Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 01/08/05
- Next message: Karl Forsberg: "Re: GPS Plate Tectonics"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is the Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time Throughout The Universe In GR Valid?"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Reply: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:06:07 GMT
"David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:tIRDd.1$F75.498@news.uswest.net...
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1104999305.348021.178370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> My model begins with the assignment of time as a property of matter and
>> which passes inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete
>> objects/systems. This is the issue of time.
>>
>> Relativity claims time and space to be interdependent while I claim to
>> separate time from space, and this is an issue which no one has yet
>> rebutted or even commented upon. Shame on all you physicists.
>
> From a post:
> Re: Sci.Physics.New-Theories Is Dead! - Physics New Theories - TomGee
> 2004-03-29 16:05:39.0
>
>> To start with, I found that Relativity had caused the posing of at
>> least two experiments where time "dilated", and then solved it with
>> the claim that the rate of the passage of time varies inversley
>> proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects. The
>> so-called Twin Paradox is the best-known of these experiments, and
>> Relativity claims that the one twin who left Earth and then returned
>> later to find his earth-bound twin had aged much more than the
>> astronaut twin actually aged less due to the fact he was in faster
>> motion than his twin in having to speed up in order to leave the
>> planet and then also in having to turn around and "catch up" with it
>> again.
>
> If I showed you the twin paradox was wrong, what would that do to your
> theory?
>
> You have twins on Earth, one leaves near the speed of light on a space
> ship toward a distant place. The traveler then arrives at the
> destination. The issue here is light. If the light that carries the
> record from Earth travels just a little faster than the traveler, then the
> traveler sees very little aging of the twin. When the traveler arrives at
> the destination, the perceived aging process returns to the normal rate,
> but the traveler sees the Earth twin according to the light arriving at
> his destination and so the Earth twin appears younger than the traveler.
> But on the return trip to Earth, the traveler sees light approaching much
> faster than usual. To the traveler, the Earth twin is aging at a faster
> rate. By the time the traveler returns to Earth, the twins are back to
> the same relative age. Neither one is younger or older than the other.
>
> Thus space and time remain locked together. There is no time travel.
> There is only the distortion of perception.
>
> Dave
I've advanced this scenario before. Say Alpha Centauri and our Sol are
four light years apart. It takes light four years to cross that four light
years worth of distance. I've seen little evidence of a realization that
time passes at each end, four years worth altogether, during the time it
takes light to travel a distance of four light years. What arrives to Alpha
Centauri is a picture of Sol offset in time by a constant factor of minus
four years with regard to current time for both stars. The same with Sol
regarding Alpha Centauri.
A traveler on Earth, before departure for Alpha Centauri, will observe
Alpha Centauri minus four years with regard to a real time zero of time for
him, Sol, and Alpha Centauri. However fast he will travel from the vicinity
of Sol to the vicinity of Alpha Centauri this minus four years will be the
first time factor he has to make up during the trip, no escaping it, plus
his travel time. If he walked through some hypothetical stargate to reach an
object in orbit of Alpha Centauri, taking only a tenth of second to cross
the distance, he would not have traveled the distance faster than the speed
of light. He made up the minus four years difference between apparent time
and current time plus one additional tenth of a second, for a time of four
years and one tenth of a second to cross the four light years given distance
between stars.
The hypothetical traveler in this case has switched poles. Sol is now
minus four years, apparent, to his current vicinity in space and time for
being four light years distant from him. He [apparently] arrived in the
vicinity of Alpha Centauri long before he left the vicinity of Sol, about
four years worth of "apparently". But Sol is actually concurrent in time
with him and Alpha Centauri, existing four years later in space and time
than what he observes to be the case. The time he observes to be current
time for his vicinity will not be observed to be current time in the
vicinity of Sol for four more years.
He walks back through his stargate again taking a tenth of a second to
make the trip back to Earth. Again he has to make up minus four years in
time to a real time zero for him, the object he was on, Alpha Centauri,
Earth and Sol, plus one tenth of a second, the time of his travel, again for
a total apparent time of travel of four years and one tenth of a second to
cross four light years in distance between Alpha Centauri and Sol. His total
travel time would be one fifth of a second, and both he and his twin brother
on Earth would observe that they both had not aged more in time than that
span of time during the one brother's crossing. He now, again from the
vicinity of Sol, observes Alpha Centauri to be minus four years to zero, its
actual existence in real time, the same real time he, the Earth, and Sol,
also exist in.
The traveler could have made the trip in four years. Having to make up the
minus four years difference between apparent time and real time for all
concerned, he would observe an eight year trip in four years' time (ship's
clock time). His brother on Earth might observe an eight year trip for him,
since it takes four years for light to cross the distance between Alpha
Centauri and Sol and his arrival in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri after a
four year trip would not be observed in the vicinity of Sol until four years
after that arrival (per the speed of light transmission of the information).
The observer brother on Earth would observe his traveling brother to be four
years younger than him upon his arrival in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri,
since from the time of departure of the traveling brother, to observed time
of arrival at Alpha Centauri, eight years would have passed for the
observing brother. Of course his traveling brother might be standing right
beside him when he makes the observation of that same brother's arrival in
the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.
Brad
- Next message: Karl Forsberg: "Re: GPS Plate Tectonics"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is the Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time Throughout The Universe In GR Valid?"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Reply: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
