Re: What causes time dilation?

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:52:53 GMT

"Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0409090117.1f2ba244@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Y4k%c.2274$Nf5.24086599@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:42c8441.0409070212.2d350af1@posting.google.com...
| [snip]
| > | Modern relativity theory does not have this foundation. It is based
| > | on invariance and symmetry. The geodesics are derived from the concept
| > | of a (3+1)D universe.
| > |
| > | See:
| > | http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz2b.htm
| > |
| > | For a simple intro. We have two competing theories here,
| >
| > No... we have three.
| >
| > in the first
| > | the universe is full of some substance 'the aether' and in the second
| > | the universe is a four dimensional manifold.
| >
| > And in the third the universe is 3 dimensional with time independent
| > of space.
| >
| > In the first, light's speed is medium dependent.
| > In the second, light's speed is observer dependent (subjective).
| > In the third, light's speed is source dependent (objective).
| >
| > | The second theory has led to predictions from Quantum Theory
| > | (via de Broglie Waves and the Dirac Equation) to Black Holes.
| >
| > A mishmash of poorly understood concepts.
| >
| > | The first theory was a complicated mass of
| > | unrelated empirical equations by 1900 and desperately needed to be
| > | replaced.
| >
| > Agreed.
| >
| > The third theory predicts that light from a moving source will have
| > the velocity of light added to the velocity of the source. This will
| > produce an apparent retrograde motion of a star in orbit, although
| > we don't have suffiently powerful telescopes to observe this.
| > However, this apparent retrograde motion has another effect, that
| > of changing the intensity of the light as it reaches us.
| > In the empirical data below, the retrograde motion appears between
| > the two maxima.
| > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Many people are committed 'presentists' and just will not accept the
| > | possibility that time has a geometric character.
| >
| > That is correct. Time has no inverse and therefore cannot be a vector.
| >
| > | I think it was the
| > | gifted art historian Gombrich who pointed out that if the present were
| > | just a durationless instant, a boundary between what has been and what
| > | is to come, we could not even hear the merest phoneme of a word or see
| > | a movement. Everything is frozen at any instant in Galilean
| > | Relativity. Motion itself would be impossible.
| >
| > That argument is fallacious, 'now' is 'moving'. It has as much validity
| > as a still photograph of a moving object 'proving' the object is
stationary.
| > Clearly Gombrich should stay with art and history and keep out of
physics.
|
| But nothing can 'see' a still photograph at an instant because no
| processes occur at an instant.

So you make my point for me, the present is changing. <shrug>.

| In Galilean time the past is gone,
Yes.

| The future does not exist,
Correct.

| there is only the zero amount of time that is the frozen present.

Incorrect. 'Now' is moving. It is not frozen.
Your model of time places 'now' as a moving point between yesterday
and tomorrow.

yesterday (-) now (0) tomorrow (+)
_________________|______________

with tomorrow as fixed as yesterday. Predestination. How will you
change tomorrow? Why would you construct a safety device?
Just how illogical is the woman in the street who shrugs "When your
time is up..." for those that die, and then yells at the kids not to play
ball in the road?

My model of time places 'now' at the tip of a growing crystal

yesterday (-) now (0) tomorrow (+)
_________________|-------------------------

Tomorrow isn't fixed. We can change it.

|
| See: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm

Why should I look at Zeno?
Mathematics is used to model ideas, it doesn't change the idea itself.
In order to get from A to B, I must first go half the distance to C.

A-------------B------------C

Now I'm at B as desired. Done.
Zeno's so called 'paradox' is an exercise in the theory of limits.
You are intended to think about the problem and come to a solution,
not wonder off in puzzlement.
|
| >
| > |
| > | However, that said, I think a gifted mathematician could tack bits on
| > | to Newtonian physics to account for all the disoveries of the
| > | twentieth century.
| > Well, thank you.
| > I'd rather strip off some ridiculous assertions, though, and quit
pretending
| > we know that which we do not.
| > The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
| >
| > 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.
|
| Agreed, it is what might be called a temporary assumption. The speed
| of light is a hybrid variable composed of space and time so its
| constancy cannot, on its own, be a fundamental axiom. This is why the
| modern theory uses invariance and is actually a theory that proposes
| that the universe is a four dimensional manifold.

I don't give a hoot what it proposes, if it is mathematically unsound it is
worthless nonsense. I'll assume bright green flying elephants
lay eggs in wormholes. Now I'll build a theory on that and arrive at
wormholes are actually the home of bright green flying elephants.
In other words, a load of nonsense.
|
| [snip of other excerpts from Einsteins early work]

This is what the relativist does when he is unable to find any argument
against one that destroys his religion. Burying your head in the sand
isn't going to convince anyone that you are right, all it will do is
convince
me that you have a belief that I do not share, and you cannot support
it. If you wish to debate, don't ignore the points I make.
[ Restore of other argument against the idiot Einstein, pushed under the
carpet
by Alex Green.]

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)

| >
| > | All that is needed is an ever increasing library of
| > | unrelated assumptions. Theories don't need to die, you can keep them
| > | going well past their natural lifespan with enough mathematical TLC.
|
| > Or enough paint stripper.
|
| I am in favour of people deriving other bases for physics. Modern
| mathematicians are pretty good at their job

Earlier mathematicians were good at their job also. Zeno, Pythagoras,
Ptolemy, Newton to name but a few.
Einstein, however, was not a mathematician.

| and can build fairly
| foolproof structures out of sets of axioms.

| However, it is the axioms
| themselves that contain the real physics.

And what are the axioms?
The PoR that is so primitive and obvious that Einstein
could only give examples.
Einstein's manufactured "light speed is independent of the source"
Einstein's assumption 2AB/(t'A - tA) = c.
And then the idiot has the audacity to change the PoR from
u+v to (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).

And you want to call that a theory that is "fairly foolproof"?

|
| As a proponent of a new basis for physics your task, should you decide
| to accept it, is to predict a new effect or explain an unexplained
| effect.

Done. Here is an unexplained effect.
 http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
Want more?
 But it is an old basis for physics. I'm not pretending I can
use the PoR to change the PoR.

 Nuclear energy (e=mc^2) put Einstein on the map with a bang.

You've been conned.
J.G.Fox writes in the American Journal of Physics, Volume 33 #1 Jan '65.
==========================================
Another proof, more closely related to the present discussion, may be made
by the following modification of a demonstration due to Langevin. Consider
a source which is at rest with respect to an observer O and which radiates a
simultaneous, oppositely directed pair of equal quanta, hu, e.g.,
annihilation radiation. While the total energy radiated is E = 2hu [u
represents the greek nu here, which I cannot reproduce], the total momentum
radiated is zero, so the source remains at rest with respect to O.

Now, consider this phenomenon from the point of view of an observer O' who
moves with respect to O with the constant velocity v = bc along the line
defined by the radiation. On account of the first-order Doppler effect O'
observes two quanta with the frequencies hu(1 + b) [b= beta] and hu(1 - b).
He thus concludes that a net amount of momentum hu(1 + b )/c - hu(1-b)/c =
2hub/c is emitted in the direction in which the source and O appear to move
with respect to him. From the conservation principle for momentum he
concludes that the source loses this same quantity of momentum. Now the
velocity of the source with respect to O' does not change since it remains
at rest with respect to O, as has been seen. Thus O' is forced to conclude
that the mass of the source has decreased by an amount Delta.m, where
(Delta.m)u = 2hub/c. Thus, Delta.m = Delta.E/c^2.
==========================================
Nuclear energy put Langevin on the map with a bang, not Einstein.
Electricity as we use it put Tesla's AC on the map with a bang, not Edison's
DC.

Whence came the bang? "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" - but it isn't...
Next time you are in a fast food restaurant, pick up two paper sachets, a
pink
one and a white one. The white one says "Sugar". The pink one says... well,
read it for yourself. Which is advertised on TV, the sugar or the
substitute?
That's what put Einstein on the map, and "I Can't Believe It's Not Langevin"
Androcles.
|
| Best Wishes
|
| Alex Green