TakenItSeriously

Sorry about the delay and thanks for the responses. Thanks for the sources, I looked into symmetry breaking and it was pretty informative. Does the science community consider these assymetries as mysteries that need to be solved? Has the science community considered that symmetry could be created as part of a multi-dimensional Universe? Have they accepted that the Universe is not symmetrical and theories they conflict with as wrong? or do they consider that the laws or framework of the Universe as a symmetrical framework that may contain asymmetries? or something else?

Perhaps I'm basing it upon a false assumption about what is currently accepted about what we know about the universe since I'm not a physicist. I recall a physicist in a documentary, I don't recall who, or the particular branch he was an expert in, or even the particular documentary (I've seen hundreds) stating that many modern theories such as String Theory or Super Symmetry are dependent upon a symmetrical universe. He went on to say that we know that the Universe is not a symmetrical Universe. Therefore it may only be possible to provide a consistent theory of a hypothetical universe that didn't actually agree with what we know, or something to that effect. Again, I can only say that was the gist of the statement from memory. He expressed it as if it were a matter of fact and didn't seem to be expressing it as an opinion or hypothesis. Therefore I had assumed that it was an accepted conclusion in the Scientific community. I also assumed, at the time, that his statement was based upon the "Twin Paradox" conclusion whose premise of the paradox was based upon the symmetry of Relativity. I seem to recall that his statement mentioned Special Relativity specifically, though, I understand that memory is a tricky thing.

I understand that the "Twin Paradox" problem is not a symmetrical problem. Aside from the TP arguement. Is there any other basis for the claim that the Universe is not symmetrical?

lol, I don't know. It's pretty lame. I started out thinking it was -1 since you could prove 1= -1 using imaginary numbers until I saw I had misread the problem somehow and tried to fix it. next thinking it could involve some kind of logical equation which took me on a weird tangent. It's dumb, I know.

just a guess.

ok, thanks

I was just trying to create figure out how to create an outline format using the list tag and tested it here. Is that not what this forum is for?

Thanks Studiot. I should explain that there's an odd effect that seems to impact the relativistic domain where causality seems to work sideways and in a parallel fashion. It creates the strangest problems to deal with, because reading and writing is a linear process so I would consistantly get stuck when trying to provide a cohesive arguement. Before rejecting such an odd notion, I ask the reader to recall that SR is a theory about a transition between two domains that follow different laws. so perhaps in that respect it may not seem so unreasonable. My first instinct was that the causality issue would create more problems then solve by handling one point at a time. However after giving it a little more thought, I now think a variation of pairing it down to smaller more manageable groups could work. Ill need to try it offline first but I hope to post an example soon. Thanks again for the idea.

So it's been a few days with 66 views and no replies so far which, I hope, is not terrible news. At least it implies that their are no gapping holes in the hypothesis that could be easilly refuted. I appologize if the post was confusing to read, especially the outline section. The incidents with hackers is a bit more frustrating than one might think. They seem to have access to my Evernote account with 24/7 access to all of my files. This gives them time to go through each of my latest documents and modify them, roll back revisions, remove key sections, or just make a mess of the document in general. Since I limit my online exposure to an iPad only, there is no avoiding this by saving documents locally in a way that cannot be updated from outside sources. Therefore, I had to modify the entire post just before posting in a single sitting. After that, I couldn't be certain about what might have been changed the next day so I found it impossible to post a completely "clean" versian that hadn't been tampered with. If you've taken an interest in this project, please save a copy to your own computer using clip all. Hopefully the wide distribution will be enough to discourage tampering with the online version. I don't meen to disparage the security of these forums, but it's better not to even tempt the hackers who are, at times, extraordinarily capable in their attacks if they need to be.

point 1 point 2 point 2.A point 2.Bindent a paragraph of lines on a single bullet point 2.C point 2.C.a point 2.C.b point 2.C.c point 2.D point 2.E point 3 point 4 point 4.i point 4.ii point 4.ii.1 point 4.ii.2 point 4.iii point 4.iv point 4.v point 4.vi to retrieve the code use the quote button

I think this will work, but I don't know how to prove the optimal efficiency. Is there a definitive solution? I would add, that this is the perfect analog for comparing logic and math. The scale represents the math while the balance represents the logic. You could solve this problem with the scale only or the balance only however, combining both disciplines provides us with the greatest efficiency.

I think this is correct: it took between 3-4 hours to finish. edit to add: Nope, needs one more detail: correcting now. I would add, that this is the perfect analog for comparing logic and math. The scale represents the math while the balance represents the logic. You could solve this problem with the scale only or the balance only however, combining both disciplines provides us with the greatest efficiency.

Are we supposed to know what the available machines are? a balance? a scale? something else?

I must be crazy Intuitive Model of Special Relativity Abstract I began with a hypothesis that length contraction was the definitive source of the Twin Paradox. In order to show evidence that would support this hypothesis, I simplified the problem to it's simplest possible form as a ship traveling at a constant velocity while flying by both planets, seperated by 4 lightyears thus removing the turn around and the second leg of the problem. Therefore there would be no acceleration, no turn around, no frame jumping in the problem. Their is only the length contraction which I had originally proposed as the source of the time deviation and the relativistic doppler shift which is used to show the source of the time deviation in the origional solution to the problem. This implied that the relatvistic doppler shift was just another aspect of the spacetime effects of contraction or expansion. I provided four logical arguements for each link betweer time and distance to frequency and wavelength to show that it was logically consistant that they are the same effects of expansion and contraction. I next combined the relativistic spacetime effects to the relativity of simultaniety (lag-time) and calculated their combined Lorrentz Transformations using mathematical formalism to reveal the exact same formulas that are used for Relativistic Doppler Shift thus validating the logical conclusions made earlier. By combining the relativistic spacetime effects with their lag-times, we can also see that Special Relativity is symmetrical where spacetime expands behind moving objects and contracts in front of moving objects in synch with redshift and blueshift. Also, it appears to be consistent with all relativistic effects though havent had the time to confirm each one of those yet. We also discover that Special Relativity is symmetrical in time and space between observers while it quickly becomes apparent that all of the relativistic effects are also different aspects of the same spacetime expansion and contraction. We also see that the rotation of spacetime is the ultimate cause in the ubiquitous thought experiments that create so many of the veridical paradoxes in Special Relativity. From this convergence, I was able to create a new intuitive model that should make Special Relativity much easier to Understand and reveal all of the mysteries that it had been hiding for over a hundred years. I have provided the logical deductions and mathematical formalism that should provide sufficient evidence of the convergence. Much of the ansillary evidence I havident had time to verify. While the following proposals will appear to be a radical departure from Special Relativity nothing has actually changed or been violated other than our perspective of the universe. Proposals Unify all Newtonian and Relativistic effects as different aspects of the same two effects: spacetime contraction in front of moving objects. spacetime expansion behind moving objects. Show that spacetime is symmetrical and consistent with relativity. Provide an intuitive relative model for SR. Reveals how the dual densities of the CMB is a relativistic effect of expansion and contraction Represents the absolute value of the velocity of the earth in the universe, mostly in the movement in the Milky Way. Revelas the CMB as the common reference that has been missing. Reveals how the expansion of the Universe is a relativistic effect of expansion DE ≡ Relativistic Energy The rate of expansions increase over distance explains the beginning of accelerated expansion 5 billion years ago as the transition into the relativistic domain. Reveals the dichotomy of spacetime consistant with Hubble's Law: Spacetime contracts over time Spacetime expands over distance Introduction Outline of Arguements The first order consequences caused by the constancy of c: The invariance of v if time dilation is true then distance expansion must also be true if distance contraction is true then time compression must also be true The Rotation of Spacetime As v→c Time rotates into Space As v→0 Space rotates into Time The Lorentz Transformation Causality Loops Unifying Doppler Shift and Spacetime effects Relativistic Doppler Shift - Normal Doppler Shift ≡ Relativistic Length Contraction + Relativistic Time Dilation Normal Doppler Shift ≡ Relativity of Simultaneity Relativistic Doppler Shift ≡ Relativistic Length Contraction + Relativistic Time Dilation + Relativity of Simultaneity Validate the definitive source of time deviation in the "Twin Paradox" problem. Validate the definitive source of time deviation as length contraction. Validate the cause and effect link. Validate the doppler effect/spacetime equivalence using the Doppler solution. Validate the remaining solutions as secondary effects of the constancy of c. Frame Jumping The turn Around From those proposals I will provide a New Logical Symmetrical Spacetime Model Observers in different inertial frames share symmetrical views of space and time but not identical views Unify all relativistic effects to aspects of contraction or expansion Solves the Lopsided CMB Lopsided CMB is a relativistic efect of Length Expansion/Contraction Global Reference Frame Expands spacetime in our lookback cone Contracts spacetime of the universe in our future cone Represents the absolute velocity of the Earth Solves the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe Mystery accelerated expansion over space decelerated expansion over time DE ≡ Relativistic Energy Accelerated Expansion ≡ Relativistic Expansion The curious result spontanious expansion starting 5 Billion years ago now has a simple explanation as a relativistic spacetime effect of distance expansion triggered when velocities of expansion hit relativistic scales Arguments: Another look at the "Twin Paradox" In order to demonstrate the definitive source of the time deviation, as length contraction, we need to eliminate all other possible sources. In order to do this we can reduce the problem as a one way solution using three observers. Unifying Doppler Shift with Spacetime Another Key aspect of the rotation of spacetime is the unification of relativistic effects into a single set of spacetime expansion and spacetime contraction. Consider the following equations for frequency and velocity: f = c/λ v = Δx/Δt where: c ≡ the speed of light (m/s) λ ≡ wavelength/cycle (m) f ≡ cycles/second (1/s) v ≡ velocity (m/s) Δx ≡ change in distance (m) Δt ≡ change in time (s) Looking at the units shows that frequency and velocity are both functions of space and time. Cause of Contraction Effects (Blueshift) Distance contraction ⇒ Time compression (cause: the invariance of v) Time compression ⇒ Frequency compression (cause: time ∝ frequency) Frequency compression ⇒ Wave length contraction (cause: the constancy of c) Wavelength contraction ⇒ Distance contraction (cause: the conservation of information) Cause of Expansion Effects (Redshift) Distance expansion ⇒ Time dilation (cause: the invariance of v) Time dilation ⇒ Frequency expansion (cause: time ∝ frequency) Frequency expansion ⇒ Wave length expansion (cause: the constancy of c) Wave length expansion ⇒ Distance expansion (cause: conservation of information) The Invariance of V Is another hidden consequence of this rotation. Given: v = Δx'/Δt' The invariance of v tells us that relativistic effects must be reflected proportionately for both distance and time. Special Relativity tells us that time dilation and length contraction are real. Therefore we must accept that Length expansion and time compression are also true through the invariance of v. Δt' = γ·Δt (time dilation) ⇒Δx' = γ·Δt' (length expansion) Δx' = Δx/γ (length contraction) ⇒Δt' = Δx/γ' (time contraction) Time ∝ Frequency Frequency is directly linked to the time of the transmissions source, if the dimension of time is slower than the time of the observer who is receiving the signal, then its frequency will be changed accordingly. For example if a signal is transmitted at 1GB/s and there was a time dilation of 60% from the receivers perspective, then the signal would be only be received at 600MB/s before including any more shift due to normal doppler shift. The Constancy of C f = c/λ Since c is constant, than any change in the frequency is going to be an inverse change in λ Conservation of Information Light is information and its continuous between the source and the observer. Since information canot be destroyed or created then the wavelength must be directly related to any changes due to expansion or contraction. Unified Symmetrical Intuitive Spacetime Model The consistancy in the arrangement of unified effects combined with the complete symmetry between observers allows us to greatly simplify our two inertial reference frame model with a new unified, symmetrical, and intuitive spacetime model. Spacetime Contraction ahead of moving objects (blueshift) Spacetime Expansion behind moving objects (redshift) Figure 1: I use the doppler shift waves here to illustrate how the basic framework of how all effects fit into this singel model which can also be broken down to be analized as pairs of observers or just returned to their original inertial frames if need be. Example: We can illustrate this effect by imagining the first leg of the "Twin Paradox" from all perspectives, while including the clock signal transmitted from each source. A ships (S) trajectory is calculated to pass near two planets (A & B) that are separated by a distance of 4 lightyears while moving at a constant relativistic velocity v = 0.8c. There are observers with telescopes and transponders broadcasting perpetual clock signals all at the same universal frequency from the ship and from each planet. Each example below represents a POV at a particular time: E1 ≡ ship passing A E2 ≡ ship passing B The oberver is always displayed on the left and the direction of the moving object is indicated by the arrow (≺ or ≻). Relative frequency is shown using "~" in each POV. Since the broadcast information is conserved, the amount of broadcast information must be the same regardless of the observers inertial frame. Therefore, the relative number of wave symbols displayed is consistent though their frequency will differ. A

Actually, I would just call them stars. I don't know what purpose showing events would serve since they are random. At least showing persistent stars shows how spacetime may react or warp. Newtonian motion within any local region of spacetime would appear to be pretty static by comparison so if we those stars in some local region of spacetime probably wouldn't have the time to show much in the way of world lines. I think even the fastest rogue stars discovered in the Milky Way are several orders of magnitude off from moving at relativistic speeds. Perhaps a little more context on whats being represented. There's a lot about it the motion in the diagram that I don't understand myself. I assume the bottom triangle is the look back cone and the diagonals represent two opposite directions for the speed of light. But if the ship made some accelerated turnarounds or something, I wouldn't expect the entire string of past events to swing side to side like that and instead see the motion concentrated at the vertex. and past events should be more glued to a spot, I'd think. The side to side swings seem to be driving the motion as much as the vertex but maybe it's just a perspective I'm not understanding. I would have expected a lot more warping of spacetime about the edges of the cone. I don't think those lines should be so easy to cross either but then, I wouldn't know how to animate a look back cone in a way that made sense to me either.

Personally I found that diagram more confusing than helpful. Events occur at some moment and position in spacetime such as landing on the moon would be an event. This diagram seems to be representing events as if they were persistent like stars or galaxies.

Thanks Mordred, Impressive post, I'll take your word on the math. Your right, I was only asking to see which way the wind was blowing. I didn't see acceleration as being a logical solution. Though my reasoning wasn't as impressive, but then logic is never impressive. This seems like a big deal. Was this seen as a big blow against Equivalence? I mean, wouldn't it put it's Principle status in question? I'm not sure I get it though, how is it that there are two different vectors for acceleration at the turn around. wouldn't it be one long acceleration pointed back towards Earth? Unless... are you describing the rotation of spacetime past a vertex for the Earth Frame? That would be exciting. I've incorporated rotation into a hypothesis Ive been working on and it required 90⁰ rotation in either direction, which I didn't see before now. How does this align with time dilation at an EH? I'm sorry, I wasn't able to follow the math adequately. Do the spacetime effects all invert on the return trip? I'd think they would have to in order to work over any distance for a single max velocity.

I think you got the gist of it. They use the Equivalence Principle to equate acceleration to gravity then apply GR's time dilation to the accelerated turn around event to explain the time deviation. The following youtube video does a good job explaining it short and to the point.https://youtu.be/0iJZ_QGMLD0 Thanks, I'll look for it. I think there is, but I'm still working out the details before I commit to anything, I hope to have an answer soon. Ok, great, thanks. Thats fine, it just seemed like a bunch of different twin paradox solutions started denying acceleration as the cause. Thanks, I need to dig into this a bit more. I had always just based relativistic effects on the constancy of c and the linking of spacetime which I found to be pretty self-consistent but it sounds like there's a bit more to it than that.

Based on the widely diverse solutions to the twin paradox, Twin paradox solutions almost seem like an opinion poll and they seem to disagree on certain aspects, so I'm lost on what's the most accepted. Five questions on SR: 1) is acceleration ≡ gravity still the most accepted solution for the twin paradox? 2) Which is more accepted: Clocks moving towards observer run faster or slower than the local clock? 3) Is there any proof that shows that length could not exceed proper length regardless of direction of movement (towards/away)? 4) What are the consequences of the invariant spacetime interval? 5) is there a specific finding or proof that triggered controversy?

Thanks for the help I can answer all those correctly but I need to focus on something now. Thanks again!

Thanks a lot for this explanation. it answered my question. i just wanted to fact check that my uses of the lorentz transform were properly handled and I wasnt familiar with those terms, as special cases other than invariant. It looks like I'm fine. Thanks again

Yes, only I realized I'm going to have to take some time studying up on tensors, and I haven't found the time yet. Sorry, I didn't mean to forget to thank those who replied.

Think of it this way. The clock is not preserving time dilation because it was never dialated in your own frame. What the clock is preserving is the length contraction you experienced in your travels. So every time you experienced x% length contraction of the Earth frame you're travel time was shorter by x% as well and that is what the clock was preserving.

Nothing wrong with independently duplicating another persons idea as long as you don't represent it as your own. I thought I had come up with an original multi-universe model in the late 70s, until I saw that someone had come come up with something similar called the many worlds theory, I think in the 20s. It's happened several times since then as well, though I occasionally find an original idea or solve an previously unsolved problem. However, it can be extremely difficult to prove it's original because it comes down to proving non-existence of your idea at any point in the past. While working on a completely unrelated problem, I once stumbled upon an encryption method that I thought was original after extensive searching. Eventually someone recognized it for a method that went by a name that didn't happen fit any of my searches terms. As an ex-poker pro who had played before the poker boom, I recall virtually every new concept discussed in the poker forums were just rehashed ideas that had beed discovered before the poker boom.