JohnLesser

 

 

No. I am saying that you posted a lot of ignorant nonsense. You then resist any attempt to explain your errors and insist that you are right and more than a century of scientists, students and interested people are wrong. How arrogant.

 

This is exactly the same behaviour you showed before. You should learn a little humility and consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

My hastiness to explain is often my ''down fall''. I forget and jump ''miles'' ahead of your present understanding. I understand why at times nobody understands. However I suppose this discussion is pointless too, because I can't even discuss my own thoughts on ''things'' of science.

It is not my fault I see the correctness or incorrectness of things.

I agree with the OP, as I have stated many times before.

The sole definition of speculation implies that it should lack evidence. When you say that his speculation should be supported, it's like saying ''an unsupported claim should be supported by evidence''. If it were supported, it becomes a hypothesis and not a speculation. He is right in that regard.

 

I firmly believe that we would get less of this if that sub-forum were renamed as ''hypotheses'' instead of ''speculations''. It's even more in line with what is sought by the rules of the forum.

 

Of course, I disagree that his claims are valid. They aren't and are therefore, speculations! I wonder when people will realize this.

You are correct in your understanding of speculation sir, due respect. However speculations are there to be built into theory or hypothesis.

I am sure Einstein had rudiment thoughts before he put everything together to create relativity. To speculate in one's mind is just to think about things.

 

 

OK lets look at a couple of definitions that seem to elude you:

 

Axiom:

 

 

 

Evidence:

 

 

Axiom's are exactly what I am using. Evidence is what I provided.

 

 

The experimental evidence contradicts you. The existing theory contradicts you. From this, logic dictates that you must be wrong.

The point was the experimental evidence you have misinterpreted, and the evidence shows I am correct in my interpretation. I used this evidence to show I was correct. It is ''your'' evidence but seemingly I am not allowed to use it.

 

 

 

Nonsense.

So you are saying Einstein, Newton, Planck, Maxwell, are not mainstream and provide evidence?

The rules are clearly laid out.

Where did I break any rules? My notions all had present information for support, I was using your experiments etc, although definition states I do not need to provide firm evidence to speculate. Changing the English language and definition to suit is misleading .

If your logica chain of reasoning is contradicted by experimental evidence then your axioms are wrong.

To the contrary, the experimental evidence and my logic shows I am correct. I was using everything that is mainstream but wasn't given a chance to get people to understand. The messenger got shot before he had even warmed up.

 

People are simply brushing off any idea that devites from traditional interpretation no matter how weakly based is that interpretation. They are also brushing off the supporting evidence.

That is exactly what they do, I provide strong axiom evidence which gets ignored.

 

As I understand it, the speculation was that the speed of light was variable. If so, the above is just nonsense.

variable by interpretation, however I can not discuss this or I am banned.

The operative word in that definition is 'firm'. This does not equal 'no evidence'. The boundary a speculation must meet is set in the rules:

 

It's a reasonable bar to jump in my opinion.

Well my evidence was totally ignored , I used everything that was mainstream, nothing was made up. I feel the answer in this forum if ''they'' can't win a debate is to close thread or ban poster, therefore nether reaching any sort of conclusions. Most replies in closed thread completely ignored my notions.

Confused.com is an understatement.

 

I speculate that the OP doesn't understand that even speculations involve a discussion of supporting evidence to either be proved or disproved.

By definition it doe's not, also I did provide supporting evidence which was completely ignored.

I think this may be an american based forum, so maybe our wording may be different. That is why we have definitions to be clear.

It is a science forum. There are expectations that speculations will be science (i.e. evidence) based.

 

Not just made-up nonsense with no basis in reality and that is contradicted by evidence.

The very definition of speculation says it doe's not have to be evidence based, (although I did use evidence).

Are you saying the definition of speculation is incorrect?

Speculation is before theory, theory is providing evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

I read it. It was part of the evidence that contributed to my conclusion.

Then you will recognise my opening premise in my part paper and explanations are accurate and without any fundamental errors in understanding how time was devised, to conclude simultaneity of time by the simple reasons of equating the present ''speed'' of time to being equal to the rotational speed of the earth. 1 earth rotation = 1 day = 24 hrs= degree of motion on a mechanical clock = caesium standard time.

Twin one on Earth at relative rest

Twin two on planet x at relative rest

Both twins have to devise a way to measure time, both twins measure 1 day is equal to one rotation their relative planet and decide that 1 day is equal to 24 hours.

Can you explain why they can't do this to measure time?

added- I am not the one whom is ignoring our entire history and how time was devised.

And yet it contracts.

Contracting geometric points is not space contracting , All the example you can think of of time dilation explain things in the present.

look two lines.

----------

-------------------

One is contracted relative to the other,

but neither is contracted relative to the background and present .

 

 

Distance is constant but can get longer or shorter. Got it.

 

 

If you are moving from the Earth the the Sun, you will measure the distance as being less than someone on the Earth would.

 

 

You have nothing to teach. You are either profoundly ignorant or just posting nonsense as a joke. (Tip: It's not very funny. You should try harder.)

Clearly you have completely ignored my part paper and instantly ruled out just because of your own lack of understanding in relativity.

From youto the sun? huh obvious you have travelled some distance so will measure less.

Who said space has solidity? Why does space need to be solid for distances to change?

Spacial distance is constant, it is only the length of space between objects that can change, i.e gaps widen or shorten.

No it will not, If I travelled to the Sun, the Sun does not get closer to the earth while I travel.

It is pointless if you are going to keep trying to teach me instead of being taught. I have learnt all about this and I am telling you all it is wrong, it is not my premise to listen or ask questions, try to disprove my notion and premise if you can .

If Alan measures the distance before he leaves while at rest with respect to points A and B, and then measures the distance between A and B again while in transit, he will discover that his second measurement, taken while moving with respect to the two points, will be shorter than the first measurement that he took.

No it will not, If I travelled to the Sun, the Sun does not get closer to the earth while I travel.

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.

You are not contracting space , you are contracting light passing through space, when you move your geometrical points, either side of these points still remains space,

<space......point....................point...space>

<space...........point........point...........space>

Again I ask for proof space has solidity?

<space...........point........point...........space>

 

 

Not if dx changes as well. (Which, if there is time dilation, it will.)

 

This wilful ignorance and refusal to engage with the evidence is probably the reason your previous posts got shut down.

Again you are not thinking, if you contract the distance it is travelling less distance at the same speed in less time that travelling a greater distance, you are not contracting anything, you are trying to create a subjective illusion not accounting for the cbmr.

Let me explain

Two points (a) and (b) one light second apart.

Between these points is space, cbmr and light. Alan sets off on a journey to point (B), the distance stays the same, nothing contracts.

The inflating balloon in a box, the space passes through the balloons rubber solid surface and the surface passes through the space, the air in the box is displaced but the space is not. The space in the box ends up inside the balloon, not by magic , the balloons skin offers no permeability or permitivity resistance to space. It is as if space has 0 ''viscosity'' .

You are discussing apples when I am discussing pairs. Please try to think about what I am saying instead of thinking about what you already know.

I have already said you are correct by your interpretation of time, however the notion is your interpretation is incorrect. You quite clearly are not considering why it is incorrect which I have explained several times already.

Do you agree or disagree in the following statement?

If two observers measure two different frequencies of time and use these independent measurements to measure the speed of a car travelling distance x, t1/dx will be different to t2/dx

Yes or no

What evidence is there for such a static background?

The inflating balloon in a box, the space passes through the balloons rubber solid surface and the surface passes through the space, the air in the box is displaced but the space is not. The space in the box ends up inside the balloon, not by magic , the balloons skin offers no permeability or permitivity resistance to space. It is as if space has 0 ''viscosity'' .

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

You are discussing apples when I am discussing pairs. Please try to think about what I am saying instead of thinking about what you already know.

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.

I am not saying what you have is wrong, in the conclusion of my theory I fix it all, a simple fix in changing the definition of time dilation to a timing dilation, fixes the problem sort of.

Timing dilation then can be assumed to be correct , but this still does not solve the speed of light problem.

but the co-ordinates define the space right?

No, coordinates define virtual points and vectors, the lines do not actually exist. Space itself, the background to the 2d interpretation , does not contract. like the background behind these words is relative ''stationary''.

 

 

So you are saying that time is made of something?

 

Why do you accept time dilation and reject length contraction when they are the same thing?

They are not the same thing, I neither accept the present interpretation of time dilation.

Why do people feel the need to try to force me to accept ''your way or the high way? ''

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 \acute{x} (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive \acute{x} direction.

Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and d\acute{t} using two identical clocks. Neither dt,d\acute{t} or dx,d\acute{x} 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.

I appreciate you know your stuff, so the coordinates contract, not the space?

 

 

 

How would you feel if you were driving down the road at 40 MPH

 

Alan measured 40 mph d/t

John measures 80 mph d/t

Sorry officer, you are relatively wrong.

 

 

The distance travelled (dx, in your notation).

So you are contracting a length of space , therefore for that to be objective reality you would have to prove space was made of something to contract. There is no evidence that suggests space is made of anything. Contracting of the ''background'' doe's not happen.

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.

Again ,what are you contracting? you are contracting subjective virtual lines. Space itself has no solidity to contract.

 

What?

 

If you have time dilation then you also have length contraction. Because the two effects always go hand in hand. Because the speed of light is defined to be constant.

 

Therefore it is impossible to have different observers measure different values for the speed of light.

What are you contracting? the length of space? the length of light?

If you contract the length then you can't have a time dilation anyway, you are just saying it travels a shorter length in less time than it would take travel a longer length.

It is impossible to measure the same value of the speed of light if using two different ''rates'' of time .

 

That doesn't make any sense. If they measure the same speed, then it is the same speed.

 

How would you feel if you were driving down the road at 40 MPH and the police used a radar gun to measure your speed as 40 MPH but then prosecute you for driving at 120 MPH (because they think the speed is different from what they measure).

 

The whole point about measurements is that they are supposed to be objective. If you are going to say that, even if they measure the same speed it is not actually the same, then you are no longer doing science.

Sorry it was ambiguous of me, they both can conclude that the speed of light is constant, but neither can agree on a speed.

example:

Alan times light to travel dx takes 1 second

John times light to travel dx takes 2 seconds