I hereby challenge Relativity and promote Aether.

[quickquestion]

"Photons in space go 99.99999999999999999999 c. So if time truly "stopped" they should be colliding with planets in the position of when the photons were "

 

You do realise that's only true from the proton's perspective don't you?

And, from their point of view, the distance between them and the planet they hit is shortened by Fitzgerald contraction to such a degree that they do expect to hit it almost immediately- and that's exactly when they hit it.

From our point of view- i.e. not moving so fast WRT the source of the photons ro the planet, the time taken is pretty much teh distance divided by C

 

Essentially, you seem to have failed to understand time dilation and- because you are considering a wrong version that you made up, you think it doesn't work.

Incorrect.

I think the examples of planets you thought of in your head are positioned in incorrect ways, so that you dont see the absurdity of time-dilation.

 

For example...if there was a planet (Mars) imbetween a star and earth...the planet would freeze position and the photon would see itself collide with mars . But earth would see mars move out of the way, and the photon would hit earth. So the photon would be in two-different dimensions.

[studiot]

 

 

Not fully sure aether is a gas. It could be the 6th form of matter. My theory of aether is in the early stages. Aether's drag is difficult to calculate. Expect more equations when I am less depressed and opressed.

 

You are the one who asserted that your ether is a fluid.

 

There are versions that propose a solid ether, especially the early ones, and even other more esoteric varieties.

 

Why should it be any form of matter?

 

That would be at variance with the real world observation that light traverses a vacuum, where there is no matter.

Edited April 23, 2017 by studiot

[quickquestion]

 

You are the one who asserted that your ether is a fluid.

 

There are versions that propose a solid ether, especially the early ones, and even other more esoteric varieties.

 

Why should it be any form of matter?

 

That would be at variance with the real world observation that light traverses a vacuum, where there is no matter.

Well may I ask you this.

What form of matter is light?

[studiot]

Light is not a form of matter.

 

Next question?

[quickquestion]

Light is not a form of matter.

 

Next question?

Then why does aether have to be a form of matter.

[studiot]

You are the one that asserted your ether to be a form of matter.

 

I quote from your post#49

 

 

 

quickquestion post#49 Not fully sure aether is a gas. It could be the 6th form of matter.

When you make technical assertions, you must be prepared for other technical people to test the consistency of these statements.

[quickquestion]

You are the one that asserted your ether to be a form of matter.

 

I quote from your post#49

 

When you make technical assertions, you must be prepared for other technical people to test the consistency of these statements.

I didnt assert anything.

I said I wasnt sure and "could be".

Do those words sound assertive to you?

[studiot]

I didnt assert anything.

I said I wasnt sure and "could be".

Do those words sound assertive to you?

 

You originally asserted that your ether is a fluid and when I tried to find what sort of fluid you thought it to be a gas.

Do you know any fluids that are not matter?

[quickquestion]

 

You originally asserted that your ether is a fluid and when I tried to find what sort of fluid you thought it to be a gas.

Do you know any fluids that are not matter?

I corrected myself later on and said what I meant by fluid, was that it has fluid-like behavoir, like an earthquake.

[studiot]

And you were told that an earthquake does not exhibit fluid like behaviour.

[Janus]

Aether would then be a gas.

 

Einstein said that if SR was disproven he feared it would mean Aether is real.

Thus it is actually easier to simply disprove SR than prove Aether.

But I will eventually prove Aether.

 

One way to disprove SR is the fact of time-dilation.

Einstein is finally defeated by the Grandma Problem. The Grandma Problem is a thought experiment that says this; "If a grandma is watching an astronaut take off at 99% c, and then she goes and walks to her suburban house with her binoculars...The astronaut will see himself at Mars but the grandma still on the beach. And when he returns, they will both be in alternate realities, creating pzombies of each other."

 

Let's actually look at this scenario under the rules of SR.

Grandma watches Astronaut fly to Mars. At 0.99c, (assuming Mars is at its closest to Earth) By her clock it will take ~4.343 min for him to reach Mars. So let's say that immediately after watching the take off, she returns home, and oddly enough it takes her ~4.343 min to do so. Thus, when she returns home, the astronaut is just arriving at Mars. (though if grandma was to point a powerful telescope at Mars, she would not see him arrive at Mars until another ~4.3 min have passed.

Now, assuming our astronaut turned around immediately after reaching Mars, he will return to Earth ~8.687 min after he left according to Grandma, or just ~2.61 sec after Grandma would have seen him arriving at Mar's (on his return trip he was chasing close behind the light carrying the image of his arrival.

If Grandma had been watching him during the whole trip, she would have seen the following.

As he traveled to Mars, she would see him Doppler shifted at a rate of ~0.071, for 8.643 min and thus see him age ~36.76 sec. Then for ~0.043 min she would see him Doppler shifted at a rate of ~14.1 and thus age an another 36.76 sec. So she will see him age ~73.53 sec during the ~8.687 min the trip took for her.

 

Now the astronaut would see this: Traveling to Mar's takes ~36.76 sec by his clock. If he is watching grandma this whole time, he will see her Doppler shifted at 0.071 and thus see ~2.61 seconds pass for her. Thus upon reaching Mars he will see her as just starting the walk home. Upon reaching Mars's he turns around and heads home. It takes another ~36.76 sec to get back to Earth during which time he sees grandma Doppler shift at a rate of ~14.1 and thus advance in time by ~8.64 min. This plus the 2.6 sec he saw her age during the outbound trip totals the same 8.687 min that grandma measured the trip as taking.

Both astronaut and grandma agree that she had been at her house for something over 4 min by her clock when the astronaut returns. No "dual realities" involved.

 

If you want to analyze this from just the perspective of what grandma and the astronaut would determine is happening without relying on visual Doppler shift, you can do that to and get the same answers.

When you do this you have to take all three relativistic effects into account,

Time dilation

length contraction

relativity of simultaneity.

 

In other words, you need to apply the entirety of the theory to the scenario and not just part of it.

 

Time dilation is just one aspect of the theory and needs to be applied in conjunction with the others to properly analyze this scenario.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Janus

[quickquestion]

And you were told that an earthquake does not exhibit fluid like behaviour.

When solid ground wibbles and wobbles, I consider it to be fluid-like. But furthermore I think aether also fills the shape of its container.

 

 

Let's actually look at this scenario under the rules of SR.

Grandma watches Astronaut fly to Mars. At 0.99c, (assuming Mars is at its closest to Earth) By her clock it will take ~4.343 min for him to reach Mars. So let's say that immediately after watching the take off, she returns home, and oddly enough it takes her ~4.343 min to do so. Thus, when she returns home, the astronaut is just arriving at Mars. (though if grandma was to point a powerful telescope at Mars, she would not see him arrive at Mars until another ~4.3 min have passed.

Now, assuming our astronaut turned around immediately after reaching Mars, he will return to Earth ~8.687 min after he left according to Grandma, or just ~2.61 sec after Grandma would have seen him arriving at Mar's (on his return trip he was chasing close behind the light carrying the image of his arrival.

If Grandma had been watching him during the whole trip, she would have seen the following.

As he traveled to Mars, she would see him Doppler shifted at a rate of ~0.071, for 8.643 min and thus see him age ~36.76 sec. Then for ~0.043 min she would see him Doppler shifted at a rate of ~14.1 and thus age an another 36.76 sec. So she will see him age ~73.53 sec during the ~8.687 min the trip took for her.

 

Now the astronaut would see this: Traveling to Mar's takes ~36.76 sec by his clock. If he is watching grandma this whole time, he will see her Doppler shifted at 0.071 and thus see ~2.61 seconds pass for her. Thus upon reaching Mars he will see her as just starting the walk home. Upon reaching Mars's he turns around and heads home. It takes another ~36.76 sec to get back to Earth during which time he sees grandma Doppler shift at a rate of ~14.1 and thus advance in time by ~8.64 min. This plus the 2.6 sec he saw her age during the outbound trip totals the same 8.687 min that grandma measured the trip as taking.

Both astronaut and grandma agree that she had been at her house for something over 4 min by her clock when the astronaut returns. No "dual realities" involved.

 

If you want to analyze this from just the perspective of what grandma and the astronaut would determine is happening without relying on visual Doppler shift, you can do that to and get the same answers.

When you do this you have to take all three relativistic effects into account,

Time dilation

length contraction

relativity of simultaneity.

 

In other words, you need to apply the entirety of the theory to the scenario and not just part of it.

 

Time dilation is just one aspect of the theory and needs to be applied in conjunction with the others to properly analyze this scenario.

There are annoying babies constantly whining in the background, so I am just going to assume you are right for the time being, until I actually take the time to review your calculations in a more pleasant environment.

 

In which case, how do you explain the "passing through mars" paradox I stated earlier (It was in this thread I believe, but if you can't find it let me know.)

Edited April 23, 2017 by quickquestion

[studiot]

When solid ground wibbles and wobbles, I consider it to be fluid-like. But furthermore I think aether also fills the shape of its container.

 

 

 

But that is not the mechanism of an earthquake.

And even if it was, are you asserting that only fluids can 'wibble and wobble' ?

I suggest you study Thom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory

The S and P waves are excitations of a solid earth, consequent upon the quake itself.

 

Careful, if you keep this up you might actually learn something.

[John Cuthber]

Incorrect.

I think the examples of planets you thought of in your head are positioned in incorrect ways, so that you dont see the absurdity of time-dilation.

 

For example...if there was a planet (Mars) imbetween a star and earth...the planet would freeze position and the photon would see itself collide with mars . But earth would see mars move out of the way, and the photon would hit earth. So the photon would be in two-different dimensions.

Just: no.

[Strange]

SR says that if you look at time OUTSIDE of a capsule, it will slow down.

 

 

Does it? Citation needed.

 

 

 

So, if I am going fast in a space shuttle and look outside at a clock, it will be going slowly.

 

Not if the clock is travelling at the same speed as you. It is not just to do with being "outside".

 

 

 

At 99.999999999999999 c it would not be hardly moving at all. Time would "stop".

 

Well, nearly. But remember that the person next to that clock would not notice any difference. For them, time runs normally and they see your clock running slow.

 

 

Photons in space go 99.99999999999999999999 c. So if time truly "stopped" they should be colliding with planets in the position of when the photons were first launched.

 

They move at c, not slightly less. But the idea that time stops for photons is irrelevant because (a) photons do not have a valid frame of reference (try it and you will divide by zero) and (b) we measure their propagation time in our frame of reference, not theirs.

 

 

Time dilation is not needed.

 

It certainly is. Whether you like it or not, it has to be used in many applications (the most obvious being GPS). And if you discard relativity, then you need to replace all of quantum field theory. Quite a big undertaking for someone with almost no knowledge of physics.

 

 

1970's Nobel Prize for proving einstein, but einstein was not proved by this nobel prize.

 

You will have to be more specific. I can't see any Nobel Prizes in the 70s related to relativity: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/

For example...if there was a planet (Mars) imbetween a star and earth...the planet would freeze position and the photon would see itself collide with mars . But earth would see mars move out of the way, and the photon would hit earth. So the photon would be in two-different dimensions.

 

 

Again, basing "thought experiments" on a complete lack of understanding of the theory, is not really useful. (Except in demonstrating how little you know.)

Edited April 23, 2017 by Strange

[Bird11dog]

We could consider the fields generated by the electrons and protons of the Universe as the OP's Aether.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Bird11dog

[Strange]

We could consider the fields generated by the electrons and protons of the Universe as the OP's Aether.

 

 

It could be argued that the electromagnetic field is the luminiferous aether. But why would you bother.

[quickquestion]

 

 

Does it? Citation needed.

 

 

Not if the clock is travelling at the same speed as you. It is not just to do with being "outside".

 

 

Well, nearly. But remember that the person next to that clock would not notice any difference. For them, time runs normally and they see your clock running slow.

 

 

They move at c, not slightly less. But the idea that time stops for photons is irrelevant because (a) photons do not have a valid frame of reference (try it and you will divide by zero) and (b) we measure their propagation time in our frame of reference, not theirs.

 

 

It certainly is. Whether you like it or not, it has to be used in many applications (the most obvious being GPS). And if you discard relativity, then you need to replace all of quantum field theory. Quite a big undertaking for someone with almost no knowledge of physics.

 

 

You will have to be more specific. I can't see any Nobel Prizes in the 70s related to relativity: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/

 

 

Again, basing "thought experiments" on a complete lack of understanding of the theory, is not really useful. (Except in demonstrating how little you know.)

Yes yes and yes to your first arguments. To save time I just wrote it quickly. Yes if a spaceship was next to you with the same speed, the clock would be going the same.

 

And no light does not always travel at C. Space is not a complete vacuum.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

 

But lets make this and change the context of the argument. Lets say an electron moves at 99.99999% c. Now replace mars with a piece of cardboard. Now can you see the paradox. For the electron the cardboard will never move. So the electron will be in two different dimensions.

If the electron is fired at 8:00 AM, and if the electron had a telescope, it would see the clock of the cardboard pretty much stuck at its 8:00 AM state throughout its whole journey.

but the humans will see it actually take 5 minutes to reach the cardboard because C is a finite value.

and if in human space the cardboard is moved at 8:05 AM,

But the human observer will just see the electron pass the moved the cardboard and reach earth at 8:06 AM

but to the electron's POV, it will collide the cardboard before it ever moves.

and thus a paradox.

 

Also I'm aware scientists put a lot of work into GPS.

But there could be an alternate explanation.

What we know is that it correctly predicts aging.

Perhaps the aging of atoms age less.

But time itself does not change.

Just the frequency rate of atomic interactions and collective entities.

 

And I will get back to you on this pulsar thing because I dont have my books with me right now.

Edited April 23, 2017 by quickquestion

[swansont]

But there could be an alternate explanation.

 

 

Let us know when you've got it.

[Strange]

But lets make this and change the context of the argument. Lets say an electron moves at 99.99999% c. Now replace mars with a piece of cardboard. Now can you see the paradox. For the electron the cardboard will never move. So the electron will be in two different dimensions.

 

 

All this shows is that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Janus]

Yes yes and yes to your first arguments. To save time I just wrote it quickly. Yes if a spaceship was next to you with the same speed, the clock would be going the same.

 

And no light does not always travel at C. Space is not a complete vacuum.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

 

But lets make this and change the context of the argument. Lets say an electron moves at 99.99999% c. Now replace mars with a piece of cardboard. Now can you see the paradox. For the electron the cardboard will never move. So the electron will be in two different dimensions.

If the electron is fired at 8:00 AM, and if the electron had a telescope, it would see the clock of the cardboard pretty much stuck at its 8:00 AM state throughout its whole journey.

but the humans will see it actually take 5 minutes to reach the cardboard because C is a finite value.

and if in human space the cardboard is moved at 8:05 AM,

But the human observer will just see the electron pass the moved the cardboard and reach earth at 8:06 AM

but to the electron's POV, it will collide the cardboard before it ever moves.

and thus a paradox.

You are still not applying SR in its entirety.

If the electron is watching a piece of cardboard 5 light min away which has a clock which is synced to the Earth clock in the Earth frame, then when the when the Electron passe Earth when the Earth clock reads 8:00am, both the electron and the Earth will read a time of 7:55am on the cardboard clock. If the cardboard moves when it clock reads 8:05 am, the Earth will see it move when its own clock reads 8:10 and see the electron arrive just a split-second later and miss the cardboard.

The electron will see the clock Doppler shifted by a factor of 4472.14. The trip to the card board will take ~0.134164 sec, during which time the electron will see the cardboard clock advance just a bit over 10 min, And thus moving out of the way before the electron arrives.

 

If you want to analyze this from just what time each frame considers as being the time on the clocks, then in Earth frame, both the Earth and card board clock reads 8:00 am when the electron passes the Earth, 5 min later the cardboard moves, and the electron arrives a split second later.

In the Electron frame, when it passes the Earth and the Earth clock reads 8:00am, the cardboard clock already reads 8:04:59.99997( relativity of simultaneity). In the 0.134164 sec it take for the electron to reach the present position of the electron the electron clock will advance by ~6e-5 seconds to read 10.00003 sec by the time the electron arrives, and the cardboard will have moved just before the electron got there.

The electron misses according to both the Earth and electron. There are not any alternate realities where it misses in one and hits in the other.

 

Again, you have to apply all of SR not just parts of it. As long as you are careful to do so you can never produce a contradiction with SR. If you think you've found one, you have left something out the analysis or misapplied SR to it.

 

SR has been proven to be totally self-consistent. You simply cannot cause it to produce a contradiction by through thought experiment. The only possible way of exposing a flaw in the theory is produce results from a real-life measurement that contradicts the results that SR predicts for that measurement.

[quickquestion]

You are still not applying SR in its entirety.

If the electron is watching a piece of cardboard 5 light min away which has a clock which is synced to the Earth clock in the Earth frame, then when the when the Electron passe Earth when the Earth clock reads 8:00am, both the electron and the Earth will read a time of 7:55am on the cardboard clock. If the cardboard moves when it clock reads 8:05 am, the Earth will see it move when its own clock reads 8:10 and see the electron arrive just a split-second later and miss the cardboard.

I am going to stop you right there.

First error is you said the Electron passes earth at earth clock's 8:00 AM. But in my example I said it would pass at 8:06.

I don't even know how you are getting this backwards-time travel of 7:55 from.

 

I'm going to cook up a visual GIF example of what I'm saying, and it's going to be nice.

Currently I have to deal with a lot of annoying and enraging social entities outside of these forums. It is making my anger levels astronomical. My extreme anger is slowing down my ability to make these GIFs. But I am going to try to make these Gif examples.

[Sensei]

I'm going to cook up a visual GIF example of what I'm saying, and it's going to be nice.

Currently I have to deal with a lot of annoying and enraging social entities outside of these forums. It is making my anger levels astronomical. My extreme anger is slowing down my ability to make these GIFs. But I am going to try to make these Gif examples.

 

Nobody needs GIF here. It's science forum. Scientists want to see calculations and equations which can be tested against experimental data..

[John Cuthber]

 

I'm going to cook up a visual GIF example of what I'm saying, and it's going to be nice.

 

In principle, I can cook up a GIF of me beating Donald Trump to death with a rubber chicken.

That would be nice (at least, in the opinion of some people)

Would you consider it as evidence or proof of anything significant?

 

So why would your GIF be considered as proof or evidence of anything?

[quickquestion]

 

Nobody needs GIF here. It's science forum. Scientists want to see calculations and equations which can be tested against experimental data..

The motions in the GIF, will be following the equations of motions according to Einstein. It will help you to visualize why I don't believe in Einstein.