Analyze This

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Obvious Leo on Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:36 am

Physics just likes to make an easy job hard, Jonathan. It's exactly the same deal with the "expanding space". If you're standing at the roadside watching a car drive away from you do you say that the space between you and the car is expanding or do you just say that the car is moving away from you.

'It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid"....Albert Einstein

To a barmaid yes, to a physicist no.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:32 pm


How do they decide that the object exists for the same length of time
but time has dilated

rather than
the object simply exists for different amounts of time

its like saying

my bowls of ice-cream: (caramel or vanilla) exist for a fixed amount of time
but if its caramel ice-cream, then time runs faster because it disappears more quickly
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by emoallen3433 on Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:10 pm

Time dilation has been proven by measuring the life time of cosmic radiation in normal space, and we have noted that cosmic radiation decays faster in normal space, and slower on earth.

_________________
Allen Beers- PIRL Director and Chief Physicist
avatar
emoallen3433

Posts : 64
Join date : 2015-06-12
Age : 19
Location : florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:49 pm

Did you ever do these experiments?
Did you observe time slowing down for the muon?
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by emoallen3433 on Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:41 pm

I am not very good at special relativity but it has very much experimental proof behind it.

_________________
Allen Beers- PIRL Director and Chief Physicist
avatar
emoallen3433

Posts : 64
Join date : 2015-06-12
Age : 19
Location : florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:14 pm

How can you say it holds true after reading this?

avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by emoallen3433 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:15 pm

I hate relativity, but it holds true in everything i do.

_________________
Allen Beers- PIRL Director and Chief Physicist
avatar
emoallen3433

Posts : 64
Join date : 2015-06-12
Age : 19
Location : florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Obvious Leo on Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:36 am

Jon. Here's a little bit of frisson to add to your conundrum. Assuming that spaceships A and B are travelling at exactly the same speed when they pass point C (it doesn't matter what this speed is as long as it is identical for each), and assuming that A and B pass by each other as closely as they possibly can then these two spacecraft will be ENTANGLED.

To keep the sums simple imagine that we allow both spacecraft to travel 300,000 kms beyond C. A return radio signal CAC or CBC would therefore take 2 seconds right? However a radio signal CABC should take 4 seconds right?

WRONG. It will take slightly longer than 2 seconds. There's no such thing as perfect entanglement because there's no such thing as a flat space but the time for the radio signal to travel from A to B in this scenario is almost instantaneous. Can you figure out why?

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jilan1 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:15 am

That's a bit like saying that because the distance between the earth and Alpha Centuri is measured to be 4.367 light years before a rocket sets off for it the distance doesn't contract for the moving rocket! You are inadvertently preferring one frame to another, which is a common issue so misses the point of relativity entirely. There is NO preferred frame of reference. It is only from the earthbound rocket that the distance is 4.367 light years.

Jilan1

Posts : 11
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:02 pm

@Jilan1 wrote:The observer in each rocket will reckon that the other rocket has travelled a shorter distance than itself.

Not at all.

Both traveler's have measured that the distance to the observe 'c' is the same.
They do this before anyone starts moving.
So when they reach the observer they can only realize that they have traveled the same distance.

@Jilan1 wrote:
The fact that the clocks read the same will lead to the conclusion that time must have slowed down for the other observer.

That the clocks read the same, and the distance traveled is the same can only result in the notion
that time dilation in special relativity must have an error in its original conception.

In this case, it cannot exist. Absolutely.
(Unless the universe is an illogical dream-state devoid of objectivity.)

I maintain that in all cases, time dilation in special relativity does not exist.

This chapter explains why:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/Light%20and%20Spin%20-%20Chapter%20xxvii.pdf
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jilan1 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:13 am

The observer in each rocket will reckon that the other rocket has travelled a shorter distance than itself. The fact that the clocks read the same will lead to the conclusion that time must have slowed down for the other observer.

Jilan1

Posts : 11
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:00 pm

yes its mine
i think you were about the first to see it
it seems so simple and obvious
and yet logical and subversive
its the culmination of the last year and half of analysis


i just keep turning it over in my head and looking at it
again and again from all angles
have been unable to think about much else for the last 2 weeks


taking the hectic complexity of special relativity and reducing it
one simple counter-logical thought experiment
is far more exhausting than it looks
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by emoallen3433 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:10 pm

Did you write this?

_________________
Allen Beers- PIRL Director and Chief Physicist
avatar
emoallen3433

Posts : 64
Join date : 2015-06-12
Age : 19
Location : florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:09 pm

See the date on the article
;-j
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by emoallen3433 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:58 pm

Wow. Have always worked against relativity... never seen this before though.

_________________
Allen Beers- PIRL Director and Chief Physicist
avatar
emoallen3433

Posts : 64
Join date : 2015-06-12
Age : 19
Location : florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Analyze This

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:32 pm



A summary of this analysis is here:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm

The Full chapter is available here:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/Light%20and%20Spin%20-%20Chapter%20xxvii.pdf

I just cannot believe that anyone who makes a complete analysis
of this work can possibly accept the Special Theory of Relativity as being valid.

I have more respect for the flat-Earth society than the Einsteinists.
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Analyze This

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum