diagram for a light cone is done within a single inertial reference frame where the time is exactly the same at all points within this reference frame. It says NOTHING about different times within other inertial reference frames.


The cones are defined in a single frame but cover a surface which includes different times but that is just wording, basically we agree. That's not where our disagreement lies.

May 03, 2013
All three (or 4, if you prefer) triangulation points are in motion, otherwise we wouldn't be able to quantify the others. The only way possible to make the next conjecture is to "step outside of time". And once again, we are back to triangulation (guess we could call it quadrilation) in order to observe. Our brains are subject to this "triangulation methodology" until we (and our surrounding universe) evolve - and change...
Which brings us back to - how do you change change? by stopping it, of course.

May 03, 2013
This is simple Euclidian triangulation that I don't understand why you guys are trying to make so difficult.


Because they aren't talking about Euclidean space. That would wrongly assume that space is absolute, and time is absolute.

Euclidean geometry doesn't work for spacetime. In Minkowskian spacetime, space is NOT absolute. time is NOT absolute, spacetime IS absolute. That is relativity reduced to a single sentence.

May 03, 2013

That is BS doubletalk. You measure to WITNESS.

No. I can witness thunder seconds after the lightning, but I would be wrong to think that the thunder occurred after the lightning. In the context of special relativity, even when we correct for this time lag, we still disagree on when the lightning struck if our relative velocity is > 0.
With time being the invariant, B still jumped. A and C can triangulate WHEN according to their positions which are a result of their velocities.


A and C will experience time differently, not just their clocks. Why should they pick one time over another?

Still BS. The light clock is just a triangulation point on another triangulation.
From all our experimentation the one thing that EVERYTHING else visible is in sync with - is time.

No. The whole point of special relativity is to drop the assumption that everyone experiences time and space the same way.

May 03, 2013
The only way possible to make the next conjecture is to "step outside of time".

You are assuming we can "step outside of time." Give me a physical mechanism for how to do that, and I will believe you.
And once again, we are back to triangulation (guess we could call it quadrilation) in order to observe. Our brains are subject to this "triangulation methodology" until we (and our surrounding universe) evolve - and change...
Which brings us back to - how do you change change? by stopping it, of course.

Well yes, we can treat the time we experience as a sequence of snap shots, but each of us will have a different measurement of the relationship between two points and two moments as the time interval goes to 0. If I see the points moving, but you see them stationary, I will always see their distance shrunken by the lorentz factor. Of course, I won't think they've shrunken.

May 03, 2013
Euclidean geometry doesn't work for spacetime.


In SR, it works for any spatial foliation, i.e. a 3D slice perpendicular to any given time axis. Remember in the absence of gravity, there is no curvature.

May 03, 2013
Euclidean geometry doesn't work for spacetime.


In SR, it works for any spatial foliation, i.e. a 3D slice perpendicular to any given time axis. Remember in the absence of gravity, there is no curvature.


Correct, as usual,,, but only within an inertial reference frame. If two observers are in separate reference frames, then Euclid fails, whether or not they are accelerating (or in the presense of a gravitational mass) or not.

We know that Minkowski spacetime was one of the "AH HAH" moments while Einstein was working on Special Relativity. Along with the other big "AH HAH" moment,, "c" is the velocity of all things through spacetime regardless of their relative velocities through space only.

May 03, 2013
Euclidean geometry doesn't work for spacetime.


In SR, it works for any spatial foliation, i.e. a 3D slice perpendicular to any given time axis. Remember in the absence of gravity, there is no curvature.


Correct, as usual,,, but only within an inertial reference frame.


Well I did say "in SR" ;-)

If two observers are in separate reference frames, then Euclid fails, ..


It works for each but of course you cannot mix values from different frames.

We know that Minkowski spacetime was one of the "AH HAH" moments while Einstein was working on Special Relativity.


Wasn't that an Ah-hah moment for Minkowski ;-)

Along with the other big "AH HAH" moment,, "c" is the velocity of all things through spacetime regardless of their relative velocities through space only.


Be VERY careful with that one or you end up turning the "block universe" into a "moving spotlight" interpretation which leads to all sorts of philosophical confusion.

May 03, 2013
We know that Minkowski spacetime was one of the "AH HAH" moments while Einstein was working on Special Relativity.


Wasn't that an Ah-hah moment for Minkowski ;-)


Not for Minkowski, to him Riemann was a god, he wasn't sure it was actually a real thing rather than a fun math,,, but he also had a very poor opinion of Einstein's math abilities.

Along with the other big "AH HAH" moment,, "c" is the velocity of all things through spacetime regardless of their relative velocities through space only.


Be VERY careful with that one or you end up turning the "block universe" into a "moving spotlight" interpretation which leads to all sorts of philosophical confusion.


Well as soon as that happens, I'm leaving the conversation!!!!! (Before I get philosophically confused.) Seriously, it was the "all things move at "c" in spacetime" that finally made it come together for me. And I've kept that approach ever since.

May 03, 2013
The only way possible to make the next conjecture is to "step outside of time".

You are assuming we can "step outside of time." Give me a physical mechanism for how to do that, and I will believe you.

I made no assumption. I made only a statement of possibility (one of many, as you are aware) based on the realities science has accumulated. Ergo, you are word dancing.
As for showing you the mechanism, either;
A. I can't because I don't know it.
B. I won't because you wouldn't understand it and would use it to see what makes it tick, regardless of the unintended consequences.
C. It's not possible.
D. Hey - that's what scientists are for...:-)

May 03, 2013
As for showing you the mechanism, either;


Which to choose?

A. I can't because I don't know it.


Then why suggest it?

B. I won't because you wouldn't understand it and would use it to see what makes it tick, regardless of the unintended consequences.


What?

C. It's not possible.


This is a science site, not a science fantasy site, so insert it to the discussion?

D. Hey - that's what scientists are for...:-)


Then why ya arguing with him then? Ya are telling him that his explanations are wrong, when in fact they are right on point and correct. If ya can't understand what he is saying, that doesn't mean it's wrong, it only means ya don't understand him.

May 03, 2013
Well as soon as that happens, I'm leaving the conversation!!!!! (Before I get philosophically confused.) Seriously, it was the "all things move at "c" in spacetime" that finally made it come together for me. And I've kept that approach ever since.

Well, then. it seems you've picked a single IRF for yourself...

May 03, 2013
Well as soon as that happens, I'm leaving the conversation!!!!! (Before I get philosophically confused.) Seriously, it was the "all things move at "c" in spacetime" that finally made it come together for me. And I've kept that approach ever since.

Well, then. it seems you've picked a single IRF for yourself...


No,,, I've pick the only reference frame that contains any and all observers. Regardless of their separation in space or separation in time. In spacetime there is only a single reference frame. The reference frame where spacetime is absolute. It's not a thought experiment, it's the reality & universe we occupy.

May 03, 2013

Then why ya arguing with him then? Ya are telling him that his explanations are wrong, when in fact they are right on point and correct. If ya can't understand what he is saying, that doesn't mean it's wrong, it only means ya don't understand him.

Who's arguing?
Damn... now I'm pulled into the dance with TWO of you.

May 03, 2013
Who's arguing?


Well, let's see,

Yeah, but... I am getting the nagging feeling you think a series of "snapshots" don't actually represent that velocity component...


He's correct, they only represent that velocity component for one observer. But space and time aren't absolute. That is the beauty of Einstein's relativity. It is absolute.

What do you mean by "unambiguous meaning"?
If you set 2 clocks (light clocks or Seiko's - I don't care) for the same time, send them in two different directions at different velocities keeping one on your desk for reference, won't they all at any given simultaneous moment still be set to the same time?


No they won't. It's been experimentally shown.

With time being the invariant


Time is not invariant, that is the point.

This is simple Euclidian triangulation that I don't understand why you guys are trying to make so difficult.


It is not Euclidean triangulation. It is Riemann - Minkowski geometry.

May 03, 2013
No,,, I've pick the only reference frame that contains any and all observers. Regardless of their separation in space or separation in time. In spacetime there is only a single reference frame. The reference frame where spacetime is absolute. It's not a thought experiment, it's the reality & universe we occupy.

Wait a minute - aren't scientists doing all these observations for the purpose of establishing postulates on further possibilities? What happens IF science discovers space or time or spacetime is not absolute?
Anyway, I don't think we live in an absolute universe. Almost, maybe...
And I think it was you, Q, who said the only possible open system was our universe. (Which I believe absolutely). But maybe that was Anti...

May 03, 2013
Who's arguing?


Who?

That is BS doubletalk. You measure to WITNESS. Measuring/witnessing an exact(timewise) event allows prediction/forecasting of future events that include only what we are looking at - 3 clocks. PICK something to be your reference point and stick to it.


He is sticking with ONE reference point, it's just that ya don't understand it.

Yes, and how are they going to measure the times? The canonical way to do it is to use light clocks, which leads to time dilation and length contraction.

Still BS. The light clock is just a triangulation point on another triangulation.


Not BS, it's very well tested physics.

From all our experimentation the one thing that EVERYTHING else visible is in sync with - is time.


Then YOUR experimentation hasn't been enough. Time has been experimentally been shown to be relative, not absolute.

May 03, 2013
No,,, I've pick the only reference frame that contains any and all observers. Regardless of their separation in space or separation in time. In spacetime there is only a single reference frame. The reference frame where spacetime is absolute. It's not a thought experiment, it's the reality & universe we occupy.

Wait a minute - aren't scientists doing all these observations for the purpose of establishing postulates on further possibilities? What happens IF science discovers space or time or spacetime is not absolute?
Anyway, I don't think we live in an absolute universe. Almost, maybe...
And I think it was you, Q, who said the only possible open system was our universe. (Which I believe absolutely). But maybe that was Anti...


No I said quite the opposite, ya need to pay more attention. I've said many times: "The only possible truly CLOSED system is the Universe entire."

May 03, 2013
No,,, I've pick the only reference frame that contains any and all observers. Regardless of their separation in space or separation in time. In spacetime there is only a single reference frame. The reference frame where spacetime is absolute. It's not a thought experiment, it's the reality & universe we occupy.

Wait a minute - aren't scientists doing all these observations for the purpose of establishing postulates on further possibilities? What happens IF science discovers space or time or spacetime is not absolute?


If it passes the test(s) then I'll except the "new and improved" model of reality. So far Einstein's spacetime, SR & GR are the best tested, most all inclusive of observation, and most applicable to most uses as anything that ever was.

These things have withstood the most rigorous and conclusive testing that has ever been done in the entire history of science,,,, well except maybe QT & the Standard Model of particles

May 03, 2013
Well as soon as that happens, I'm leaving the conversation!!!!! (Before I get philosophically confused.) Seriously, it was the "all things move at "c" in spacetime" that finally made it come together for me. And I've kept that approach ever since.

Well, then. it seems you've picked a single IRF for yourself...


No, he's talking about 4-velocity:

http://en.wikiped...velocity

It's magnitude is independent of the choice of frame.

May 03, 2013

Then YOUR experimentation hasn't been enough. Time has been experimentally been shown to be relative, not absolute.

to what degree of certainty? and relative to what? Space? Thusly making spacetime absolute?
Was spacetime here before our matter universe appeared? If not, what was the absolute BEFORE that? Membranes? Energy strings? What were they made of? so on and so on...
I don't deny science - it gives me answers to questions.
Don't deride those that question - they give you guys something to do...
Einstein said - imagination is more important than knowledge. You saying he was wrong?

May 03, 2013
If it passes the test(s) then I'll except the "new and improved" model of reality. So far Einstein's spacetime, SR & GR are the best tested, most all inclusive of observation, and most applicable to most uses as anything that ever was.

These things have withstood the most rigorous and conclusive testing that has ever been done in the entire history of science,,,, well except maybe QT & the Standard Model of particles

I accept that...:-)

May 03, 2013

I made no assumption. I made only a statement of possibility (one of many, as you are aware) based on the realities science has accumulated. Ergo, you are word dancing.

You said
The only way possible to make the next conjecture is to "step outside of time".

It is reasonable to interpret that as you assuming. Well, if you aren't assuming it, you aren't actually arguing anything.

May 03, 2013
to what degree of certainty? and relative to what? Space? Thusly making spacetime absolute?


To the degree of certainty our technology allows. As the technology has improved the level of certainty has only gone up.

Was spacetime here before our matter universe appeared?


Don't know. But THIS the universe that IS.

If not, what was the absolute BEFORE that? Membranes? Energy strings? What were they made of? so on and so on...


Fun to ponder, but it is still not subject to falsification. It's not science until ya can test it. Why waste time formulating unanswerable questions while there are plenty of questions that can be answered still begging our attention.

Einstein said - imagination is more important than knowledge. You saying he was wrong?


Yeah, I suppose I'm saying he was wrong, if he said that, not knowing the context. Like all great scientists, bar none, Einstein could be wrong, & was wrong about somethings.


May 03, 2013

As for showing you the mechanism, either;
A. I can't because I don't know it.
B. I won't because you wouldn't understand it and would use it to see what makes it tick, regardless of the unintended consequences.
C. It's not possible.
D. Hey - that's what scientists are for...:-)

A. I won't argue with that.
B. In other words, "I don't know what I am talking about so I am going to save face by coyly suggesting the possibility I am a masterful genius secretly constructing his scientific opus, all while being mercilessly shunned by my peers in the scientific community."
C. If modern physics has anything to say about it, yes.
D. Well, I am a scientist, how about you? You don't actually need a science degree to do science (though acquiring one usually helps).

May 03, 2013

I made no assumption. I made only a statement of possibility (one of many, as you are aware) based on the realities science has accumulated. Ergo, you are word dancing.

You said
The only way possible to make the next conjecture is to "step outside of time".

It is reasonable to interpret that as you assuming. Well, if you aren't assuming it, you aren't actually arguing anything.

correct - I was postulating. Neither were you, were ya? Meaning - we have nothing to argue about - time for a cocktail :-)

May 03, 2013

Then why ya arguing with him then? Ya are telling him that his explanations are wrong, when in fact they are right on point and correct. If ya can't understand what he is saying, that doesn't mean it's wrong, it only means ya don't understand him.

Yeah, what a total cop-out! It's like he/she said "My opinions are so strong that I must tell you how wrong you are, but please don't get me to defend them because I am not qualified to form those opinions."

May 03, 2013

correct - I was postulating. Neither were you, were ya? Meaning - we have nothing to argue about - time for a cocktail :-)

Neither was I what? Making the claim everyone experiences time and space differently? I most certainly was, and I'll keep making it regardless of the fact that I don't yet have a PhD. That's the beauty of science. It doesn't care who you are.

May 03, 2013
A. I won't argue with that.
B. In other words, "I don't know what I am talking about so I am going to save face by coyly suggesting the possibility I am a masterful genius secretly constructing his scientific opus, all while being mercilessly shunned by my peers in the scientific community."
C. If modern physics has anything to say about it, yes.
D. Well, I am a scientist, how about you? You don't actually need a science degree to do science (though acquiring one usually helps).

Not a scientist. Artist.
Let's find some common ground. Beauty in science, beauty in art. Both complement eachother, like stairs.
You guys have trained yourselves to see the next step, I'm trained to wonder about the step after that.
And, after all, don't we all come here as diversion from what we do to pay the rent?
Just as an aside, 25 years in computer field before I took on Art.

May 03, 2013
Neither was I what?

Arguing.
Making the claim everyone experiences time and space differently? I most certainly was, and I'll keep making it regardless of the fact that I don't yet have a PhD.

I agree with that claim, we do.
I don't care if you have 3 PhD's or a GED. I come to this site to let my head roam. Why do you come here? Same reason, I suspect.

So... lighten up, Francis...:-)

May 03, 2013

Not a scientist. Artist.
Let's find some common ground. Beauty in science, beauty in art. Both complement eachother, like stairs.
You guys have trained yourselves to see the next step, I'm trained to wonder about the step after that.
And, after all, don't we all come here as diversion from what we do to pay the rent?
Just as an aside, 25 years in computer field before I took on Art.

Telling someone that his explanation is BS is arguing.
I consider myself both an artist (I'd to think I'm pretty good at drawing) and a scientist, and I currently work as a software engineer. I guess I just don't see the endeavors I am qualified for as having any boundaries.

May 03, 2013
Neither was I what?

Arguing.
Making the claim everyone experiences time and space differently? I most certainly was, and I'll keep making it regardless of the fact that I don't yet have a PhD.

I agree with that claim, we do.
I don't care if you have 3 PhD's or a GED. I come to this site to let my head roam. Why do you come here? Same reason, I suspect.

It would be easier to do that if you didn't spend the last few comments telling me that my arguments were BS, then acting as if you weren't contesting what I was saying once I called you out on it. That may not have been your intention, but it certainly seems like it was.

May 03, 2013
Neither was I what?

Arguing.
Making the claim everyone experiences time and space differently? I most certainly was, and I'll keep making it regardless of the fact that I don't yet have a PhD.

I agree with that claim, we do.
I don't care if you have 3 PhD's or a GED. I come to this site to let my head roam. Why do you come here? Same reason, I suspect.

It would be easier to do that if you didn't spend the last few comments telling me that my arguments were BS, then acting as if you weren't contesting what I was saying once I called you out on it. That may not have been your intention, but it certainly seems like it was.

Which all kinda wraps back around to the concept of IRF...:-)

May 04, 2013
Time has been experimentally been shown to be relative, not absolute.


to what degree of certainty? and relative to what? Space? Thusly making spacetime absolute?


Think of spacetime as a flat salt lake. Your future is everything generally north of your present location, to be exact everything between north-west and north-east.

Your past is everything generally south of your present location, everything between south-west and south-east.

The regions to the east and west of you are "elsewhere" and can be "now" depending on your motion.

In this analogy, inertial motion means the track you leave on the salt will be a straight line while acceleration makes it curved. A clock you carry with you works like an odometer, your personal ("proper") time is a measure of the length of the track.

Einstein said - imagination is more important than knowledge. You saying he was wrong?


It is important when solving new problems. Once the solution is found, we move on.

May 04, 2013
(Contd.)

Time has been experimentally been shown to be relative, not absolute.


... and relative to what? Space?


A clock you carry with you works like an odometer, your personal ("proper") time is a measure of the length of the track.


You need a method to measure the time between events that do not lie on your track which in general may be curved. First at the point you are considering "now", draw the tangent to your track, that is the "time axis" of your coordinate system. Then draw a line tpassing through the remote point in question and perpendicular to that time axis. Where the perpendicular crosses the axis defines the "time at which the event happened".

You ask "relative to what". You should now see that if you accelerate (a curve in your track) then the tangent to the track will be turned to a new direction. Projecting the remote event onto that new line via a perpendicular will cross it at a different point, hence give a new time coordinate.

May 04, 2013
We know that Minkowski spacetime was one of the "AH HAH" moments while Einstein was working on Special Relativity.


Wasn't that an Ah-hah moment for Minkowski ;-)


Not for Minkowski, to him Riemann was a god, he wasn't sure it was actually a real thing rather than a fun math,,, but he also had a very poor opinion of Einstein's math abilities.


I just had a look at the biography of Minkowski on Wikipedia:

"Minkowski is perhaps best known for his work in relativity, in which he showed in 1907 that his former student Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity (1905), presented algebraically by Einstein, could also be understood geometrically as a theory of four-dimensional space-time. Einstein himself at first viewed Minkowski's treatment as a mere mathematical trick, before eventually realizing that a geometrical view of space-time would be necessary in order to complete his own later work in general relativity (1915)."

May 04, 2013
This is how the AWT models the clock slowing stuff (http://www.aether...ns.htm). The clocks (laser resonators) are modeled with laser resonators, where the light is bouncing back and forth. It's evident, the speed of clock is not just delayed -


Light within a laser resonator is a STATIONARY wave as can be easily obtained from Maxwell's equations. That is why the laser cavity has to have a certain size and geometry. As usual your insight into physics is infantile; just like your AWT hallucinations of ducks paddling in the aether!

May 04, 2013
There seems to be some confusion here. The value of s is invariant (which is what we were discussing) but it doesn't identify a unique event. In fact s=0 defines the whole set of events which lie on the surface of the future and past light cones.


Whoa!! If your coordinates are (x,y,z,t), what do they signify unless one can describe them as an instantaneous "event" occurring at time t at position x,y,z? Two sets of coordinates (x1,y1,z1,t1) and (X2,y2,z2,t2) can only be interpreted as two "events" occurring at two different positions (x1,y1.z1) and (x2,y2,z2) at two different times t1 and t2. Or do you have a different term that does not need the term "event"? I would like to hear if you have this, since this will give a different direction to this discussion!

You people have posted so much nonsense since I last visited this thread that it will take a lot of time to rectify it. I also have other issues to attend to, I will return when I can to rectify your misconceptions.

May 04, 2013
@JohanPrins: You still didn't answered the question for me, what will happen with local time of photon, if the time of body in motion is delayed instead of slowed in your numerology. How much it will remain delayed?
Light within a laser resonator is a STATIONARY wave
How it can be stationary, when the laser is in motion?

May 04, 2013
@JohanPrins: You still didn't answered the question for me, what will happen with local time of photon, if the time of body in motion is delayed instead of slowed in your numerology. How much it will remain delayed?


There is no local time for a photon since a photon cannot be stationary within an inertial reference frame. And no clock can move with the speed c.

Light within a laser resonator is a STATIONARY wave


How it can be stationary, when the laser is in motion?


Relative to the moving cavity the light wave is stationary: In addition the cavity is stationary within the IRF moving along with it! All motion IS RELATIVE! In fact ALL bodies which we observe moving with any velocity with magnitude less than light speed are not really moving since they are ALL stationary within their own inertial reference frames.

There are more important posts on this thread that I need to respond to: So please stop posting your usual nonsense.

May 04, 2013
You can replace the photon with electron moving with 0.9999c, it doesn't change the principle. You're claiming, the time at this electron will be delayed with respect to stationary observer instead slowed/dilated according to standard interpretation of special relativity. Well, let say it's 10:00 A.M. and I will shot the electron with speed 0.999999c. How much such delay of local time of electron will be at the moment of start?
So please stop posting your usual nonsense.
I see, famous crackpot whining and writing ignored books about arrogance of mainstream science doesn't behave any better... ;-) You're just trying to cover the fact, that your theory is logical nonsense - exactly in the way, which the mainstream physicists do behave with respect to you. I'd say, you deserve their hostility in full extent.

May 04, 2013
If the event occurs at both origins, then yes, but you can't assume that it occurs at the same time for points at other places. We can see this directly from the Lorentz Transformation. t' = gamma*(t- vx/c^2), where gamma's the lorentz factor.


I so wish that you will read section 3 of http://www.cathod...tion.pdf before shooting your mouth off. In that section I consider three synchronized clocks spaced a distance L/ apart passing by an observer with his own clock. When the middle clock coincides with the observer's clock, simultaneous events occur at all three passing clocks. Thus the event at the middle clock occurs at the coincident position and coincident time t=t/=0. According to the observer, the simultaneous event on the clock which has already passed him occurs at a distance L=(gam)*L/ from him at the time t=(v/c^2)*(gam)*L/. Which IS NOT your time dilation formula.

May 04, 2013
According to the event at the clock approaching him also occurs a distance L=(gam)*L/ away from him but at a time t=MINUS(v/c^2)*(gam)*L. Thus according to the observer this event has already occurred before the event occurs which is coincident with the observer.

According to the interpretation of time dilation, the clock approaching him must keep time faster within the moving IRF, while the clock that moves away from him must keep time slower within the moving IRF. But if this were to be the case, the three events cannot EVER be simultaneous within the IRF within which the three clocks are stationary: Which we know is absurd since the derivation was started by assuming that the three events do occur simultaneously within the reference frame within which the three clocks are stationary.

Thus the only logical interpretation is that according to the observer and his clock, both the distances and times are different when the events do not coincide with him.

May 04, 2013
According to the interpretation of time dilation, the clock approaching him must keep time faster within the moving IRF, while the clock that moves away from him must keep time slower within the moving IRF
This is complete and utter nonsense. The time dilatation in special relativity is proportional only to the relative speed of object with respect to its observer (and the time, which resides in its motion). The direction of motion has no role in it. For example the time dilatation of twin traveling into distant cosmic space will not reverse, when this twin will return back to Earth. How the hell did you come into it? You should visit the school again.

May 04, 2013
Now consider three observers with three synchonized clocks so that each observer coincides with one of the passing clocks when the events occur simultaneously at then positions of the passing clocks at t=t/=0.

The event at each clock occurs instantaneously simultaneously relative to the observer with which it coincides. But each observer will observe the events at the clocks which do not coincide with him at different distances and times on his clock. However after the events have occurred, the three observers can compare their clocks and all three will have to agree that there readings demand that all three events also occurred simultaneously at the coincident positions of the clocks within the IRF of the observers.

According to the readings on the clocks, all three events must have occurred instantaneously-simultaneously at the coincident positions of the three clocks within both inertial reference frames.

May 04, 2013
They will have to conclude that the only reason why each of them could not see that these events did actually occur simultaneous at coincident positions within their inertial reference frame, must be since a single person cannot be simultaneously present at three different positions: This has thus NOTHING to do with clocks keeping different time-rates.

But if three different persons with synchronized clocks are present at these coincident positions, they can afterwards verify that the events also occurred simultaneously within their own IRF by comparing the readings on their clocks!

May 04, 2013
Physics doesn't care which origins you use. You and I are only guaranteed to agree when and where the event happens when you, I, and it all occupy the same position simultaneously. We only use the origin because it allows for simpler calculations. We can use non-zero positions if we want to.


As I have just proved above that, in the case of Special Relativity, the choice of origin does matter very much indeed. It is exactly for this reason why Minkowki's space time is not physically tenable: In fact MST is nothing else than absurd nonsense. As a mathematics professor MInkowski should have known better. No wonder Einstein bunked his lectures. It is just a pity that Einstein later relented and incorporated MST into his theory of gravity.

Please read

http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

before keeping on making an idiot of yourself!

May 04, 2013
Look, you can always feel like the winner, if you will correct your nonsensical ideas about special relativity. Because you don't understand, what the special relativity actually predicts, you cannot never recognize, how your extrapolations differs from standard special relativity (if at all). Your babbling about abstract clocks therefore has no meaning to analyze here. Just at the moment, when you explicitly say, what the standard relativity predicts I can correct you, because I do know well, what this theory predicts and what it doesn't not. The rest of your posts is confused twaddling of senile oldie, who just decided to reinvent the wheel in his old age.

May 04, 2013
In fact MST is nothing else than absurd nonsense
It leads to the predictions, which are routinely verified with different speed of clocks inside of gravity wells (Pound-Repka experiments and later). The sensitivity of contemporary atomic clock enables to validate the predictions of space-time concept at few decimeter scale already. The concept of space-time has a very good meaning even in dense aether model, as it represents the density gradient of space-time, where we are living in. If you get toward massive body, the vacuum is more dense, the energy is spreading more slowly there and the clock exhibit the time dilation. Therefore I've absolutely no problem with the Minkovski interpretation of space-time. It's one of the best achievements of theoretical physics of the last century, despite it has its limits at wider space-time scale, where the higher dimensions of space-time manifest itself. But this is well outside of your level of "flat-land" comprehension.

May 04, 2013
@ ValeriaT: As usual you are too stupid to understand physics and mathematics and to follow logic. Furthermore you refuse to read anything that could prove how demented you really are. I just wish that you will realize that your mental development is only that of a baby who plays with plastic ducks while sitting in a foam bath.

May 04, 2013
Furthermore you refuse to read anything that could prove how demented you really are.
At the moment, when you for example say that special relativity predicts the time dilatation dependent on the direction of motion, then I'm not required to read you anymore, because it's simply not true. I'm not required to become a broody hen laying eggs for being able to recognize an aged egg. When this egg smells roted at one apparent place of it, then it cannot remain healthy in every piece of (sh)it - and I'm not required to bother with technology of laying eggs anymore.
are too stupid to understand physics and mathematics and to follow logic
When one assumption in the chain of logical deductions is wrong, the the whole rest of deductions is probably wrong (until you indeed make another mistake, which would compensate it - which I don't really expect in your case). Can you understand it? Probably not - but this is again not my problem.

May 04, 2013
When one assumption in the chain of logical deductions is wrong, the the whole rest of deductions is probably wrong (until you indeed make another mistake, which would compensate it - which I don't really expect in your case).


You have proved over-and-over that you are far too stupid to judge any assumption and also far to stupid to reason step-by-step logic.

Can you understand it? Probably not - but this is again not my problem.


Then why do you not stay out of it? Your biggest problem is to get a brain implant since there is no grey matter whatsoever between your dirty ears!

May 04, 2013
I only now noted this gem of stupidity:
At the moment, when you for example say that special relativity predicts the time dilatation dependent on the direction of motion, then I'm not required to read you anymore, because it's simply not true.


Firstly I did NOT claim any time dilation since there is NONE. Secondly the times I quoted I have derived correctly from the Lorentz-transformation. So if they are wrong, so must be the Lorentz transformation. So if what can be impeccably derived from the Lorentz trasformation " is not true" what transformation equations must I use? Oh, sorry I forgot you do not believe in mathematics at all! Probably because you are too stupid to understand it!


May 04, 2013
I did NOT claim any time dilation since there is NONE
I said, you wrote it about "interpretation of time dilation (by official relativity)". Sorry, what the special relativity officially predicts is not defined with you, but with textbooks and you simply cannot change it. You can propose alternative theory instead.
I have derived correctly from the Lorentz-transformation
In this animation the accelerated object not only runs time slower, but it even runs it slowly in just the way, which provides that the speed of light within of object's reference frame remains constant (actually invariant) - as special relativity requires. If the time wouldn't slow down for muon in its own reference frame, then this requirement couldn't be maintained anymore. As you can see, the time dilatation for moving objects is therefore the direct consequence of special relativity. You therefore cannot derive something different.

May 04, 2013
I forgot you do not believe in mathematics at all
I do believe in mathematics of physical theories only when it doesn't violate its own postulates and axioms. In this particular case it's just your derivation, which violates such an logics - not Einstein's one - because from the logics of the above animation clearly follows, that the time dilatation for object in motion must occur, or the speed of light couldn't remain invariant anymore (which is the postulate of Einstein's theory). If your theory says otherwise, then sorry - it MUST be wrong, no matter how exactly did you actually derive it.

BTW You openly have contempt for my illustrative analogies and drawings - but if you would draw such an animation for yourself, you would clearly realize, that the result of Lorentz transform cannot be any different - no matter how large pile of math you can write about it.

May 04, 2013
I did NOT claim any time dilation since there is NONE
I said, you wrote it about "interpretation of time dilation (by


I have NOT claimed that I am defining what it means. Its meaning is determined by the Lorentz transformation and my results are mathematically-correctly deduced from these equations.

but with textbooks and you simply cannot change it.


You thus believe that a textbook is "God's own Word" and cannot be wrong? Another proof of what a bigot you are!

And please stop posting your AWT animations: They are just plain nonsensical claptrap!

May 04, 2013
I do believe in mathematics of physical theories only when it doesn't violate its own postulates and axioms.
This is exactly what the mainstream interpretation of "time-dilation" does: It violates Einstein's first postulate, and you believe it even though it violates Einstein's postulate: So you ARE lying again.

BTW You openly have contempt for my illustrative analogies and drawings - but if you would draw such an animation for yourself, you would clearly realize, that the result of Lorentz transform cannot be any different - no matter how large pile of math you can write about it.


I do look at your "illustrative analogies and drawings" and find that they do not do what you claim that they do. I am not a bigot like you who refuses to look at other people's ideas and derivations only because you do not want these ideas and derivations to exist. If your cartoons were what you claim they are, I would have acknowledged it. You on the other hand has a closed-mind!

May 04, 2013
I did NOT claim any time dilation since there is NONE
LOL, you're claiming the "time delay" instead. But how this time delay could be formed, if not with time dilatation? How we could distinguish it experimentally from time dilatation after then, you troll? You're playing the same semantic game here, like when you're saying, that the particle concept in quantum mechanics doesn't exist - only "boundary condition" for stationary waves. You're just replacing one well established world connection with another one without any experimentally testable ways, how to distinguish it - and this is whole the "science" of yours of the last twenty years. Do you really believe, I didn't realize it?

May 04, 2013
I do look at your "illustrative analogies and drawings" and find that they do not do what you claim that they do
This cartoon illustrates the accelerated object, for which its local time runs more slowly with increasing speed for to maintain the speed of light invariant for any observer of it. What do you think this cartoon illustrates for you?
They are just a plain nonsensical claptrap!
It would be too easy for you...:-) You should prove every claim of yours or I'm simply not obliged to believe you at all. Do you think, that the Pythagoras theorem is BS, just because my dog cannot understand it? Now you're just barking and playing such a dull dog here.

May 04, 2013
I did NOT claim any time dilation since there is NONE
LOL, you're claiming the "time delay" instead. But how this time delay could be formed, if not with time dilatation?


It is derived from the Lorentz-transformation in my manuscript http://www.cathod...tion.pdf that this is so. That the time differences are NOT clocks running at different rates but differences in time on ALL the clocks that run at the same rate. If you could have done mathematics you would have been able to read it for yourself. Except that you are too much of a bigot and a troll to be interested in work which does not fit your infantile preconceived ideas.

Please go an