Mordred

Course it would make much more sense if everyone understood what a mathematical dimension is.. ie an independent variable. Example a cube has 3 independent variables. length, width, depth either one can change without affecting the others. Spacetime simply adds the independent variable time as a dimension *mathematical. Another example string theory. Each dimension is mathematical or the holographic principle (a reduction of the number of independant variables to describe spacetime etc.) "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Do you understanding the difference betwen Speculation ,hypothesis, model and evidence. A formula that isn't tested isn't evidemce. It just means its mathematically viable. Not proof this is how it is

If you ran the calcs for Both length contraction and time dilation you will find c is invariant to all observers. You tried to declare c as variant without using all the required equations that show it is invariant. The forum correctly pointed out this error and you stubbornly argued with them.

Good luck, I always find it amazing how many people try to prove relativity wrong but have absolutely no clue why relativity works. Let alone properly understand how it works. You provided the perfect example. Ignoring length contraction despite being told of three specific real world pieces of evidence showing length contraction.

I was pretty specific. You will not have a temperature or energy change due to relativistic observer effects without length contraction. I specifically stated time dilation alone cannot account for how redshift works. (change in wavelength). Nor would you have a curved light path around a gravitational body without length contraction. (curved spacetime)

There is a very simple procedure in model building. Person A develops a model, he supplies testable mathematics that provides testable predictions. Person B looks over the model and challenges it. "How do you explain.... etc" Person A tries to solve the problems and concerns person B mentions instead of making random assertions. If your model can't solve the issues raised by person B then we have a problem. That usually indicates an issue overlooked or ignored by person A. In your other thread you were given a chance to prove your model by explaining three real world measurements and well known observer effects. Your response was "thats comparing apples when I'm discussing pears". Yet tbose three observer influences is directly involved and run counter to your model. Had you made an honest effort to solve those concerns your thread would still be open. We have dozens of threads that are obviously wrong, still open because the OP is at least trying to properly prove his model and addresses the concerns of others. Ie he doesn't ignore evidence that counters his idea. Instead he tries to adapt his model to solve those issues

You don't tell someone is wrong by ignoring evidence to the contrary. I specifically asked you to prove yourself by giving you three measurements to solve. You have not solved those three observer measurements nor explained them using just time dilation

This is pointless

no your wrong you will not get the energy density and temperature changes with just time dilation. The proof is right before your eyes. When the wavelength of light changes you get a change in energy. (wavelength change is a change in length)

No it is you that is not understanding. The distance also changes.

your dx is changing what part of that don't you understand. You have dx and [latex] d\acute {x}[/latex] Look over the transforms I posted and read the two wiki links. This is all contained in every textbook published on relativity.

No I am discussing observational proof that you are incorrect. Simply ignoring evidence because it doesn't suit your theory won't cut it. Solve those three problems without length contraction and using just time dilation and you may have something. As it is you have your declarations with no evidence to back up your assertions.

Incorrect I have provided 3 phenomena where space (real space ) is being affected. 1)temperature 2) light path curvature 3) redshift Show that you can solve those three observer dependant measurements with just time dilation. I can honestly tell you, it won't work you need length contraction as well

In the formulas its your coordinate length. However we have evidence this applies as observations show length contraction in redshift and temperature. Time dilation cannot account for the energy level changes involved in the above two. A change in density via the length contraction however does. If you think about light bending around a planet. Time dilation can't cause this without length contraction as well.

Here is the full transforms. Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is ( this below doesnt have curvature as SR assumes Euclidean) [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where[latex] \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since[latex] d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval dt=d\acute{t} she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex] Both these occur simultaneous. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] So you coordinate length contracts as well as your time coordinate changes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Both these occur at the same time. Study relativity before trying to say its wrong. Your just making yourself look the fool by ignoring this detail.

You might try listening as I have a master degree in physics. Some of those relativity tests I have personally performed in a lab.

Impossible if two people get the same measurement. Then both measurements are the same.

Your right continue ignoring the full transforms simply because it disagrees with you will probably get this thread locked. Secondly universe expansion has nothing to do with the topic of relativity. That is a different set of circumstances. (thermodynamics). So your postulates in that paper is literally incorrect on that basis. It was the experiments itself that showed length contraction occurs. Not the other way around.

Another piece of evidence that length contraction occurs is that temperature measurements are also affected by observer measurements. Time dilation cannot account for this. It requires a density change. When length contracts, density increases so temperature also increases. We have measured these observer variations.

Gravitational redshift provides the evidence of the length contraction. The wavelengths shorten when blueshift occurs. (length contraction) just because you don't understand or agree with something doesn't make it wrong. If you wish to overturn relativity you had best learn what is involved instead of ignoring half the transforms involved on an arbitrary choice.

You can't apply just one formula 8n this case. Two things happen time dilates and length contracts. Ignoring length contraction arbitrarily simply doesn't make your theory true. You don't get to choose to ignore experimental evidence. This is an extremely well tested theory.

Entanglement also doesn't allow ftl information exchange.

However this calc is the seperation distance. Based upon a linear equation of Hubbles law. GR kicks in when you look at redshift values for those distances. You will find that z is not linear with seperation distance. Though it is approximately linear up to a point. Recall as well GR doesn't apply to Hubbles law. It is not inertial based. Nothing is truly violating the speed limit c.

Knowing the right questions to ask is often the trick. +1 response though.