JohnMnemonic

Exactly! I couldn't agree more... However according to some 50% of educated scientists, it is exactly, as he said - constant velocity causing real effects of time dilation... And this is exactly, what brings me here... https://www.quora.com/Special-Relativity-Is-time-dilation-due-to-velocity-just-an-illusion-Is-it-a-recording-mistake-Is-only-time-dilation-due-to-gravity-acceleration-real# It seems, that the theory of relativity is still causing a lot of disagreement between the scientists. In such case, it is not so bad idea, to trust my own intuition, instead of those with "authority" - and my intuition tells me, that we have to introduce some external force/field, or change the velocity/energy of an object, to physically affect the rate of time flow. If we speak about time dilation due to constant velocity, it can be only relative/apparent... At least I know, that I'm not alone on this "battlefield"...

Fixed it already - it should be "light" I want to combine my model of space, time and scale relativity with those parts, which are officially approved. To be honest, I still didn't get to GR - first I want to deal with SR. But the general idea of such unification is still just in my mind At this moment, there's only one part of my "theory", which I consider, as 100% functional - it's called magnetohydrodynamics (the only branch of physics, which is NOT a theory) As for the GR, I have a concept of a model, which can be visualised, by adding water to the rubber sheet analogy - what will connect the potential and kinetic aspects of gravitational fields. Then we will be able to visualise the time-space curvature on the water surface, which will represent the kinetic aspect of gravitational field and turn the potential energy of gravitational field into the kinetic force of pressure (what can be done using the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium) And then we will be able, to combine GR with MHD and make a model of galaxy in a bowl of water using a pernament magnet, a battery and 2 cables - what should explain, why galaxies are rotating faster, than predicted by GR. And then we won't need the dark matter anymore...

There's no better workout for a brain, than the theory of relativity. How to define some solid base for a model, which explains all the laws and rules of motion for the whole observable Universe, if for everything, what moves slower than light, velocity, distance or direction of motion are completely illusive? Everything, what we have, is a single value, which remains absolute and constant for anything else - the speed of light. I might be crazy, but this looks, like a nice challenge to me... Some time ago and just for fun, I started to work on my own model of relativity in 5D environment... I've added a 4'th physical dimension of space - the scale - and resigned from treating the time, as a linear and determined axis. In my concept of relativity, the only point of time, which can be perceived by an observer, is the present moment (or simply real-time). However I also found a way, to visualise the rate of time flow, by using the frequency of cycles in the 4D space (XYZ+scale). My next step, was to connect the scale dimension with the rate of time flow, what became the base of the scale relativity concept (not so long ago I've learned, that there is an actual scientific theory, which deals this subject). Right now, I'm trying to combine it with SR and GR. However since the beginning, it was obvious for me, that in many aspects, my model doesn't exactly agree with Einstein's theory and in some cases leads to completely different conclusions. Time dilation due to constant velocity is one of those cases... Another one is the flow of time at 100% of c. According to Einstein, it is impossible to use the light and it's speed in relation to anything else. SR doesn't allow us to use the photons as a reference, or define their "perspective". It might sound funny, but I'm trying to fix it... I've figured out, that it's possible to use the constant c, to connect the time flow with distances, passed by objects - we can for example associate a single "tick" of a clock, with light-years. All we need to do, is to learn, how long it takes for the light to travel a given distance - and from this point we can define any other velocity. Let's say, that it takes 4 years for the light, to get to a distant celestial body - so all we have to do, is to make a clock, which will "tick" 4 times during our journey to that object. Here's how it looks like: The only problem with this model, is the fact, that it completely rejects the idea of time dilation due to constant velocity. To make it work, we have to assume, that if from one perspetive, it takes 4 years for the light, to travel through some distance, those 4 years have to pass as well for the traveling light - only this way, we will be able to get valid results for all observers. However, according to SR, light would "experience" this time as 0s (as instant), what is completely against logic, common sense and observed reality. Light simply HAS to experience time, just as any other frame. Each photon has it's own timeline of events (history), which can be modified on purpose. I could for example place a polarization filter on the path of light, soon after it was emitted - if light would travel all this way in 0 seconds, it wouldn't be possible... This is why, I'm trying to fix this problem right at it's source - and the motion of light clocks seems to be the right spot... It doesn't matter... What matters, is the fact, that space and time is being contracted in the direction of motion (in front) and expanded in opposite direction (behind). Lenght contraction works only in one way...

It would make much more sense to me, if the simultaneity would be maintained in all frames - and this can be done, by using the relativity Doppler's effect instead of lenght contraction. Here's a movie, which shows, what I mean: As you can see, simultaneity of events is here maintained for both: stationary and moving frames...

Well, problem is, that EVERYTHING in the Universe is in motion and everything except photons move at velocities, which are anything but definitive. For me something can move at 99,9% of c, while for you the same thing will move at 0,01% of c - the only difference, is the direction, in which you and I are moving. Which one of us has right?

Yes. However I want to concentrate on the light clocks, as this was the scenario, which Einstein used, to explain time dilation due to constant velocity. And from the beginning I've noticed, that something's not right with this claim - first it is being said, that all velocities, below c are totally relative and soon after we learn, that the faster something moves, the slower time flows for it... Can't you see here a "small" inconsistency? I can move at 50% of c towards an object, which also moves at 50% of c, but in opposite direction. From my perspective, this object would appear to move at 100% of c - but does it mean, that time completely stopped to flow for the incoming object? The idea, that the faster you move, the slower time is flowing for you, is a total contradiction of the concept of relative motion...

According to SR each frame, which moves with a constant speed can be treated, as stationary one. If we would change the perspective and treat the moving clock, as a stationary one, the symmetry of relative motion and velocities would be completely broken, as from the perspective of a stationary frame, both clocks should be "ticking" at the same rate. It would get even worse, if we would compare the rate of "ticks" with the clocks, which were stationary before and now are moving with the same speed as the clocks on the right side - in such case due to relativity of motion distance passed by photons in the perpendicular left clock would be extended, while the time in which light hits the mirror would be shorter - what would result in higher velocity of c (what is completely incorrect). There is only one way, to get a valid result for both perspectives - the symmetry of motion and velocity has to be maintained. Sadly, on those animations, such symmetry is non-existent... In the case of perpendicular clock, I see only one solution - for the photons, the motion component, associated with the direction of moving clock can't be treated as a definitive, but as relative one. In such case, if we change the perspective and treat the right clocks, as stationary, "ticks" of the left perpendicular clock would decrease their rate and time flow for the left clock would appear to slow down. HOWEVER all of those effects have to be relative and not definitive - even if time appear to flow slower in the moving frame, it would in fact flow at the same rate for both frames. This would also mean, that without acceleration or gravity, twin paradox will be obsolete - as both twins would age at the same rate, no matter how fast one of them would travel... And before you will say, that time dilation due to constant velocity was proved, take into consideration the acceleration, which causes measurable and definitive effects in accelerating frame - it would make sense, that time flow might be affected by the acceleration and not constant velocity...

The point is to explain time dilation in a scenario, where all velocities are constant. Acceleration breaks the symmetry of relative motion and induces a g-force on accelerating body. Try to focus on the ticks of a light clock, which is moving with a constant speed...

That's exactly, what I'm wondering about lately... Let's leave the light for now and focus on the sound waves. We can as well use waves on a water surface - they will work just as fine. If we would enclose the air or water within the moving clock, time in which the wave would travel from one end of clock to another, should be exactly the same, as in the stationary frame. If the velocity of a medium is constant, it's motion doesn't matter for the wave propagation. If it would, sound couldn't propagate in the direction of frame's motion, if it's velocity would be higher, than the speed of sound - so a fighter jet pilot, sitting in front of me, wouldn't be able to hear me at all. If I take a bowl with water and start to move it at a constant velocity, waves on the water surface would propagate in all directions with the same speed, as they would do in a stationary frame - wave would move from one end of the bowl to the other, in the same time, as inside a stationary bowl. In such case, both animation doesn't show the right result Let's now consider the second scenario, in which medium remains stationary in relation to a moving sound (water) clock. In this case, animations are valid only if the direction of wave propagation is parallel to the motion of a clock - what can be nicely explained with the Doppler's effect. However, if the direction of propagation would be perpendicular to the clock's motion, effects would be different, than on those animations - observer in motion would observe, that a wave emitted perpendiculary to it's motion would "stay behind" and it's motion wouldn't be perpendiculary for the clock in motion. But the wave emitted from a source in motion, would be perpendicular for a stationary observer. It means also, that after the emission, clock would move further away, while the wave wouldn't follow it and it would completely miss the moving receiver - so the perpendicular clock wouldn't work at all... This leaves me with the conclusion, that those animations are valid only for the light - at least I think so...

I have couple questions about the time, measured by 2 light clocks in a frame, which moves at a constant velocity - where one clock is perpendicular and second one is parallel to the direction of motion: https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html 1. First, the parallel one - according to SR, distance which is being passed by a photon is in this case reduced due to lenght contraction. When the photon is moving in the same direction, as the entire frame, lenght contraction cancels out the increased distance, caused by motion of the clock (as light is "chasing" the mirror) - this is why, the same time can be measured between the "ticks" by the parallel and perpendicular clocks. For now, everything seems to be OK... Problems begin, when the photon is moving back to the first mirror (left one). Due to motion of the entire clock, mirror and the photon are moving in opposite directions and decrease the distance between them. Even without the lenght contraction, photon which moves in the direction, opposite to the clock's motion, will hit the mirror much faster, than in the case of perpendicular clock. If we will add the lenght contraction, this time gets even shorter... The only solution, I can think of, is to use the relativity Doppler's effect, instead of Einstein's lenght contraction - what would result in decreased distance in the direction of motion (just like in the case of lenght contraction) and increased distance, for the opposite direction... Is there any other explanation? 2. Clock, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion - there seems to be a lot of disagreement between people, as for the behavior of light, which is being emitted perpendiculary to the source's motion. According to officially approved knowledge, motion of the source doesn't affect the velocity and direction of emitted light. We simply can't treat photon as a bullet, which was fired from a speeding car - where perpendicular components of motion are adding. Some people say, that the motion of ligt source affects the angle, at which photons are emitted, but this can be easily disproven, by extending the path of light inside the moving source. We can for example make a kind of tube, inside which photons will move perpendiculary to the frame's motion, before they will move further into space - similar to the image in the middle, where path of light is not parallel to the orientation of perpendicular source (what is probably incorrect). Here are some links, where this problem is being discussed: http://bearsoft.co.uk/LtClk.html http://milesmathis.com/lc.html https://books.google.pl/books?id=fRRbDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=light+clock+perpendicular+to+motion&source=bl&ots=jcVmrHt3yn&sig=OstEWET-N_KnGDCZzjMN2LYwf5c&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVkNe4sNXcAhXNmLQKHcgODhkQ6AEwDnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=light clock perpendicular to motion&f=false Besides velocities below c are completely relative, so according to the rules of relativity it is completely wrong to tell, that photons emitted from a source, which moves perpendiculary to the direction of propagation, pass a longer distance, than light emitted from a stationary source. All we have to do, is to change the point of view - and source, which was stationary, will become a moving one, extending the path of light, just because of the relativity of motion and without any changes of velocity ... Here are 2 movies, which show the same scenario from 2 different perspectives: I will send 50$ to anyone, who will tell me, for which ball time is flowing slower due to it's velocity... Good luck! This shows, that the idea of time dilation due to constant velocity is totally inconsistent with the basic laws of relativity and breaks the symmetry of relative velocities. The only possible solution, which I figured out, is to use (once again) the relativity Doppler's effect, which in this case would decrease the distance in the direction of source's velocity vector, leaving only the perpendicular component of photon's motion. However this would be in disagreeent with SR, which tells that for a moving frame, light is passing longer distance, than for a stationary one, what is causing the time dilation (it doesn't bother me too much, as I don't like the idea of time dilation due to a constant velocity). Sorry for my english - it's not my native language...

Well, it's hard to speak about definitive volume of a photon - it's more about the wavelenght and amplitude of light. But the smallest known volume of space, in which a photon can be located in a single moment of time, would be probably the Planck's lenght

I think, that -1 is actually "bigger" than 0. 0 is not a unit. We can make a unit from any measured value - even candies or apples But then 1 apple becomes the unit of apples. 0 apples, means that there's no apples to count (measure). While speaking about XYZ dimensions, then 1 and -1 define distances in opposite directions, from the center of a frame (point 0). So, it''s the distance, which becomes the unit. Because we don't know about anything, what would be smaller, than a photon...

Of course, science has to assume all possible scenarios. However at this time, it can be used as a indivisible point of space for most of observable physical processes (if not all of them). If we will somehow discover even smaller volume in the future, then we will simply use it as even more precise definition of a point. My point is, that point doesn't have to be always an abstract term. For now, Planck's units can be treated, as definitive and precise values in experimental physics and mainstream theories.

But Planck's lenght is not a mathematical abstract, but a measurable volume of physical space which should be treated as an indivisible point.

I would define a point, as the smallest unit of a measured value - like distance in space In quantum physics, points (units) of physical space are defined by Plank's units - physical points in dimensional space...

Funny coincidence, that there's a new thread about dimensions, becase I'm working right now on a model of relativity in 5D - X, Y, Z + scale dimension + time flow rate as freqency of cycles... Of course, it's just my own funny concept, because I'm not a professional physicist Points in space exist physically, as Planck's lenghts - which defines the volume of a photon. Planck's time is the shortest moment of time - time, in which photon is passing a single Planck's lenght. Those are the basic units of 4D space - points of physical dimensions. But if we want to use different units - like meters and seconds, then photon has to be described as a wavefunction - and not as a point in space.

But do you need to be a professional physicist, to guess, that time is just the order of ongoing events and not a determined linear dimension? That's rather a philosophical problem, but still it changes a lot in our understanding of existence. Besides, there's still plenty of people, who make in their own garages, things, that science still has to explain. We still don't know about LOT of things...:) Actually it has almost everything to do with this subject, as it discusses things, like time flow, and distances, relative to scaled frames - and this is exactly, what I want to disuss here I'm working right now on a model, which unifies scale relativity with SR. However, I have a lot of objections, when it comes to the concept of lenght contraction. Why we don't use the known and observed Doppler's effect, to explain the flow of time and and distance in space of accelerated frame? This way, lenghts and time flow will depend on the direction of accelerated frame. Depending on the direction of motion in space, lenghts will be contracted and time flow "accelerated" in front of moving observer, while behind the time and space would be extended and slowed down... Using this explanation, it's possible to make a valid reference for a frame, which is accelerated to c. I'm working on a 3D visualisation, using my model of frequency rate in scaled frames. I'll try to upload couple short movies soon... It's well known, that the flow of time in space, depends on the photons and speed of light. Planck's lenght and Planck's time make the primary units of physical space. Doppler's effect describes the behavior of light, emitted by accelerated object. All we need to do, is to combine those two things together and we will get a logically correct result, using photon as a point of reference - something, what official science can't do at this moment... Do you really have to be a professional physicist, to figure out such obvious solution? Ok, I'm uploading couple short movies, which I've made recdenty right now. Here's first one:

Absolutely! But if you'll look at the beginning of this thread, you will see, that the concept, which I wanted to present was rejected, without proving, that it's scientifically incorrect. "No math - it's wrong", "not your math - try better next time", "I don't believe in it - so you're most likely incorrect", "I don't know, how to use it in practice - so it's completely useless". This is why I got "slightly" irriritated and got a reminder from you I don't know, but in my opinion, first you need to understand, what someone tries to present and then, if you think, that the presented idea is wrong, explain, why it won't work in a theoretical scenario or show, that it is contradicted by approved knowledge. I've noticed as well, that on most of scientific forums, 90% of the "veteran" users, assume, that people, who present there some new ideas, are professional scientists, who spent decades, researching the subject and calculating sophisticated math. And when they see, that they deal with an amateur, they conclude, that he's just another flat-earther or another "heretic"...

True - but it means as well, that after the peer review, a concept, which is presented in a publication won't fall apart, when confronted with a physically valid scenario. This is as well the reason, why people like me, want to discuss their ideas on scientific forums. Sadly, in most of the cases, those ideas are from the beginning rejected by people, who think, that they have the right, to judge, which idea is correct and which is not - and mostly they don't even bother, to get deeper into presented subject. It's hard to find someone, with the will, to consider the possibility, that some alternative concepts might be correct, or at least test, how those ideas will work in practice. Until now I met only couple such people and I've noticed, that in most of the cases those people had a big dose of actual knowledge about the discussed subject. It seems, that the more someone knows, the more open is his mind... I'm not afraid, that my ideas can turn out, to be scientifically incorrect - but I expect to hear, WHY they are wrong, or see some practical examples, which will show, that my concept won't work in real life. But mostly, I can only hear, that someone don't believe in presented theory, or that it it sounds stupid for him. This is not a scientific opinion...

And I thank you for your imput. I'm glad to see, that someone at last add some concrete knowledge to this discussion - it's a rather rare sight, because most of people on different scientific forums keep only to criticise ideas, which go beyond generally accepted scientific models. To be honest, I never heard about it. But I'm about to check it right now... Thanks! I love to learn new things...

Mybe, however in this case, hypothesis was confirmed by observation of results, which were predicted - so it should be ok, to say, that scale relativity IS a theory... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity "Scale relativity is a geometrical and fractal space-time physical theory."

It doesn't mean also, that it is incorrect. Each concept, which became mainstream at some point, was in the beginninig just an alternative theory. If there wouldn't be no alternative science, there wouldn't be no innovation. Scientists should consider all possible explanations, as long, as they are not incorrect from scientific point of view (contradicted by observation for example). As long, as a model remains theoretical, it can be replaced with a different theory. In the end, everything what matters, is how a theory can be adapted to science which is already settled and confirmed in laboratories... Concept, which I wanted to present in this thread, defines only the dimensional space and the flow of time. To use it in practice, model would need to describe, how dimensional scale is related to energy/mass distribution in space. It is for me obvious, that in order to keep all the proportions in scaled frame, object has to maintain it's density and the level of energy, which is "stored" in matter. In theoretical empty (or non-material) space, mechanism of non-material clock has no mass or density, but those properties have to be taken into account, when we want to describe observable reality. We can't scale a human observer, without reducing his (her) mass - we can't for example fit 4 liters of blood in a smurf. Also the velocity of moving object has to remain proportional to it's size - until now, this model discussed scenarios, which didn't include the difference of energy/velocity in scale, but in real life it has to. Decrease of the object's mass, has to be proportional to the loss of kinetic energy (motion/momentum). If we scale a frame, where an object is moving through a given distance, we need to keep the proportion, between the distance and the velocity - otherwise, observer will be able to notice, that after the frame was scaled, he passes the same distance at different time (and in theory, observer shouldn't be able to notice any difference in proportionally scaled frame). But this is generally, much more complex subject and requires much more detailed explanation. For now, I just wanted to define the dimensional environment, in which we can place physical matter, with all it's properties and forces, which are connected with it...

Of course. But it's for sure good to support statements with some official sources of knowledge. From what I know, each scientific publication has to be reviewed by other scientists. If this idea wouldn't be consistent with official knowledge, they wouldn't allow to publish it... I'm absolutely aware, that it's not mainstream science - but who knows, what might happen in the near future... One can't just reject an idea, only because, it's not widely approved.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=V7IR6tFfaAEC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=non-differentiable+space&source=bl&ots=sual_23EI-&sig=wNszgl3QdvymNGBICd0KNhfH9nI&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj19q2UuKHaAhUQJlAKHcdYAZ4Q6AEIiQEwCQ#v=onepage&q=non-differentiable space&f=false "The theory of scale relativity [14) is an attempt to study the Of giving up the hypothesis Of space—time differentiability. One can show [14] [15] that a continuous but nondifferentiable space-time is necessarily fractal. Here the word fractal [12] is taken in a general meaning, as defining a set, object or space that shows structures at all scales, or on a wide range of scales. More precisely, one can demonstrate [17) that a continuous but nondifferentiable function is explicitly resolution-dependent, and that its length C tends to infinity when the resolution interval tends to zero With the difference, that most of those people have titles and proper education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235989058_Replacing_time_with_numerical_order_of_material_change_resolves_Zeno_problems_of_motion http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhyEs..24...11S http://vixra.org/pdf/0708.0001v1.pdf For example those authors are scientists from Scientific Research Centre BISTRA in Slovenia - so, they know probably, what they are talking about.

It's just my guess, but I would say, that space is non-differentiable, because, you can't scale down a distance in space to 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiable_function