JohnMnemonic

To be honest, I'm against the idea, that a constant velocity is causing physical time dilation. Of course I don't have nothing against relative time dilation - but then we would need also a second frame... Thanks! I will check it...

Nope... There's an important difference between a theory and a working model https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-model-and-vs-theory/ Many people thought the same about newtonian gravity... Oh, then if time is flowing at sub relativistic speeds - why won't we extend this to 100% of c? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory "...a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" So, according to you, there's no difference between theoretical and practical science? No difference between things, which theoretically might happen and those which are in fact taking place? So maybe astronomy is also a theory? QM and MHD are not theories. Strange - according to you and the SR, the faster a frame is moving, the slower the time flows for it... Then what is the rate of time flow for a frame, which for one observer moves at 99% of c, while for another one, at 1% of c? Tell this to all those scientists, who are not afraid to point out the inconsistencioes in SR... http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.20170603.12.pdf http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR18/Session/Y13.6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01801199 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318986998_Special_Relativity_its_Inconsistency_with_the_Standard_Wave_Equation http://www.mrelativity.net/Einstein'sThreeMistakesinSpecialRelativityRevealed/Einstein’s Three Mistakes in Special Relativity Revealed.htm http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0056v1.pdf https://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentin_Danci/publication/298786831_The_core_mathematical_error_of_Einstein's_Special_Relativity_Theory/links/56eb2abf08aeb65d7593b029/The-core-mathematical-error-of-Einsteins-Special-Relativity-Theory.pdf But you probably will simply ignore those links - as it is beyond your capabilities, to think about a possibility, that Einstein might be wrong in some aspects of his theory... Of course, it also doesn't matter for you, that SR and GR are in many ways inconsistent with QM, as you don't see no difference between theoretical and practical science - but just in case, I will mention, that SR and GR belong to the theoretical part, while QM to the practical one... I have just one more question for you: What would you do, if you would notice, that a generally approved theory is inconsistent with observable reality? Would you try to fix the theory, or would you assume, that something has to be wrong with reality? Before you will answer, think about the non-observable (non-existant?) dark matter.... I need also to mention about a very interesting fact - it seems, that since according to SR, it is impossible/invalid to describe the relation between photons and any physical object, there's no way of making a working model of this theory (which is actually based on the speed of light) - as we are simply not able to represent physical objects together with light in space... Funny, because relativity Doppler's effect describes the speed of light in relation to a moving source - so, obviously any visualisation of Doppler's effect is against the SR....

So you don't see the difference between a theory and practice. Theoretically I could try to explain it to you, but in practice it wouldn't make sense... Oh, so you can also foretell the future? Can you tell me which numbers I have to choose in a lottery? But how it is related to the supposed lack of time flow at c? Problem is, that I spent last couple years, working with models, which are completely functional - for some "unknown" reason, no one tries to argue with MHD or QM - maybe because those are NOT theories? And you don't see any problem with the fact, that every velocity, lower than c doesn't exist, as a definitive value? If from my perspective some object moves at 90% of c, while from your perspective it moves at 5% of c, what is it's "true" velocity?

Let's wait a year or two and see, if SR will still be considered as the best solution. Funny, that after 100 years, it is still considered as a THEORY and not a functional model, like QM, EM, MHD and many other ones... It doesn't invalidate SR - but in many ways replaces it... Look, how long ago those papers were published - most of them around 2 years ago. Give them another 2 to 5 years and we'll see... And yet you repeat some statements, without giving a single thought about them... "Time doesn't flow for light..." Why? "Because the theory says so...", "Because everybody accept the SR - so it has to be correct...". "It's incorrect to use photons as frame of reference" Why? "Because SR doesn't allow it...", "Because Einstein said so...". You see, this is the difference between us - I won't accept any claim, without spending some time, thinking about it... You accept claims, just because everybody tell you, that you have to accept them... I accept them, only when I understand their meanings and only after they will make sense for me... If something doesn't make sense, or can be easily disproved by well known facts, then I reject it - and until someone won't prove me, that it is in fact correct, I will treat it as useless junk (no matter, if it was Einstein, who said so, or if everyone around tries to force my acceptance). Simple and well known fact, that each photon has it's own timeline/history proves clearly, that it has to experience flow of time - this is for me more than enough, to conclude, that Einstein made in this case a mistake. And because, couple minutes of thinking is enough, to figure out a solution, which will allow me to use photons as reference - it is clear to me, that the issue is not in the idea, to use speed of light as a reference, but in the theory, which gives us invalid results... When I see, that observations don't match my predictions, my first guess is, that there's something wrong with the model - and not that 70% of mass in the Universe is invisible and beyond any kind of perception.... But it's most likely because I'm not a professional scientist....

Well, that's because in the difference to scientists with an actual career, such amateurs don't risk anything by making claims, that are against mainstream theories, which the majority larned to accept without questions. You see, problem is, that most of my controversial claims is in fact based on recent theories and official researches. It is very sad, that people, who spent half of their lives by learning officially approved theories don't want to follow recent trends in science and models, which are still being developed - they simply got used to swallow everything, what is served by those with "authority". Only few are open for new ideas, and are able to constantly improve their knowledge - for the majority everything, what wasn't written in their books and approved by the scientific elite is obviously wrong, stupid and pseudo-scientific... I really don't want to rip apart your hermetic world, but did you ever tried to notice, that the science is still FAR from perfection and even the most famous theories might be replaced in the future by better ones... Did you ever heard about such things, as Scale Relativity, fractal space-time, Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm, Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter? Do you know, that there's quite a lot of scientists, who noticed at last, that the idea of physical time dimension is completely useless and are working right now on models, which are based on the assumption, that Universe exists in real-time only? Do you know, that according to recent studies, entire Universe looks and works like a giant brain? Do you know, that magnetohydrodynamics is the only branch of physics, which is in 100% functional? Do you know, what is magnetic reconnection and flux transfer event, or how flux tubes can connect to the lower atmosphere and cause outflows of ionized particles from the magnetosphere? Do you know, how interplanetary electric fields affect the upper cloud layer? Compared to MHD, Special Relativity looks like a crippled gnome with some serious brain issues... Do you know, that Special Relativity was already disproven theoretically? Do you know, that there are some alternative models of gravity, which work nicely without the hypothetical dark matter? I don't know, if you noticed, but we don;t live in 1905 anymore and even the XX century is gone - and science didn't end at Einstein's Relativity... I know, that it might be hard, but I would suggest you, to look at the science from a slightly wider perspective and stop to treat mainstream theories, as some sacred knowledge - most of them is already outdated, only people still didn't managed to notice... https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-010-9170-2 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/ http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Relativity Theory/Download/4451 http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Relativity Theory/Download/6751 https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php http://www.nacgeo.com/download/SpecialRelativityIsWrong.pdf http://www.mrelativity.net/Einstein'sTimeDilationDecipheredandProvenWrong/Einstein’s Time Dilation Deciphered and Proven Wrong.htm

True... But don't you think, that it's strange, that no one still didn't try to get some better results? Our current technology is now much better, allowing us to make much more precise measurements... It would probably good for the science, if Einstein's theory would be once again proved... But, what do I know? BTW good, that there is still this thread. All I wanted, was to discuss some of my ideas and learn couple new things, but obviously some people think, that in fact I want to present a completely functional model of unified physics and a fully validated scientific theory, based on endless strings of sophisticated calculations, which will turn the entire world of science upside-down... Hmm, maybe I didn't say clearly enough, that I'm not a professional scientists. Or maybe I forgot to mention, that I'm a total amateur, who treats physics as a kind of hobby...? Or maybe some people don't like, when amateurs, like me start to talk about things, which are against the mainstream science...? It would be probably much better for all, if I would try to prove the flat Earth "theory", instead looking for new solutions for some old problems in physics... Anyway I really appreciate your input in the discussion - it is a rare sight, that people with actual knowledge have the will to speak with amateurs, like me Most of so called "scientists" try only to improve their self-confidence and prove, how smart they are...

As I said in the very beginning - I TREAT PHYSICS AS A HOBBY AND EVERYTHING I DO, I DO IT FOR FUN - NOTHING MORE. I'M INTERESTED IN THEORIES, WHICH STILL DIDN'T BECOME MAINSTREAM - BECAUSE I LIKE TO LEARN NEW THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN 95% OF SO CALLED SCIENTISTS TREAT THEM AS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. If you REALLY want to, I can give you dozens links to official sources, which will show, that 90% of my claims is based on recent scientific theories or ongoing researches...

To be honest, you seem to be the only one in here, who's opinion has some value for me. Most of people only want to prove, how much better and smarter they are - you present actual knowledge... I really appreciate it!

No, I just proved, that time has to flow for a photon and I can make it once more... How? I will simply polarize a beam of light, defining some BEFORE and AFTER for the polarized photons, thus create a timeline for the light. The end - photons have a history, so they have to experience time....

And what do you want me to be? MOSAD? KGB? CIA? SJW? LGBT? Truth is, that my agenda is so secret, that it still doesn't have a name - got any ideas? So you say, that people won't even try to use photons as reference, cause they are afraid of being wrong? Funny, I found 2 possible ways to do it. They might be of course wrong - but since no one can move at c, how do we learn the truth? Of course - my opinion matters so much, that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists tremble, when they hear my voice, while my guesses shake the entire scientific community... "Don't you know him? He's that famous nobody, who treats physics as a hobby and doesn't have any title any title or diploma" Yes - Nobel Prize is waiting....

Keep in mind, that I'm just a complete amateur, who treats physics as a hobby - but I'm still learning and trying to improve...

It is just my guess, but I would say, that it's because constant velocity is not associated with a kinetic force - so nothing works on a body which moves at a constant speed Thanx! I would love to hear more - can you give me some link?

Plz, can you repeat your question? I got lost between all those recent posts...

You got me I'm a secret agent of God. Beware! Archangel Michael is tracking your GPS signal What is the punishment for talking and thinking (!!!) about photon as a frame of reference? It has to hurt, since you are so scared of doing it... It won't be validated, until someone won't approach c. And sice timeline of events, experienced by a photon can be observed and tracked your explanations don't have no value at all - as they are contradicted by objective reality I just did it with my previous answer

I wanted to say, that it is impossible to observe any effect of relativity in my own frame if I'm moving with a constant velocity

No, GR is about mass/energy distribution and time-space curvatures... SR is about relative motion and the speed of light. If you disagree, try to explain gravity with SR - good luck But does it mean, that there's absolutely no other way, to make it valid? I'm sure, that scientists should be able to make it work - even a complete amateur, like me was able to describe a possible perspective of a photon.... Problem is, that to do it, we would ave to modify a big part of SR...

"non existant" according to a theory, which can't even use those photons as a reference. It's pretty obvious, that it won't make sense, if we won't assume, that light experiences time, just like any other frame Sorry, I wanted to answer to one person in a single post, but I didn't manage...

What afflictions and/or agendas? How do you know? I can make a simple statement, which will prove, that this statement is wrong... Are you ready? Then listen: It is possible to track the timeline of events, experienced by a photon. To have a timeline, means to experience time - that's all... Do you want to argue? Yes - it won't make sense, if we would use SR. But is it useless, to use photons as a frame of reference? I would argue...

Well, since hadrons, move at extremely high velocities and are still able to experience time, it doesn't confirm, but rather denies the lack of time flow at 100% of c Well, until no one won't travel to the past and kill his own grandfather, the idea of time travel is just as scientifically valid, as an angel, which is moving at the speed of light

Science is not about beliefs, but about making assumptions and confronting them with reality. I don't believe in time travel - does it mean, that grandfather paradox is a great waste of time? Not to mention, that some famous scientists used such mythical entities in their thought experiments - ever heard about Maxwell's Demon? Do you know, what is a thought experiment? I don't want to prove that ghosts or angels exists - I just wanted to use a non-material observer, which would be able to move at c. If you don't like ghosts, then just make up something/someone else - you can call it/him Albert, if you want Thanx! I know, that lenght contraction can be observed only by a stationary observer

Nothing in the Universe is at rest - but everything, what moves at a constant velocity can be treated as a stationary observer. Photons move always at c, so they should work just fine as a point of reference

Logic and knowledge are my only weapons

Problem is, that there's no way, to confirms a big part of SR, as it deals with velocities, which we won't be able to reach with our current technology. Besides a single result can be explained in many different ways... Tell me, how we might check, if SR is correct in the case of non-existent time at 100% of c? According to Einstein, photons don't experience any time and everything happens instantly for them. I won't accept such statement, if it won't be confirmed by observation... Not to mention, that I don't have (almost) nothing against GR... Ohh, then show me some official attempts to make photon a valid point of reference

Ahh, are you talking about the famous Hafele–Keating Experiment? Of course, it's hard to argue with real life observations (although there are some people, who claim, that those results were altered, but let's leave it for now). However there's nothing what wouldn't allow us, to argue about the possible causes of observed effects. By an accident, I've made a short animation, which shows a simplified version of this experiment: According to the mainstream theory, time flow inside the plane which was moving eastward, was slowed down, because it's velocity was increased, while westward moving plane experienced higher rate of time flow, because he was moving slower... But I can still give you 2 different explanations... - time flow rates inside the planes changed during the time, when they were accelerating. Plane, which started to increase his speed in westward orientation, started to decrease the distance to the clock on the planet's surface, while the one which was accelerating to the East, started to increase the distance. - while all velocities, smalller than c, are relative, pilots of planes are able to notice the difference between the distances, which they passed during the flight - they just need to look at the Sun. Plane, which was moving westward circled around Earth from noon to noon just once, while the one moving eastward, made 3 full circles during the same time (I'm talking about animation, not the actual experiment). To maintain the symmetry of motion between the plane and the clock on the Earth's surface, time inside that plane had to flow at different rate - faster for the plane, which passed shorter distance and slower for the one, which passed a longer distance. It might appear, that this explanation is just a different version of the official one, but keep in mind, that all velocities are in this case relative, while distances are in fact definitive...

Physics is for me just a kind of unusual hobby. Although I don't have any formal education in this field, I've spent last couple years on researching the most important aspects of theoretical and practical physics, beginning from QM, through EM, MHD and plasma physics, to heliophysics, astrophysics, and finishing on GR and SR (which I've started to research only couple months ago). And after such amazing journey through science, I can say without any doubts, that Special Relativity is the most crippled and trashy model, which I saw until now. Comparing to SR, GR seems to work, like a german car - 100 years after it was created, I found only one thing, which bothers me in the mechanics of gravitational fields (I think, that volume of mass/energy distribution is just as important, as it's mass). But the deeper I go into the mechanics of SR, the more issues I notice. More, than 100 years has passed, since Einstein created the theory of SR and up until today, no one from the scientific society didn't try to search for some alternative explanation. 100 years ago, Einstein came to the conclusion, that it is wrong to describe the speed of light in relation to any other velocity, just as it is wrong, to use photons as a frame of reference - and since that time, no one didn't even think about finding any solution to this problem. I'm not a genius - I can't solve sophisticated equations or create a formula for higher dimensions of multi-verse - all I do, is to use simple logic and search for rational solutions to some obvious problems - but somehow I know, that if according to a theory, things make no sense at all, we should try to fix the model, instead accepting the fact, that things don't work, as they should. I'm not a professional scientist, but it doesn't stop me from thinking about things, which according to mainstream science are wrong. If using the SR, to define the perspective of a photon, leads us to a pile of crap, then maybe we should try to look for a solution, which would at least appear to work... I've spent literally 30 minutes, to think, how things might look like for a photon and how to make the model work for all observers (even those, who move at 100% of c). I know, that there's no chance for a human to reach the speed of light, but this is a THEORETICAL science and theoretically everything is possible (until it won't be disproved). Theoretically I can tell, that since ghosts, demons or angels don't have any rest mass, they can freely move with the speed of light - because why not? There's nothing, what wouldn't allow me to think about a theoretical scenario, which can be further modified, according to my needs. However since I started to research SR, it is the first time, when my attempts of going beyond mainstream theories, were not bombarded with hatred, rejected as heresy, or labelled as BS pseudo-science by the majority of professional scientists - and I'm really thankful for it. Until now, each of my guess or claim, which didn't fit in generally approved narrative, turned the thread into a real battlefield: everyone vs me. Funny, that in most of the cases I was still able to defend my claims.... Anyway, after spending some 30 minutes on thinking about the (incorrect and invalid) perspective of a photon I figured out 5 (yes, five) different solutions. I have no idea, if any of them is the right one, but it's not a sin, to search for the answers - I would even say, that this is what theoretical science is all about. First I came to a basic conclusion, that IF FOR ANYTHING, WHAT IS NOT A PHOTON, LIGHT MOVES WITH CONSTANT VELOCITY, EQUAL TO C, THEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A STATIONARY PHOTON, EVERYTHING, WHAT MOVES SLOWER THAN THE LIGHT, WILL APPEAR TO MOVE AT 100% OF C IN THE DIRECTION, OPPOSITE TO THE DIRECTION OF LIGHT PROPAGATION (according to the basic rules of relative motion). It would mean, that at 100% of c, velocities lower, than c don't exist at all. Problems start to appear, if we will try to describe the motion of a photon in relation to other photons. Those are the solutions, which I figured out, just by using my biological brain: - from the perspective of a photon other photons won't be visible or even won't exist at all - what would make sense, since photons don't interact with eachother - from the perspective of a photon, other photons would appear to move at 100% of c in all directions - this could make some serious problems with the correct order of events in space - and in the difference to Einstein, I treat the order of timeline, as the most important aspect of relativity. The only way, in which 2 events can appear to take place at a different order, is because of different distances between observer and the events: event which took place closer to the observer, will appear to take place as the first one - even if both events were in fact simultaneus. - from the perspective of a photon other photons will appear to be stationary - however this solution causes so many errors, that it simply has to be wrong - from the perspective of a photon other photons, which move in the same direction, will appear to be stationary, while all other photons will appear to move at c - it doesn't sound so bad... The only problem is, that paths of photons might appear to be parallel to eachother, but at a longer distance, they might separate from eachother. Besides, there is also gravitational lensing, changes in the density of medium and hundreds of other ways, in which the path of a photon might change in time... So, I think, that this won't work... - from the perspective of a photon other photons will appear to move at velocities relative to the direction, in which photons are moving in respect to eachother - and this is the solution, which appears to be the valid one (except the first one, which also makes sense). For a photon, everything, what moves slower, than c, will appear to move at 100% of c in the direction opposite to the direction of photon's emiission. In this solution, photons are moving only in relation to eachother... I think, that if we would assume, that at 100% of c, relative motion of photons can appear to be faster than the c itself, this solution would be indeed correct for all frames... Those are the solutions, which I've figured out, using simple logic, but of course, since we cant accelerate to the speed of light, we have no chance of knowing, if any of them is even close to an objective truth - what doesn't mean, that we have to treat them as a total pseudo-scientific pile of crap. I'm sure, that if some of you would spend couple minutes, thinking about the perspective of a photon, you might also figure out something, what could be taken into consideration, during the creation of a relativity model, which would ACTUALLY WORK...