Re: Time Machine
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Previous message: Donald Hamilton: "Re: Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- In reply to: V ertner Vergon: "Re: Time Machine"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Time Machine"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Time Machine"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:55:32 GMT
"V ertner Vergon" <vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:b337f5db.0409201649.11268e2a@posting.google.com...
| Theo Wollenleben <alpha0x89@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:<2r0u80F15a7c3U1@uni-berlin.de>...
| > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > > "Theo Wollenleben" <alpha0x89@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:2qvmn5F14c5ldU1@uni-berlin.de...
| > >
| > >>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > >>
| > >>>"Theo Wollenleben" <alpha0x89@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:2qtiuvF140gc4U1@uni-berlin.de...
| > >>>
| > >>I think "time dilation" refers to the time of the moving clock, which
is
| > >>slowed down.
| > >
| > > yes, in sloppy language, slowed down, dilated, with stretched
| > > or enlarged time intervals...
| >
| > It's the time of the moving oberserver that is slowed down, dilated,...!
| >
| > >>It does not refer to the greater time intervals measured by
| > >>the resting clocks.
| > >
| > > Sure it does: the resting clock measures 5 seconds between
| > > two ticks marking only 1 second on the moving clock. That's
| > > a "greater time interval" as measured by the resting clock.
| >
| > You claim it is the time interval of the resting clock that is dilated.
| > But consider this: The resting observer can measures his time and as
| > long there is no moving clock around, everything is fine - no need to
| > talk about dilation of whatever. Now comes the moving clock around the
| > corner and the resting observer says: "Hey, this clock's time is slowed
| > down - its time is stretched like in slow motion!". When he looks on his
| > own watch he won't find stretched time - it ticks still with the same
| > rate. In this story the resting observer unambiguously refers to the
| > time of the moving clock when he says "stretched".
| >
| > > And that phenomenon is called "time dilation" - well, at least
| > > according to my feeling of the English language :-)
| >
| > I hope, I could make clear by the prose above, what my feeling of
| > language is.
| >
| > >>>>This issue can probably be clarified only by looking on
| > >>>>early papers on the topic. But I have no idea where this term showed
up
| > >>>>the first time.
| > >>>
| > >>>Neither do I, but to dilate is to expand, and to contract is to
shrink,
| > >>>at least according to Webster :-)
| > >>
| > >>Don't be too sure about this. I also found this in the same
dictionary:
| > >>
| > >>"Main Entry: time dilation
| > >>Function: noun
| > >>: a slowing of time in accordance with the theory of relativity that
| > >>occurs in a system in motion relative to an outside observer and that
| > >>becomes apparent especially as the speed of the system approaches that
| > >>of light -- called also time dilatation"
| > >>
| > >>So "time dilation" refers to the (slowed) time in the moving frame!
| > >
| > > Yes, to the *expansion* of time intervals: 5 seconds in stead of 1
| > > second, like I sketched earlier :-)
| >
| > You say "Yes" and contradict me in the same sentence! I can count
| > seconds as well. While the resting observer counts five seconds, the
| > moving clock counts only one. The resting observer says: "That's
| > interesting: The moving clock should have counted five seconds according
| > to Newton. But instead only one second has elapsed, which is strechted
| > out over five seconds of my time."
|
| VERGON:
|
| ONCE AND FOR ALL, LET'S CLEAR UP THIS TIME DILATION MESS.
No, no. That would spoil the fun!
|
| Eric Prebys said one thing that was correct when he said there were
| physicists who were "... algebraically correct in their 'proofs',
| while
| fumbling in their interpretations."
LOL!
Example of someone being correct in their "proof".
For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.
5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.
7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
Prebys wouldn't know a proof if it bit him. No relativist would.
|
| This is a major problem in physics. Einstein had that problem in
| several
| areas.
|
Then get rid of Einstein, he was an idiot.
| One of them was relativistic mass. (two others were aberration and
| time
| dilation).
|
| Let's take relativistic mass first -- then time dilation. They are
| related.
|
| Sticking with relativistic mass. He gives momentum as p =
| mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
He gives everything as something normal divided by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
but is unable to derive it, and neither are you, Prebys, or anyone else.
| { I use R for the Lorentz radical -- because I'm lazy}
|
| Now the misinterpretation by Einstein -- and everyone else -- goes
| like
| this: As R goes to zero, p goes to infinity, the reason being, m goes
| to
| infinity because the limit of v is c.
|
| Thus was born the specter of relativistic mass.
|
| When a theory has an anomaly, contradiction, inconsistency or paradox
| it is obviously incorrect and needs revision. Revision -- not denial
| or an ignoring of the problem.
What 's wrong with denial if it has been a reasoned denial? The theory is
obviously totally incorrect and it needs to be thrown out entirely.
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
Theories are supposed to make predictions, Einstein made his and got it
wrong, his theory is that of a crackpot.
|
| So let me give you the rework on relativistic mass. But before I do, I
| must
| warn that the solution requires innovative, and original ("new") if
| not
| ingenious thinking.
And you are the genius, huh? :-)
Ok, let's see..
I realize this is very apt to overload and blow
| one's
| mind -- and that they will petulantly label it "nonsense", since that
| is a
| favorite word for anything beyond their ken. But I am writing this for
| the
| intelligent lurkers like you.
|
| Now, to work.
|
| Since applying R to m does not work, there is only ONE alternative --
| and
| that is to assume it applies to v.
|
| Bear in mind Einstein made a similar choice in setting up SR.
| He was faced with that on one hand there were Galilean transformations
| (2 + 2 = 4) and on the other there was the *limiting* velocity of
| light.
|
| He reasoned that since c was an empirical fact,
Fact? FACT? It is a fact because Einstein says its a fact, and then he
REASONED?
2 + 2 did not = 4
| (regardless of how absurd that may appear to be).
There you have it, folks!
The legitimate proof by absurdity that something was wrong inside
Einstein's fuzzy head. I've listed 7 things above. Of course not all
people will have the ingenuity of thought to realize it.
|
| We have the same situation here, R must apply to v.
That was Shubert's assumption. His "proof" relied on it. You've obviously
forgotten that R has v embedded, and if you do that you'll have infinite
recursion.
|
| But how can we reconcile that with c as a limit?
| The full answer is in a book I wrote 28 years ago where it is
| developed step by step.
|
| Due to space restrictions here, I will have to give the bottom line
| only
| (so that will help you call it "nonsense")
It sure will. Not that it needs help.
|
| Reconciling v to infinity with c as a limit:
|
| There are two velocities in the universe, one that goes to infinity
| (Newtonian concept) and that velocity *observed* (the relativistic
| velocity).
Observed? This is *OBSERVATION*
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
| There is a mechanism of light that causes the observation of the
| Newtonian
| velocity to be aberrated such that as the Newtonian velocity goes to
| infinity, the observation of that velocity goes to c.
Phooey. Go see Gaasenbeek, he knows what that imagined mechanism is,
and he's a crackpot too.
|
| For every Newtonian velocity there is a corresponding observed
| relative sub c velocity.
|
| The relation of the two velocities is apparent in the equation given
| above,
| p = mv/R. Thus we see that R applies to v such that v/R = V
| (where V = Newtonian velocity)
And that, folks, is crackpottery in full action.
V = v/(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), V Newtonian, hence unlimited.
Let's try it.
Let V =2c, c = 1.
2 = v/sqrt(1 -v^2) given.
4 = v^2 / (1-v^2) (squaring)
v^2 = 4-4v^2 (multiply by 1-v^2 )
0 = 4 - 4v^2 - v^2 (subtract v^2)
= 4-v^2(4-1)
= 4 -3v^2
3v^2 = 4
v^2 = 1.33
v = sqrt(1.33)
= 1.155 > 1.
|
| We can rewrite that to VR=v. Also p = m * v/R
| It will be found that the relativistic *momentum* is equal to mV, the
| Newtonian momentum.
|
| R can be determined from V by R = sqrt( 1/(V^2 +1) -- where V is in
| terms of c = 1.
|
| It will be seen that as V goes to infinity, v goes to c, (1)
|
| The same can be said for kinetic energy which can be written
|
| E = mv^2/(R + R^2) which is exactly equal to Einstein's E = c^2(m/R -
| m)
|
| Let me show you how this applies to time dilation -- which does not
| exist
| but is actually the transit time differential.
|
| The reason the moving clock shows less time is *not* because the
| distance it travels is less (i.e., contracted) but because it is
| traveling
| faster than observed -- that is, it is traveling at the Newtonian
| velocity
| (but observed at the relativistic). So since it is traveling faster
| than
| observed, it will travel the non-contracted distance in less time.
|
| Thus we see a transit time differential when the moving clock is
| "behind" the
| inertial clock. Note, this does *not* mean the moving clock was
| ticking slower.
| In fact the principle of relativity - and the theory - require the
| moving clock to maintain proper time. The lesser time is due to V
| rather than v.
|
| The fact that the moving clock maintained proper time negates the
| concept
| of time dilation as commonly propounded.
|
| There *is* a slowing of *observed* time in the case of receding
| motion.
| This is Doppler time. Doppler time also requires *observed* time to be
| condensed (run faster) when the emitter is approaching. This is
| contrary
| to the time dilation concept which declares time in approach to run
| slower.
|
| If one runs the Twins Paradox utilizing Doppler time they will see
| there is no paradox.
There is no paradox when there is no time dilation.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
| (See Vergon in "List of Authors" in http://www.wbabin.net )
|
| The Doppler effect is not just an altering of observed frequency. Any
| atom emitting a constant known frequency is a clock.
Nope. It's an oscillator. A clock has a counter as well.
A certain
| frequency of the cesium atom has been adopted as the new standard for
| the second.
|
| So when the frequency is observed to alter so does observed time.
|
| Conclusion: The concept of time dilation as put forth presently must
| be abandoned, and Doppler time must replace it.
Close, but not quite.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
Apparent time dilation and expansion is function of distance as well.
Androcles.
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Previous message: Donald Hamilton: "Re: Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- In reply to: V ertner Vergon: "Re: Time Machine"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Time Machine"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Time Machine"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
