Strange Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 12 hours ago, Randall Canham said: But nobody has yet proved my theory of space time incorrect. You don't have a theory. Just some vague claims, many of which are factually incorrect (although you seem to have ignored all the attempted corrections. Quote I will now restate my theory on how time works in the universe. Time only measures the duration of any matter or energy or conbination of matter and energy that is relatively stationary or relatively moving with respect to another object in space, using an instrument called a clock. This clock, in turn, measures a duration with a standard earth second. That is not a theory. It sounds crudely accurate but is too vague to be useful. You need to provide something quantitatively testable (ie mathematics). Quote 1 The universe started from the big bang - consensus theory. There is no evidence for that. Quote 3 Fom the time of the big bang, all matter and energy has been in motion in space - True I'm not sure what it means for energy to be in motion. energy is just a property of things. Quote 6 So how does man measure the relative motion that has passed from the big bang until now? He uses the motion of the earth to establish the length of the duration of one orbit of the sun, which then establishes frequency of a year in earth's orbit around the sun, to end up with a frequency of approx 13.8 billion years old. - True You are mixing up crude, pre-scientific measures of time (days and years) with modern cosmology which does not use them, so I'm not sure what the point is. Quote 7 To decide who wins a 100 meter race you see who crosses the fixed finish line first in the shortest duration. In other words, the person with the fastest motion over that set distance wins - True True. But hard to see the relevance (like many of other points) Quote 9 If all of your answers are the same as mine, then my theory holds up. 1. They aren't 2. You don't have a theory. If you do, what can it predict? Quote 10 If you now have some theory about how time works in the universe, I would love to read it. I also expect proof as to how time works in your universe . Up until now, noboby has established the definitive proof of what time is or does in the universe - True False. This is so false, I can only assume it is a deliberate lie. Quote I now need someone to explain time to me without referring to any type of time dilation. I'm not sure it is our job to teach you basic physics in your thread about your personal "theory". But if you insist: time is a dimension: an independent measurement used in conjunction with three spatial measurements to locate events relative to one another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime Quote I would like an answer to these following questions. When you were going through the motion of typing a reply to me yesterday, explain where that past time you went through has gone to ? Saying it is now in the past is not an answer. Where has your universe's time gone? You need to explain this and right back to the beginning of time in your universe. Ques. Do you live in just a now time in your universe? Please explain how that works. Ques. Why can't you just touch your future time, when it is only 1 nano second in front of you right now? Please explain how this time evasion of your theory will always elude you forever and forever as long as your universe lasts. Ques. Where does your universe's time go when it is not being dilated? This thread is for you to present your idea, not to interrogate others. Quote There can only be one correct theory about how time actually works. Why? We have two correct theories of how gravity works. And in the future we may have others. I'm not sure you understand what science is.
Strange Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 6 hours ago, Randall Canham said: It is a proven fact of physics ,that the clock on the moon, will run slower than the same clock that you are in front of on earth and you would see that happen before you eyes. You say it is a "proven fact of physics". Why don't you calculate the effects and see if you are correct? There are two different effects here, one is the fact that the period of a pendulum is dependent on the force of gravity: [math]T = 2 \pi \sqrt \frac{L}{g}[/math]. As you can see, that means the pendulum will swing about 2.5 times slower on the moon than on Earth. But ... This is not time dilation. This is purely the effect of the force of gravity on a mechanical system. So, for example, an atomic clock or a quartz oscillator will not run 2.5 times slower on the moon than the Earth. (This would have caused obvious effects for communication with astronauts if so.) If you calculate gravitational time dilation on the Moon: [math] t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} [/math] You will find that clocks will actually run faster; not by much, about 0.2 seconds / year (from memory). So, once again, your guesswork is wrong. 4 hours ago, Randall Canham said: I have no idea about muons but have heard of them. My theory is not about muons it is about time and how it works or what it does as I have suggested. Well, the behaviour of muons is one way of measuring time. Which does not involve movement, or anything man-made. They are another way of showing you are wrong, in other words. 4 hours ago, Randall Canham said: We can all keep on using the same old theory to solve a problem because it gives the same answer as the new theory does in relation to gravity but you then miss the new opportunities provided by the new theory. But you have not provided a new theory that allows anything to be calculated or solved. Which means your "theory" is (a) untestable (and therefore not scientific) and (b) useless. 4 hours ago, Randall Canham said: You have still not refuted my claim that time is just a basic measuring tool that even you must admit to using . It is just a measurement (like length), so there is nothing to refute.
Randall Canham Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 Mordred Hi thanks for your great effort, by at least trying to do what I have asked of everyone, to keep the debate to my simple theory, on how time works in the universe. I dont believe my use of a clock or time, desribes any thing to do with what it is actually measuring, an objects relative motion in space. Like in your example of a thermometer. I am not saying, that you can not use muons as how you described, as I have no idea how muons work or what they do in the universe. So why cant you use them as you seggested. I am certainly not saying or even suggesting, that you cant, use them or any orther type of accurate form of time keeping. I liked your idea about testing my theory against Einstein's, by someone with a good ability in math. As you could write on the back of postage stamp with a jack hammer what I know about math. I am sorry about this lack of ability as I know it is something that everybody wanted from me, I am just not that capable sorry. But I think you could put a quartz cyrstal clock in a centrifuge, crank it up to as many G' s as possible, while keeping a similar clock next to the machine. Then run the machine for as long as possible, to see if the math and the observed time change occurs or is there no change observable change between the clocks. Note I cant do this either, as I do not have any access to a centrifuge so sorry again. But it would be a lot easier and cheaper to do, than sending atomic clocks by plane around the earth.
Strange Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: I am just not that capable sorry. But I think you could put a quartz cyrstal clock in a centrifuge, crank it up to as many G' s as possible, while keeping a similar clock next to the machine. Then run the machine for as long as possible, to see if the math and the observed time change occurs or is there no change observable change between the clocks. I don't know if anyone has done that (and a quartz crystal would not be accurate enough to measure the effects of time dilation). But we can measure time dilation due to changing speed and gravity right here on Earth. So I'm not sure what your point is.
swansont Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 6 hours ago, Randall Canham said: So Einstein and I must be totally wrong , as we both totally agree that a clock in orbit aronnd the earth goes faster but I only disagree with his theory as to why this happens,as you do with my theory explaining time, as it only measures an objects relative motion by duration,using a clock. As by numerous experiments and visual conformation, clocks do tick at a faster rate in orbit to what the same clock does on earth. Therefore they need to vary that rate of ticking / frequency whatever in the orbiting clock so the G P S system works in our real world. Clocks in orbit can run faster or slower than clocks on earth. It depends on the orbit, since there is kinematic time dilation slowing the clocks down, with gravitational dilation speeding them up. GPS clocks speed up. On the ISS, they run slower. (Scott Kelly spent almost a year on the ISS and is now an additional 5 milliseconds younger than his twin, Mark, as Scott's clock ran slower than those on earth) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#/media/File:Orbit_times.svg 33 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: But I think you could put a quartz cyrstal clock in a centrifuge, crank it up to as many G' s as possible, while keeping a similar clock next to the machine. Then run the machine for as long as possible, to see if the math and the observed time change occurs or is there no change observable change between the clocks. What is your prediction? Is it different than what relativity predicts?
Randall Canham Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 Strange Hi The big bang or what ever you want to describe it by , did happen, at some point in the past and most people agree about this, as we do exist. They seem to think it was approx 13.8 billion earth years ago. You seem to be using some unknown form of time to classify that duration from then to now, that is not apparently used my many people. So please enlighten me, of what the period of duration has actually been.and how it is then decribed, if my simple description is not to your liking. Thank you.
Strange Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: The big bang or what ever you want to describe it by , did happen, at some point in the past and most people agree about this, as we do exist. We can trace the expansion of the universe back to a hot, dense state about 13.8 billions years ago. The universe has been expanding and cooling since then. We do not have any theories that are valid before that early hot, dense state. There are some speculations about the universe being "created", or rebounding from an earlier collapse, or being infinitely old, or ... None of these have any evidence (yet) and so are not scientific theories. The trouble is, you are basing much of your argument on inaccurate popular science descriptions, rather than what science tells us. Any comments on the rate at which a pendulum swings on the moon versus time dilation?
studiot Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 11 hours ago, Randall Canham said: But nobody has yet proved my theory of space time incorrect. I have shown several of your claims to be incorrect. Others have shown yet more incorrect claims in your working. So I will offer you that wonderful post by Taeto in another thread where someone is asking for his proof to be checked. Quote taeto There are many mistakes in the paper. The answer to the question whether the proof is correct is therefore negative; it is not correct. A correct proof does not contain several mistakes. However you are not the only one to have made mistakes. I agree that observations on muons is one experimental confirmation of the time dilation part of Einstinian Relativity, indeed it was one of the earliest confirmations. However it would be entirely wrong to say that the observations do not depend upon movement. Without movement there would be no experimental observation to discuss. However I think anyone would be hard put to it to use their motion as a clock.
Randall Canham Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 Swansnot Hi. It will be exactly the same. All the forces acting on the clock or any object in that exact position will be affected exactly the same .. As you can not create or destroy energy. So any of those forces that are in play in that exact position in space.are the only ones that will be encounted. Thanks
Strange Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, studiot said: However it would be entirely wrong to say that the observations do not depend upon movement. Without movement there would be no experimental observation to discuss. I have not read all the other responses fully, but I think the important point about muons is they act as (crude) clocks by decaying after some known time (within a range). And that this decay time is not driven by movement - ie. there are no moving parts within the muon that count down the time until it decays. So the observed time dilation in the decay cannot be due to "mechanical" effects as in a pendulum clock or a quartz crystal oscillator. In other words, we need motion to observe the muons but their "internal clock" does not use motion (there being nothing to move). 3 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: It will be exactly the same. I assume this means that you are saying that the time dilation will be exactly the same as predicted by relativity? In which case, how do we distinguish your theory from relativity? We need some experimental test to see which one is right and which wrong (or, rather, which is more accurate).
studiot Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Strange said: And that this decay time is not driven by movement Is it not? Surely the whole point of the experiment is that the observed (average) decay time varies with observed muon velocity in a way predicted by Relativity and not by other Physics? 9 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: Swansnot Hi. It will be exactly the same. All the forces acting on the clock or any object in that exact position will be affected exactly the same .. As you can not create or destroy energy. So any of those forces that are in play in that exact position in space.are the only ones that will be encounted. Thanks Energy is not frame invariant. I seriously suggest that since you wish to discuss the subject of 'what is time', you concentrate initially on the easy stuff, rather than getting bogged down in the difficult (if more glamorous) modern stuff like Relativity. Unless you can successfully apply your ideas to the easy stuff there is little point trying for the difficult. Edited February 13, 2019 by studiot
Strange Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, studiot said: Is it not? Surely the whole point of the experiment is that the observed (average) decay time varies with observed muon velocity in a way predicted by Relativity and not by other Physics? I guess I (and others) are failing to make the point... Yes, the measured time varies because of relativity. But the time taken does not depend on movement inside the muon. Randall has repeatedly said (wrongly) that all "clocks" (things that measure time) do so by using motion. For example, there is no significant movement in an atomic clock; and what movement there is, introduces errors rather than being the mechanism for measuring time. (I, of course, stand to be corrected by any experts who may be reading!) The muon is an even more extreme example; it has no moving parts or any internal structure. A stationary muon will decay after approximately 20 us. There is no motion and yet the muon is able to "measure" time. So the "mechanics" of the muon cannot be affected by movement or by gravity, and yet it can still be used to demonstrate time dilation. 45 minutes ago, studiot said: I have shown several of your claims to be incorrect. Others have shown yet more incorrect claims in your working. So I will offer you that wonderful post by Taeto in another thread where someone is asking for his proof to be checked. This could also be a good example of Pauli's "not even wrong". Something based on so many errors cannot really be shown to be either right or wrong.
studiot Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 26 minutes ago, Strange said: I guess I (and others) are failing to make the point... We should be precise, even if the OP is not. :) and why do these smileys not work any more?
Eise Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Randall Canham said: So why does a pendulum do the reverse. Once you start the pendulum clock, the wound up spring keeps the pendulum in (motion ), this motion is less in a higher gravitational field, in other words its arc of motion is reduced thereby making the pendulum clock tick faster under the energy contained in the spring which keeps its pendulum in motion. You do not seem to know what a pendulum in a pendulum clock is for. The property of a pendulum, that its period for relatively small amplitudes is constant. Its period is given by the formula: T = 2π x sqrt(L/g) So only the length of the pendulum, and the strength of gravity is relevant. The above formula is valid for earth, where g = 9.81 m/s2. But if g is lower, as on the moon, then the period becomes longer (a factor of sqrt(6), assuming that the gravity on the moon's service is 1/6 of that of the earth). So a pendulum on the moon is slower. And this has nothing to do with the strength of the spring. The spring is only needed to replace the energy that is lost due to friction. As a thought experiment, imagine a pendulum without friction. It will have a longer period on the moon than on earth. But we know from general relativity that time goes slightly faster on the moon than on earth, seen from a remote point far from the moon and the earth. And 'slightly', much less than a factor of sqrt(6). What you do not realise is that gravity is in fact a change of geometry: there is no physical effect that lets time slow down in gravity. Or maybe clearer: there is no physical mechanism for time slowing down in a gravity field. It is the perspective that is different, due to spacetime-curvature. Edited February 13, 2019 by Eise
Mordred Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: Swansont Hi. It will be exactly the same. All the forces acting on the clock or any object in that exact position will be affected exactly the same .. As you can not create or destroy energy. So any of those forces that are in play in that exact position in space.are the only ones that will be encounted. Thanks It would not be precisely the same just from this descriptive which cannot account for why different observers will see time running differently when comparing clocks. The local observer in the same reference frame will se time running normally while the distant observer will see the clock of the local observer running different. If the clock rate is strictly determined by the amount of force on the clock then both observers will see the same rate when observing the local clock. Which Eise above is also mentioning...in cross post. Edited February 13, 2019 by Mordred
swansont Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: Swansnot Hi. It will be exactly the same. All the forces acting on the clock or any object in that exact position will be affected exactly the same .. As you can not create or destroy energy. So any of those forces that are in play in that exact position in space.are the only ones that will be encounted. Thanks Then how does one differentiate your idea from the theory of relativity? (BTW, the centrifuge experiment exists, though not with quartz clocks. It uses Mössbauer spectroscopy, and is one of several experiments which confirms relativity) But you seem to think time dilation is from the forces. What forces are in play for a clock moving at constant velocity? i.e. not undergoing any acceleration?
Janus Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 5 hours ago, Randall Canham said: Mordred I am just not that capable sorry. But I think you could put a quartz cyrstal clock in a centrifuge, crank it up to as many G' s as possible, while keeping a similar clock next to the machine. Then run the machine for as long as possible, to see if the math and the observed time change occurs or is there no change observable change between the clocks. As already mentioned, this type of experiment has already been done. The result was just an Relativity predicted: The time dilation for the object in the centrifuge only depended on the speed it was moving and was independent of how many gs it was undergoing. 1
swansont Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Janus said: As already mentioned, this type of experiment has already been done. The result was just an Relativity predicted: The time dilation for the object in the centrifuge only depended on the speed it was moving and was independent of how many gs it was undergoing. You can actually analyze it either way. The kinematic dilation, or looking at the acceleration as giving you an equivalent gravitational potential. You get the same answer, as you must.
Randall Canham Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 Strange Hi I wish to be absolutely correct about my explanation about a spring pendulum clock that I placed on the moon, in its lower gravitational field. I did not try to infer or imply that it had anything to do with time dilation. It shows the totally opposite results to an atomic clock which you say proves time dilation. I am just a simpleton in the world of the math giants of the world, an eg being Einstein. I can now only look at their footprints, left in time and just say wow! So I need your help to understand what your math is saying, Is it that my spring pendulum clock on the moon shows a faster rate of movement of its hands, or a slower rate of movement, to the hands of the same clock on earth. Note I was watching the video picture of the moon clock and the earth clock at the same time. So is it correct, as I said, that the hands on the moon clock, do actually go slower, as I explained. I have now used the word 'hands', as that was what I was referring to, not time itself. A clock is only a mechanical device that measures times duation. Sorry if I misled you by my lack of absolute correct terminology. Thanks I would appreciate your reply as it is so easy to unintentionally confuse others .
Strange Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 40 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: So I need your help to understand what your math is saying, Is it that my spring pendulum clock on the moon shows a faster rate of movement of its hands, or a slower rate of movement, to the hands of the same clock on earth. A pendulum will run slower on the moon. But this is nothing to do with time dilation, just the way the weaker gravity affects motion. A clock that does not involve motion, such as atomic clock, will run faster on the moon because of time dilation.
Mordred Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 Let me ask you a pertinent question. The field of physics has used Newton's laws long before the development of GR and SR by Einstein. Newton's laws was so strongly believed in that it has lasted the test of time from the 16th century onward. Now if time dilation could be explained away with the use of forces, then why did Einstein ever need to develop SR and GR to account for measurement data that Newton's laws could not accurately predict despite the expertise of all the scientists at the time ? Do you not think they didn't try ? Many of them have far greater math skills than anyone on this forum, you can bet they looked at all possible means of applying Newton's laws to account for time dilation. You might want to consider that 1
Randall Canham Posted February 14, 2019 Author Posted February 14, 2019 Mordred Hi I beleive I have got off on the wrong foot right from when I first posted my idea about what time does. I didn't realize how exacting I have to be even with the words I use to explain what I am trying to say. This is totally my fault, not anybody else's, so all I can do is apologize to all involved. I have now decided to put the single letter v in front of any word that I think could be misinterpreted by each or all of the people who have kindly replied to me on this subject as this is the best I can do. As we are all human, I know I will still get it wrong, hopefully less often now. I certainly don't try to offend anyone, but obiously this must be the case. I have already said that my math ability is only very basic and I am not any type of v scientist at all. But I do belive we should look at v something from all perspectives. Aristotle described the universe from his own perspective at that point in time which actually makes so much sense . Then came along Copernicus who looked at the same universe, just from a different perspective and came up with the v correct answer which was v opposite to that of Arostitle - now isn't that just amazing . So what I am asking is that you try and do a similar thing. I realize that I cannot do as Copernicus did and can only use basic math that I understand to prove to you that it is only because of a simple misunderstanding in perspective that has produced this anomaly. Between what I am suggesting which v novel and Einstein v great abilities. As I can not prove anything about my v theory at all, zip, and you can rightly prove Einstein's time dilation v theories I must change tack as this is not how I came to my conclusion on how I have discovered how time works. This is just my conclusion after seeing what I believe is an error used in the perspective to justify Einstein' s brilliant thought experiment with a light clock. I understand that he uses a simple v chart to show how time dilation due to velocity works. Now it's time to say that my v idea about time will at least bring on a good laugh at your next v bbq but at least l did have a novel v idea. Just so you know that I at least understand the light clock and how it works, I will explain to you my understanding of the actual light clock and how it works so we are on the same page. First, you have a light v emitter which emits one photon of light. This photon then travels at light speed to a mirror approx 150000 Km away, then is reflected by the mirror back to some sort of light v counter next to the emitter. It has now travelled a total distance of 300000Km with a duartion of exactly one second. Remember my math ability, that is why I have chosen this rounded up number so I don't confuse myslf later.as it will not change the perspective as to what is happening on the light v chart later. This perfect light clock has no moving mechanical parts in it to v distort its absolute time keeping ability. This clock is then positioned in v interstellar space away from all v interference and it has a tubular force field containing both the emitter and the mirror which has no effect on the photon's movement or v speed. It just stops any foreign matter or anything else from affecting the clock. It also detects any v deviation of the photon from its true path when the light is in v motion from the emitter to the v receiver's second counter. Hopefully, this will be enough to have the light clock work consistently at some relative speed at a consistent velocity in space. When the clock is relatively stationary, I cannot define what that actually means in interstellar space, as how do you know what it is relatively stationary to. Maybe someone knows, but it will still not change the perspective that I am talking about. It then counts off perfect seconds. I think that these second v increments are basically relative to our original earth second. The light clock is then moved at a constant velocity of x Km per second to the right in a straight line while keeping the directional axis of the photon's movement perfectly parallel at all times. Luckily this is only a thought experiment as it woud be so incredibley difficult to do. Now to the exciting bit. If you now just draw this v event, as seen from an observer, in a 2 dimensional way on a piece of paper or glass, you end up with two right angled triangles with the same side of both triangles on the base line that the emitter v traces out, with another side of both triangles forming one perpendicular line to the emitter's path of v motion. The hypotenuse sides both then v trace out an inverted vee shape to the emitter's path. Even if I have made some sort of mistake in this light v chart you can see it in your mind. I am going to use two basic right angle triangles to do this job with a ratio of 3 is to 4 is to 5 to achieve this. The emitter path's line will have two sides of 3 on it, then at the mid point, both of the sides containing 4 are placed perpendicular to the emitter's path and then the two hypotenuse sides of 5 complete the v picture. I'm sure you can easily see that in your mind now. The emitter is then set off at a constant velocity on the emitter's straight path line of 2 ×3=6 part line on the base line of the larger triangle side. When the photon v hits the mirror, it has then travelled approximately 150000 Km in half a second from the emitter. This time and distance travelled by the photon, can now be easily divided into 4 equal parts . This can then be repeated for any number of times with each passing second. The photon starting on the left then, when the emitter emits the photon on its path, it traces out a straight line along the side of the triangle containing 5 parts until it hits the mirror and then returns down the other side of the triangle containing the other 5 equal parts until it is v absorbed by the v counter and then one second has passed. So I have now hopefully shown how time dilation works as the photon has moved 8 of the equal parts on it's axis line but it has also moved 10 equal parts on the hypotenuse sides in that one second of duration. So this is why time dilates as 8 can never equal 10. Wow, that took me a long time just to only prove your theory for you and the math needed to prove it. I must be mad to even try and suggest how my theory about time could possibly be correct. If only it was as simple as that so now you have your own chance to finally decide if my idea still stands up to scrutiny. I have aways said that Aristotle looked at the universe and deduced that the universe revolved around the earth, then approx 2000 years later, Capernious looked at the same universe and came to the correct answer. So how can two people look at the same picture and have totally opposite conclusions? Easy, man does it all the time. Have you ever had an argument about what you tkink you saw? I have. So obviously I am saying that I believe you are looking at that same light that I am looking at. I do see something obviously different to you, as I am looking at it from a different perspective to you. Have you ever seen a magician do a slight of hand trick right in front of you and thought how did they do that? I have. I will now tell you that this is what everybody has been doing to themselves ever since this chart was made. I will show you how you have been tricking yourself on this Saturday and I hope you can join in as I will step you through how you have been tricking yourself and all you will need is a pencil, a couple of blank sheets of paper and a ruler. l would like anybody who doesn't agree with something in my long winded explanation to put forth all changes that you require of me in my explanation. I can revise it for you, but remember I have kept it simple for my own benefit as I am no genius. I looked at how the light clock worked and then a chart like I just described and couldn't see how they could ever show the same thing happening. When I twigged to what was actually happening I nearly fell off my chair. Don't worry, I have said to myself, what I am seeing here can't possibly be right hundreds of times as how could all these people be making this simple mistake and I am the only one seeing it? I must be going crazy, so Saturday night should be good for a laugh or you will fall off your chair too, just like I did. Obviously, if I get lots of changes to my simple explanation, I will have to delay what I want to share with you. Please keep changes to v items that must be changed only, thanks. I will now give you a few clues to think about 1 The photon always stays in the force field I made up. 2 You have drawn a 3 dimensional picture of the movement of the light clock in 2d on the paper chart. 3 What is really relative to what on the chart? 4 What is realy moving in the chart? I think that is as many clues that I can give you to see what I am seeing. Most people like to do puzzles, but in this case you are looking for something right in font of your eyes. Best of luck, I hope you work it out by yourself so if you do, please keep the answer to youself and not post it. Give everyone a chance to work it out themselves. Best of luck as I won't answer any questions about this puzzle I will just step you all through the answer on saturday night so you will all be drawing your own individual charts as I will give no measurements at all. You can just use your own so you know I can't be pulling a magic trick on you I just can't help myself. Last hint, put that chart on a pane of glass, maybe a window. Go around to the other side, maybe you should use a glass door so you don't fall out the window . Now, use tape and put the tape over all your lines. Take the paper off the other side. Best to do this at eye level. Go inside and look at what is now in your frame of reference. What can you see outside? Then move yourself to the right, left, up, down, whatever. Is the picture that you now see the same as before? Of course not, so what is the actual relatity and where is it? .If you figure this riddle out, you will have the answer. Till Saturday night with no changes.
studiot Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 I feel I am wasting my time here, since you have not replied to my posts. However one last comment. 26 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: First, you have a light v emitter which emits one photon of light. It is not possible for the emission ( or detection) of this photon to take place at a single point in time.
swansont Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 13 hours ago, Randall Canham said: Strange Hi I wish to be absolutely correct about my explanation about a spring pendulum clock that I placed on the moon, in its lower gravitational field. I did not try to infer or imply that it had anything to do with time dilation. It shows the totally opposite results to an atomic clock which you say proves time dilation. I am just a simpleton in the world of the math giants of the world, an eg being Einstein. I can now only look at their footprints, left in time and just say wow! So I need your help to understand what your math is saying, Is it that my spring pendulum clock on the moon shows a faster rate of movement of its hands, or a slower rate of movement, to the hands of the same clock on earth. Note I was watching the video picture of the moon clock and the earth clock at the same time. So is it correct, as I said, that the hands on the moon clock, do actually go slower, as I explained. I have now used the word 'hands', as that was what I was referring to, not time itself. A clock is only a mechanical device that measures times duation. Sorry if I misled you by my lack of absolute correct terminology. Thanks I would appreciate your reply as it is so easy to unintentionally confuse others . The tick rate changes if you change L, as well. But since we know this, we would not be so silly as to keep the gearing the same on the clock. We would have a one-second swing tick off one second on the display, and if the swing took 2 seconds, we would have it display 2 seconds. The same thing applies if we drastically change g. similarly, you can have a clock count oscillations of the mains electricity. In some places it's 50 Hz, and in others it's 60 Hz. You adjust accordingly. Nothing mystical is happening with the time. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: I will now give you a few clues to think about 1 The photon always stays in the force field I made up. There are no external forces. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: 2 You have drawn a 3 dimensional picture of the movement of the light clock in 2d on the paper chart. There is no motion in the last dimension, so this is irrelevant. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: 3 What is really relative to what on the chart? 4 What is realy moving in the chart? That's the crux. What's moving depends on which frame you're in, but the photon always moves at c, regardless. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: I think that is as many clues that I can give you to see what I am seeing. Most people like to do puzzles, but in this case you are looking for something right in font of your eyes. Best of luck, I hope you work it out by yourself so if you do, please keep the answer to youself and not post it. Give everyone a chance to work it out themselves. Best of luck as I won't answer any questions about this puzzle I will just step you all through the answer on saturday night so you will all be drawing your own individual charts as I will give no measurements at all. You can just use your own so you know I can't be pulling a magic trick on you That's not how things work around here. If you have some model, you need to present it. It's not up to anyone else to figure out what you're thinking.
Strange Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 2 hours ago, Randall Canham said: As I can not prove anything about my v theory at all, zip, and you can rightly prove Einstein's time dilation v theories In that case I shall request this thread is closed as your claims have nothing to do with science. 2 hours ago, Randall Canham said: This is just my conclusion after seeing what I believe is an error used in the perspective to justify Einstein' s brilliant thought experiment with a light clock. What you believe to be an error is probably just a lack of understanding on your part. But that is irrelevant because what matters is the science, and that has been confirmed repeatedly. It would not matter even if the thought experiment were totally wrong. It led to a theory that has been confirmed. Unless you have evidence that contradicts the theory (you don't) then your opinions are irrelevant.
Recommended Posts