tar

Thank you, I am rereading and reevaluating the arguments and math presented in Relativity and Common Sense, A New Approach to Einstein, written by Herman Bondi and published 1964. This, in an effort to answer your previous vector question. I am not saying that the equations of relativity give you wrong results, I am saying that the definitions and assumptions and the dropping and adding of dimensions can lead one to incorrect mathematical interpretations. In my imagination, I follow the travels of Alfred, Brian and Edgar, as they fly around syncing their watches upon meeting and sending out pulses every four seconds and following their pulses toward the next observer. I am never satisfied, in the descriptions, that the situation cannot be understood WITHOUT any time dilation or length contraction. In my interpretation, there is still private time and public time, or proper time, but HOW clocks are synced, and why is not done in what I consider a logical fashion. In my interpretation proper time is the universal time I talk about and private time is the local now I talk about. To me, the rest of the universe is experiencing only one thing at a time and that time is now. Things that happened before everywhere have already happened and will not happen again in exactly the same combination, because things change with time. Thing we see and experience in our local now are the effects of what happened before. We see the images and feel the vibrations of the things around us. Close things first, far things later, really far things never because we don't live long enough to see them arrive in our now. But the past has already happened and the past constructs our present and the present of every other location. Nothing happens in isolation. And the future has not happened yet, anywhere. So please give me a little time to finish Bondi and try to learn some of the transforms so I can transform the transforms into my space. I do not think the equations of relativity are wrong.

Studiot, Thankyou. I have not completely translated all or any for that manner equations derived from the original definitions of Minkowski space. I will endeavor to seek out a particular said equation with vectors and such and show that the relativity equations derived from original definitions would be equally obtainable using the dynamic model that I am using without deforming space or dilating time. Regards, TAR I am a big fan of geometric solutions. MigL, I have been trying to understand relativity, without requiring time dilation and length compression. I am not using the Minkowski diagram as the Minkowski diagram. I just noticed my thought has the future below and the past above, so it might be hard to true everything up in terms of equations, but I was trying to use a model or picture everyone has in their head as a basis for discussion. Since the Minkowski diagram is used to show how space deforms and time dilates and I don't require space or time to act in that fashion to comprehend relativity, I am thinking that things might work out mathematically with redefinitions of here and now and then and there and how you get between the two. Regards TAR

Rather than defining positions on the diagram as events, define the diagram as representing actual reality in the following manner and then locate the event in the resulting dynamic model. The hyperplane going through the origin is the present of all space, three dimensional space depicted in two dimensions, . This hyperplane falls through the dynamic model at 1 sec per second along the z axis. All past events for the observer at the origin existed above the plane but are visible as photons coming in from all directions, shown on the diagram as the upper light cone. The lower light cone represents photons or signals going out, at light speed from the observer. These light cones will intersect the falling hyperplane in increasingly large circles, representing the spherical shell of photons. Movement toward another location in space results in decreasing the time and/or distance between the locations. Both locations fall through time at 1 sec per sec and light travels always at C.

bufofrog, I don't understand why critical thinking is banned on this board. There is usually more than one way to explain a thing. I do not accept foreshortening, because it deforms reality. Pi for instance is not effected by velocity. However if your spaceship traveling at close to c traverses a circle, the circle becomes an ellipse with no cause and effect noted, or any concern for whether the circle becomes an ellipse for everybody, or just for the moving observer. If it happens just for the moving observer then the distant clock just appears to click differently, it does not actually tick differently. If you apply common sense to any observation, hold time as clicking off equally everywhere at once and factor in the light travel time between the two ends of the experiment, and the position of the observers and the position of the experimenter, you can resolve differences in observed time without requiring the universe to do magic tricks.

Not going to work Bufofrog. You wind up thinking the universe is weird, time dilates, distances shorten and there is dark energy and dark matter that we never needed before to explain mainstream physics. but fine, go ahead and muddle

Swansont, That is your loss to lock that thread topic. I cannot relay my understanding of relativity without using the two nows. You use them all the time. i am in no way saying the equations of relativity don't work. I am saying I understand relativity and I can explain the math without requiring space to deform or time to dilate. Regards, TAR

understood, but I am not calling anybody stupid. I agree the things happen the way people see them happen and report on them and figure them and such, but the assumptions vary. For instance you say the super nova is no longer happening. In one sense it is, because we are seeing it. In another sense it is not because it happened in that location in space a long time ago and something else is happening now in that location in space. But in order to understand this obvious fact about the universe you have to consider there are two nows and you told me that is not how it is...but that is how it is, so what is obvious? studiot I take your point about the term wavefront, but for this discussion the size of the wave matters too, in the sense that the size of a sine wave includes the measurement from peak to peak I think or valley to valley. But where does a wave start? At the zero point. When a photo is created by the drop of an electron from one energy level to another, this is a process or an event so to speak that in not instantaneous would argue, but happens over a short period of time. The wave edge starts as soon as the electron "starts" to fall and the whole fall creates a photon of said energy and frequency.

Understood did you e er work with fiber optic cable or was it copper I still don't think the logic is always sound. That is, one person might be making assumptions the other is not and vice a versa. What happens in the environment of the Earth, pretty much happens within the time it takes a light signal to get from one place to another. That is, we more or less can consider ourselves in the same moment. It takes time for a signal from our eye to get to our brain and such, so nothing is immediate. There is a fudge factor we commonly apply to consider something happening "at the same time", but for the sake of this discussion in terms of the size of an event, I think it worth while to consider the real difference between one side of an event and another. For instance, when someone says the event is happening now are they talking the leaf starting to fall, or the light striking the ccd recording the event? Cosmic events are even harder to agree upon the event size, because in a real sense, if you are just now seeing a super nova, it has both already happened, maybe 10 of thousands or millions of years ago, AND is actually still occurring because a photon from it, just hit your instrument. to relegate a super nova to a dimensionless point in a spacetime manifold would be sort of meaningless

Perhaps I am worrying over nothing, if this is already taken into account, but to have a T=0 you have to know if that is according to the event location, the experimenter's location, or the coincident detector's location. in the experiment it would be required to know the distances between all three and how their clocks were synced. for instance if a green leaf is falling the position of the leaf is different for someone a meter away and someone 2 meters away a milli second after the first guy sees it fall the guy standing a meter behind him sees it fall. When the second guy sees the first wave edge the first guy is seeing the hundred millionth wave edge, if the wavelength of green light is 500nm.

CollinJ was another poster in this forum that suggested he found a way to unify the big and the small. I did not want to hijack his thread nor associate myself with him as I thought such would prejudice those who are prejudiced against my thinking on this against his thinking on this. Where I see it matters in what we experience about the world and its behaviors, is that we "see" using photons. These little creatures are neither wave nor particle but have attributes of both. A particle is hard to pin down, as one cannot determine both the location and the momentum of a particle. You either know where it is or you know where it is going and where its been and how quickly it seems to be making the location change. Or the photon can be thought of as a wave which has an amplitude and a frequency. In both cases time and distance are required in order to describe the photon. Since we "see" using photons, the size and duration of the experiment is important to consider, because there is a light travel time to consider from one end of the experiment to the other.

CollinJ simple unification theory has an analogy to my problem with spacetime events and possibly has similar resolutions, but I did not want to associate myself with collinj as that would be a handicap for CollinJ. However we both have the same thought in terms of seeing something that goes against established theoretical math, and this morning I think I noticed the reason. In relativity a spacetime event is defined or represented as a point in a manifold and transforms are made between two observers of the point in two different inertial frames. The problem I have with this is an event is neither a point in space because it has a size, nor an instant in time, because it has a duration. By definition an event requires both a change in a situation over time and a volume of space in which to occur. So it would be an errored assumption to relegate an event to a dimensionless point. Perhaps resolving the size and duration of the "point" would square or "cube" the equation to match reality.

I was asked to explain what a stationary observer would measure concerning the clocks and distances of an orbiting observer. I would need, to properly predict, to know the distance of the third observer and the angle of view of the experiment. And I would have to be allowed to use the two nows. One universal now where everything only happens once. And one local now experienced by each of the separate observers. Additionally it would be useful to establish an external clock, like a pulsar and establish a starting count relative to that clock for each of the three observers. and i would have to know the distance and position of the pulsar relative to the experiment and experiment observer. Consider an observer right now on a planet orbiting alpha proxima or some star 3 to 5 light years from here, looking at the Earth with a really powerful telescope. If they would look at my dad’s house in NJ they might see him leaving the house or sitting outside. However in our local now my father has passed away. The many local nows are separated by distance which translates to time, as the Mars rover has already done, 24 minutes ago, anything we see it do now. But my contention is the Mars rover is only doing one thing at a time and it is doing something right now. The signals that recorded that event will reach us in 24 minutes, or however far away Mars is from Earth right now. Mars is actually 24 minutes advanced in its orbit from where we see it, but to grasp that you have to consider two nows.

doppler shift is well studied I mean the photons do not know who is receiving them. They move along at the speed of light no matter what. Consider the two nows idea and you will understand how something can look blue shifted without the frequency of the initial vibration of the source being slowed or quickened. Consider again the pulsar thought experiment. Using the idea of two nows, one local and the other universal, there are in actuality all the waves of light the pulsar is putting out, right now in space, that we will see for the 10 thousand years or however far away the pulsar is. If you move quickly toward the pulsar you will experience the pulsars beat as speeding up. It has not sped up. Your space craft has not shrunk. Space has not deformed. understood but I am not discounting observations I am understanding what is going on, and providing a way to understand actual reality without requiring it be wierd. a bot or watcher is confounding my entry screen. I have tried, but time dilation and length contraction do not work out in my thought experiments. What does the term incorrect science mean to you. That I don't see the world correctly or that I don't adhere to the assumptions and applications of accepted theory. I think the universe makes sense. Excepted theory requires the universe be wierd. Whose view is more sensible? I don't think you can get shut down in a science forum for being a skeptic. I am after looking at the experiments from a common sense point of view where everything adds back correctly. I tried to answer but was confounded by the entry screen again. Was a good answer, by the way, but was deleted. it requires the universal now to parse that experiment and requires a knowledge of how far away the third observer is from the experiment and at what angle he is viewing the situation

I got shut down with the two nows idea because SwansonT thought I was going against mainstream science. I am absolutely not going against the results of the experiments. GPS works. What I am suggesting is that you can arrive at thre same equations without distorting space and time. Most clocks these days, like the heated Cesium ones work on the basis of a certain frequency of light being given off by a certain drop of an electron in the Cesium atom to a lower energy level. This particular frequency is always 9,192,631,770Hz. Now suppose you are traveling fast toward this light. It will be blue shifted. The space the waves exist in will appear to be shortened. The space however is not shortened. The speed of light remains the same, the frequency increases. Time does not speed up or slow down. Space does not lengthen or contract.

This effect, which I untis an obvious consequence of high velocity toward or away from an electromagnetic wave is a new theory evidently because you say I am wrong and I am not. I believe that is the way the universe works. It is hard for me to accept a heat death of the universe because the whole universe is sending photons toward every other part of the universe. Said photons don't disappear until they hit another atom an raise an electron into a higher energy state. Then as atoms do they try to lose the energy by emitting a photon. No atom can reach a ground state because the rest of the universe is sending its energy in to it so i do not think the universe will suffer a heat death How is blue shift and red shift not science? I will be quiet. You are not answering honestly. You are answering with the relativity equation, like it is more real than reality. Reality makes more sense than how you say it works.

why yes relativity equations would have the traveling twin not age as much as the stay at home the pulsar cycle count experienced by both the stay at home and the moving twin would be exactly the same, thus invalidating the relativity equation any differences in the clocks of the moving and stationary observers can be explained by red shift and blue shift where the frequency of light changes, not distance or the speed of light or time Matter of fact, if you travel at relativistic speeds the universe in front of you is highly blue shifted and is hitting you with tremendous energy and the universe behind you is highly red shifted and visible light is hitting you as microwaves and radio waves. Gamma rays coming in your front window, radio waves out the back. On the way back the traveling twin will see the approaching clocks running fast, making up for any slow count on the way out.

I believe relativity has failed in constructing dark energy and dark matter from the motion of a super nova in another galaxy. I believe relativity has failed in proposing other realities and other dimensions that have no bearing on our reality. I believe relativity has failed in causing people to think the universe is strange and not comprehensible, when everything actually fits together and works quite flawlessly. I do not yield to you that yiou have it right and I have it wrong. Answer the pulsar thought experiment. If your equations come out with the count different, you have made some bad assumptions, or your equations are incorrect. Perhaps, but I try and read and understand QED and GR and SR stuff. I have developed my own understanding of what makes sense and what does not. Usually, if something is true it is true in more than one way. That is, you could sync GPS clocks without using relativity equations, using only distance and light travel time. I f the orbiting clock runs slow or fast you apply the needed correction. well suppose you have a pen pal on a planet circling a nearby star, where light travel time separates your nows by 3 years. When you get a message from her you know she sent it 3 years ago. If she was 36 when she wrote it, you know she is 39 now. Two nows. When she gets your reply she will be 42. She is, in reality only one age, as you are only one age. And you increment your years at the same time. Yes but our now includes light from alpha Centauri which it has for many past nows. Although we can not be certain there is not a gamma ray burst that will hit the Earth on Tuesday on its way, we can be absolutely sure that in our now that occurred a minute ago, there was light from Alpha in space a light minute out because we just saw it.

could you describe spacetime, using space and time as the a priori understandings? I do not understand Chinese, although a 3 year old Chinese kid does. That does not mean I do not understand reality. Math is a language. One thing stands for another. My question to you, is can the forces between two wires be explained with magnetic and electric fields, without using muon decay?

a 45 degree line exists only on your mental graph it has no analog in reality imagine the incorrect transformations that are done when someone is trying to set one thing in the place of another and describing a four dimensional thing on a two dimensional media my contention is that the mind deals with an idea as happening all within ones view or imaginary view that however is not how the universe works the universe is intricate beyond comprehension, huge beyond comprehension, long lived beyond comprehension

Except time shortening has no meaning. Distances shortenining has no meaning. Kant thought there were two a priori understandings, that needed no, in fact had no definitions or components. Those two were time and space. Everyone knows what time is and everyone knows what space is. It makes no sense to say that time shortens or space shortens. It has no meaning. All to balance an equation. Senseless. no one knows what spacetime is no one responded to my thought experiment have the traveling twin count the pules of a pulsar have the stay at home count have the twins compare their count upon the return of the traveling twin any blue or red shift experienced by the traveling twin of the pulses will exactly reverse on the trip back the count will be the same because the traveling twin never left the galaxy

beecee, What I am arguing here is that the results from various experiments align with the equations of SR and GR but there are other ways to explain the results than to suggest that time dilates and distances shorten. The mere idea of such things is counter the idea of c. c is the distance light travels in a particular time. You can't have c unless you have time remaining the same and distance remaining the same. If the distance.shortens then light would cover the span in a quicker time. This would invalidate the statement that light speed is invariant. What I suggest is happening is that people do not switch properly between two frames of reference. You can for instance be in the same inertial frame but distant from another observer or from a part of the experiment.u My example of the pulsar proves my argument. You cannot have the next pulse in a second unless the light wave you are going to see in a sec is right now existing in space 186,000 miles from here. The benefit of considering my proposal is that it corresponds to actual reality. The universe is huge and longlived beyond comprehension. It is incorrect to imagine the universe as being able to be seen all at once. My universal now is not meant to be seen, as light is the media we experience and it will take what is happening now elsewhere time to get here. However, there is something happening everywhere right now. That is my argument. There are two nows. One that sees the whole universe as photons coming in from a far, having been emitted a sec, or two or an hour or two or a year or two or a billion or two years ago. This is the actual way we see the universe all at once. The other now is real, things are actually happening outside our view, because the light has not reached us yet, but we know they have to be happening now because we see them later. This other now is the universal now that for any one observer has to be imagined as happening now for an observer in those other locations. But for any one location there is past, present and future. It is a simple thing to imagine everything happening now, and determining what happened elsewhere when, nased on the image and the distance. Experiments have to consider this other now. Everything we see in space has already actually happened. That is if we see a quasar filled with first generation stars we can know in our imaginations that right now, in that area of space, there is likely a galaxy like the Milky way, or Andromeda filled with third generation stars. We of course will never see it because the light from the current situation is billions of years away. and we don't live that long, but that does not mean it is not what is happening now in that are of space where we see the quasar.

SwansonT, In a way, the experiment has already been done, referencing your graphs. the magnetic field of the Earth is in one orientation when the clocks are headed east and in the other orientation when the clocks are heading west. In one direction magnetic north is to the beam's right. In the other direction it is to the beams left. beecee, You say there isn't when you use it all the time. If the Mars rover is doing something now, yet we see what it did later, there are two nows. One that is what is happening now, here, and one that is what is happening everywhere at the moment we are in here. relativity equations work, but that does not mean they are correct and common sense is not. there could be confirmation bias in the way the experiment is set up, and differences in results from expected results are often accounted for after the fact relativity is real, but I believe it has to do with light travel time more than with gravity and velocity I am not thinking it is correct to apply angular velocity equations to huge spinning objects because you cannot see the whole thing at once and the equation is immediate The observable universe is all we have, and all we will ever be affected by. If something not contained in the observable has an effect on the observable universe, and we detect that effect, than the thing we considered earlier not in the observable universe would be observable and hence within the observable universe, so talking as if there is something outside the observable universe is without purpose and value. then not than

I am making the Earthbound frame special because that is the one we all experience, give or take several seconds. If the universe began at the big bang, then there is a T=0. All objects and events happening now in the universe are the same age in reference to the big bang.

I am working on that. I need more information about the orientation of the clocks in the planes. Atomic clocks work on counting the decaying particles of Cesium. The detectors are in a certain direction from the emitting portions. In a moving plane the detector is maybe moving toward or away fromnor the emitter. Doppler shiftwise if you are moving toward a pulse you will count more pulses in a given time than if you are moving away. The data from the various clocks show small variations of readouts from the moving clocks and the stationary clocks. Some of the variations are explained in one direction by gravitation differences in terms of the altitude and distance from the center of the Earth and other differences are explained the motion. The differences are small and not way far off normal error tolerances and there are motions and accelerations not taken into consideration, in terms of time of year and time of day during various takeoffs and landings. One thing about electrons and photons and particles is they tend to move in a straight line but always in reference to the sum total of all the magnetic and gravitational fields it is moving through. When you conduct an experiment on the Earth the Earthbound clocks do not know they are supposed to be stationary. The Earth is rotating around its axis, The Earth is revolving around the Sun. The Sun is rapidly revolving around a huge source of gravity and magnetic fields that are strongest toward Sagittarius. All in all the differences in the clocks are small and the data is wedged into gravitati.onal equations from relativity and motion equations from relativity to account for the small differences. I submit that if I had two "stationary" cesium clocks, they would show differences to the same magnitude as the differences witnessed in the relativity experiment depending on how they were oriented.c One possible experiment to maybe see if my hypothesis is true is to take two identical Cesium clocks and mount one on a platform suspended within a structure that could rotate around four different axis through the center of a cube and its corners. the Axis could be oriented toward and away from the Great Attractor, the Center of the Milky Way. the Sun and the Center of the Earth. I would be possible to program the platform to position the Cesium clock in the same orientations as if it were traveling around the Earth in that direction or this. Maybe, but I don't think so, Consider this thought experiment. Have two twins count the pulses from a pulsar and then send one travelinhe g fast toward the pulsar. The traveling twin will be running into the waves and will see them blue shifted and will count more of them per minute than the twin on Earth. The pulsar is only sending out one set of waves and traveling twin is counting the wave crests that have not yet reached the Earth. On the way back the traveling twin will be traveling with the waves and will see the next wave coming to the ship as red shifted compared to how the Earth bound twin sees them and doubly red shifted in terms of how she saw them on he way out. Like if you were to count the waves on the way out to the oil platform and count the wave crests on the way back. When you return your count of wave crests is exactly the same as the count the guy on shore counted.

The world is completely connected. Everything fits. The planets cycle the sun the sun revolves around the center of the galaxy, the galaxy spins in relation to the great attractor. Every molecule, every atom has a history and a present state and a likely future condition. No part of the whole can be removed from its current state and inserted in a different time, because the past has already happened in total and the future has not yet happened. The whole universe fits together seamlessly. No way to exist in another time without taking the whole universe with you. If you take the whole universe with you you are effectively where you began. No time travel is possible.