Rettich

Thanks for making clear this is not a theory

Thanks for the answer md65536. I already had concluded the same.

I don't know how to put an image (of my formula) in my post, therefore I try to tell it in words. As far as I can tell, for all our observations we do with a direct use of the Lorentz-factor, we can predict it in the same way as in SR. That is because the conditions of our experiments are within boundary's of very small errors. The Lorentz-factor gamma will be the same, only v in this formula will be replaced by [g2/(g1+g2)].v. In our measurements g1 will always be very small compared to g2 and this way g2/(g1+g2)=1. My point is that this theory results in stating dark matter and dark energy having the same cause. I think this is very remarkable I just wonder what else could result from this theory, I don't know, for all I know solving the vacuum catastrophe.

I am no physicist, my knwoledge is very small. When I was beginning to think about SR I experienced, like many others, the conclusions of SR as counter intuitive and thought that that could mean SR was wrong. I soon realized that all observations supported the conclusions of SR and that time dilation was very easy calculated. An alternative theory had to meet with the following conditions: 1 Present SR had to be incomplete or unjust 2 It had to meet the two postulates of Einstein and the clock hypothesis 3 The same observations had to be predicted and calculated in the same easy manner 4 The theory had to be consistent 5 The asssumptions it needed had to be not many more than the implicit asssumptions of SR 6 The better predictions had to outweight the worse predictions I thought up an alternative theory which I am calling the General Special Relativity Theory (GSR). This theory, invented by a layman, is perhaps rubbish, but because of its, in my opinion, intriguing prediction I have the urge to present it here. Concerning the above mentioned conditions: 1 Proving SR incomplete or unjust is beyond my ability. Such a proof can, now or ever, be impossible. SR can simply be correct. 2 I don't think my theory GSR conflicts with the postulates and hypothesis. The role of the first postulate in GSR is different. 3 GSR predicts and calculates, in my opinion, in the same easy way the obervations. 4 I don't know if GSR is consistent or could be made consistent. 5 Theories mentioned by others like the aether theory have more assumptions than SR. Though GSR has two assumptions I do not think they are so much greater than those needed for SR. 6 GSR predics at least two things in the same easy manner. These are: an increasing expanding of the universe particularly after the bigbang and an angular velocity of the outer stars of a spiral galaxy larger than predicted by classical theories. These two phenomenons are, as far as I know, never been explained by one same cause. DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERAL SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY SR compares two objects, moving in respect to each other while none of them experiences any forces. Observations done by each object will see the clock of the other object tick slower than his own clock. This time dilation is calculated with the Lorentz-factor, and as a consequence time dilation increases disproportional with increase of speed. GSR states that when two objects move in respect to each other that they will always experience forces. Considering only two objects, because every object has a mass, both objects move through each others gravity-field. Clocks on an object will experience two gravity-fields; one gravity-field which does not move in respect to the clock (the gravity-field caused by the mass on which the clock resides) and one field that moves in relation to the clock. The first assumption of GSR is that a clock experiences a time dilation depended on the Lorentz-factor (time dilation increases disproportional with increase of speed), but that the "weight" of speed v in the Lorentz-factor depends on the ratio of the force of these gravity-fields. Time dilation is not anymore calculated by the observer from the other object and then compared with his own clock. Time dilation is compared with the rate of the clock in case the other object wasn't moving. After for both objects time dilation is calculated the speed of both clocks can be compared. This has far reaching consequences, but for a lot of situations the consequences are negligible. The application is as follows: Suppose there is a movement between two objects A and B with speed 'v'. Concerning the clock on A there is a gravitational field with force g1 caused by the mass of A and the clock also experiences a gravitational field from B with a force g2. The ratio between g1 and g2 determines the weight of speed v. Because g2/g1 varies between zero and infinite, making calculating difficult, I decided "arbitrary" to calculate with Q= g2/(g1+g2). The speed of the clock on A will now be compared with the speed of that clock in the situation A and B were not moving in respect to each other. The Lorentz-factor will be used, but with "v" replaced by "Q.v". When applied to the situation where a satellite orbits the earth we get the following calculations: -for the earth Q equals like zero and therefore the earth experiences no timedilation; -for the satellite Q equals like 1 and therefore the clock of the satellite moves slower according to the Lorentz-factor. When applied to a very small particle moving very quickly we get the same result. But we have to assume that the clock, what ever that may be, of that very small particle experiences a small gravityforce caused by the mass of that particle. As a consequence of GSR the relativistic mass of a moving object/particle will decline when, while retaining the same speed, the distance to a strong gravityforce increases. The conservation of momentum then requires the speed to increase with distance. This increase in speed will be most notable when speed is very high. In this way there will be an high increase in speed after the bigbang. In the same way there will be an increased speed when a spiral-galaxy is formed, stars at the outside will have a greater rotational speed than classical theory predicts . The same could perhaps be said of the corona of the sun and thus causing a higher temperature. You also would expect clocks of the Pioneer 10 and 11 to tick faster than predicted; the faster ticking clock was a proposed cause of its anomaly.

Also if the conclusion is that R has seen clock A tick away more time than his own clock during constant movement, than A has to see clock R tick away more time than his own clock during constant movement (due two the second postulate). This does not look to be the case. I think that this problem is at any case not solvable without taking acceleration/deceleration in acount. Sorry, I mean the first postulate

So the theory predicts a blue shift, but, is there any conformation (experimental or otherwise) on this alleged blue shift?

Thanks Janus. With all my poor knowledge of physics, it looks like a clear explanation.

I don't see it. Could of course be my lack of understanding or the fact that english is not my mother language.

DimaMazin, I looked at the link, but rocket R leaves B at a right angle to A. When I look at the formula I think R observes A therefore always redshifted. I am afraid Janus somehow misread the text of my second thought-experiment.

In my second though-experiment the rocket R (traveling from B to C) moves at any time further away from A with high speed. That is why I thought that during the stationary movement there would always be a red shift. Therefore I can't understand the reason for R observing clock A have moved faster than his own clock at the end of the trip.

Sorry, I just thought you would only get blue shift if you were nearing an object, I didn''t know you could also get blue shift when you are moving away

Janus, you rightly pointed to the red- and blue-shift. For that reason I have slightly modified my thought-experiment. For reasons of clearity I describe my thouhgt-experiment again in full. I would have liked to attache a smal drawing but I didn't succeed. Imagine the following: Three spacestations A, B and C are in deep space, not experiencing any apparent gravitational forces. These spacestations keep the same distances and angles to each other. A, B and C form a right-angled triangle with AB and BC have a right angle. The distance between A and B is 8 lightyears, the distance between A and C is 10 lightyears and therefore the distance between B and C is 6 lightyears. A, B and C have their clocks "synchronised". This meaning: A has send a signal "it is now 1-1-2100" to B and to C. On arrival of that signal B has set his clock at 1-1-2108 and C has, on arrival of that signal, set his clock at 1-1-2110. This "synchronising" helps me with the observations done when a rocket R travels from B to C; during that travel clocks A, B, C and R constantly observe each other. Rocket R leaves B at 1-1-2200 (local time B and R) for a trip to C . R accelerates in 1 second to a stationary speed of 0,8c. On arriving at C R decelerates in 1 second to a hold. So R arrrives on C at 1-7-2207 (locale time C). Clock R has ticked away during his trip 4,5 years (3/5 x 6/0,8). On leaving B R observes clock A gives 1-1-2192. On arrival at C R observes clock A gives 1-7-2197. R has seen clock A tick away 5,5 year. Conclusion: In total R has seen clock A tick away more time than his own clock. A observes R leaving B at 1-1-2208 (local time A) and observes R arriving on C at 1-7-2217 (local time A). Therefore A sees ticking away his own clock 9,5 year. A observes, at seeing R leaving B, clock R gives 1-1-2200 and sees clock R giving 1-7-2204 on arrival at C. Therefore A observes clock R ticking away 4,5 year. In total A has seen clock R tick away less time than his own clock. During the uniform motion of R A observes the clock R moving slower than his own clock and R will also observe the clock A moving slower than his own clock. Considering the whole trip: R has seen clock A ticked away more time than his own clock. Therefore R has to observe clock A moving faster than his own clock during acceleration and/or deceleration. As far as I know experiments have confirmed that acceleration or deceleration has no effect on time dilatation, only speed has. Then how is it possible that R at any moment observes clock A going faster than his own clock? Where did I made a mistake? What did I miss?

Thanks Janus. It's clear that there is a lot more for me to learn about special relativity.

I am trying to get grip on the special relativity theory and therefore I have created a thoughtexperiment. Would you be so kind to tell me what mistakes I have made? Imagine the following: There are 3 spacestations (A,B and C) far out in space, not experiencing any apparent gravitational force. These spacestations keep the same distances and angles to each other. A, B and C form an isosceles triangle. The distance between A and B, and also between A and C, is 70 lightyears (ly). The distance between B and C is 14 ly. A, B and C have "synchronised" their clocks. This meaning: A has send a signal to B and C saying "it is now 1-1-2015" (day-month-year) and on arrival of that signal B and C has set their clocks at 1-1-2085. We now know that if B sends a signal to C saying "it is now 1-1-2090" that this signal will reach C at 1-1-2104 local time. The synchronising of the clocks helps us with the obervations done when a rocket R travels from B to C. We will consider the clocks A, B, C and R. These clocks are able to observe each other constantly with a powerful telescope. R leaves B, accelerates very quickly towards a constant speed of 0,96c and on arriving at C decelerates very quickly. According to Special Relativity the time passed at R will be 7/25 th of the time A, B and C have calculated the trip of R will take. The role of the classical Doppler effect will be marginal (i.m.o) in the case of A observing R and R observing A (because the angle between AB and AC is very small). Take the following example: R leaves B at 1-1-2200 (local time B and local time R). At the moment of leaving R observes the clock A indicating 1-1-2130. A observes R leaving B at 1-1-2270 (local time A) and sees the clock R indicating 1-1-2200. R arrrives at C on 1-8-2214 (local time C) (as a result of the time necessary for traveling 14 ly at speed 0,96c). On arriving at C the clock R indicates 1-2-2204 (the time that has passed for R is 7/25 x 25/24 x 14 = 4 years and 1 month) and R observes clock A indicating 1-8-2144. Thus during his trip R observes clock A ticks away 14 years and 7 month. A observes the arrival of R at C on 1-8-2284 (local time A). A observes the clock R when leaving B indicates 1-1-2200 and on arrival at C R indicates 1-2-2204 During the trip. A observes clock R going slower than his own clock. R observes clock A i.m.o. all the time going faster than his own clock. This result would violate the first postulate because A and R see each other during the uniform motion in the same manner. Acknowledging the fact that the special relativity theory is working exceptionally well in all experiments and routinely applications this would mean that the special relativity is incomplete.

Thanks

Does your answer means that special relativity (in combination with general relativity?) also works for the expanding universe?

Do we see the time passing at far a way galaxies (say 12 lightyears), and thus have a very fast growing distance, more slowly?

The link xyzt gave helped me to understand the twin paradox, thanks.

Thanks for your answer, I will think about the reference you gave.

Suppose we are in deep space in a rocket. We don't accelerate, we experience no significant gravity forces and we don't rotate. Ten (10) lightyears apart from us there is an other rocket (called B) wich is at a stationary distant and direction to us. We receive a clocksignal from B. We want to go to B so we accelerate towards it. Now the following two statements concerning the speed of the clocksignal we see from B during acceleration: 1- Due to non-relativistic-Dopler effect we see the clocksignal from B going faster (what I'm saying is that if there were no relativistic effects, then on arrival at B, its clock would have gained 10 years due to its original distance) 2- As a consequence of our speed towards B we see a growing slowing down of the clocksignal from B, due to special relativity Are both statements true? Do these two statements give a complete picture of the effect we see, during acceleration, concerning the speed of the clockssignal we see from B?