Chris, if you want to verify the mathematical operations you can send them to me and my spouse and I will check them for you. As to whether you chose the right equations, you probably need the help of a physicist.
Bill On Monday, July 11, 2016, Chris Albertson <[email protected]> wrote: > What I really asked was "does the math work?". So far I suspect it does. > I don't think what I wrote contradicts anything in any conventional text > book. What I'm looking for is to be proven wrong > > Yes I know about velocity driven time dilation. Let's stick with Special > Relativity for now and ignore gravity. Notice that in this alternate > explanation thinks work the same way. It they don't then I'm proven > wrong. The way to prove me wrong is to compute the same situation both > ways and get different answers in just one case (that is not some special > corner case) > > Notice that your use of "velocity" or speed is confined to only 3-space. > Notice in my different explanation when speed in x,y,z is zero time is > moving at a 1:1 ratio and when speed in x,y,z is equal to c then time is > moving at zero speed. Al I did was ask what happens if we talk about > speed in x,y,z,t or "4-space". My first guess is that it would make > everything so complex no one would want to think about it but no, it seems > to make it easier because you only need to think about a plane parallel to > t axis, no need to think in 4-space, 2-space is general enough > > So I'm certainly NOT challenging anything in Special Relativity. I've read > what Einstein has written on this and I think all his examples apply What > you wrote is true also. You are using Einstein's examples. They are > good. But he and you are talking about speed in 3-space. > > I think it is intuitive that I am right now not moving in x,y,z but I KNOW > I am moving in "t" (time) at about 1 second/secind and from my reference > point I NEVER MOVE I am always "here" so I always experience time at 1 s/s > So I forgot to say that the x,y,z,t frame is relative to some "fixed" > object like my office. We all know that we are moving in time even if we > have no control over it. If we are moving then we should be able to > measure our velocity. Velocity is always something over time. It this > case it must be time over time. Using units it becomes seconds per second. > Then you set 1 s/s = c (tally arbitrary assignment) and much complexity > falls out. > > No intention to invent new physics here, just a different way to compute > and explain the same thing. It works the same way an observer in my > office sees me push my chair back at 4 inch/second and sees that my watch > has slowed down by some tiny amount. I claim only that assuming every > object in the universe always moves in 4-space at speed = c makes the > calculation simpler and easier to understand. > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Bill Byrom <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > I think you are on the wrong track with assuming that every object has a > > velocity c. What you need to consider is relativity. Velocity is a local > > measurement (local reference frame distance and local reference frame > > time). Light (and other electromagnetic radiation) always travels at a > > local velocity c (local distance divided by local time). Time dilation > > is a way of describing the effect of the relativity of simultaneity. > > Events which are not local (adjacent) to each other can't be > > unambiguously described as simultaneous. There is no universal clock > > which allows us to determine which of two separated events occurred > > "before" the other. > > > > There are two causes of time dilation: > > (1) Relative uniform motion. If two spacecraft are passing each other > > in uniform motion (not accelerating), from the point of view of > > each spacecraft the clocks on the other vessel will be slow > > compared to the local clocks. Due to the relativity of > > simultaneity, the seeming contradiction of a lack of symmetry (each > > of the remote clocks appears slow compared to the local clock) > > isn't a problem if you consider the two spacecraft starting with no > > motion at the same location, then moving relative to each other, > > then coming together again. > > (2) Gravitational fields (or - by the principle of equivalence - > > acceleration). As the Pound-Rebka experiment verified, clocks at > > different gravitational potentials appear to run at different rates > > from each other. This also causes the gravitational redshift. This > > is a symmetric effect, and observers at both gravitational fields > > will agree that the clocks at one are slower than the other. > > > > For an explanation of why relative motion causes time dilation, see: > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity > > > > If you want to understand why the relativity of simultaneity is so > > important, research the "ladder paradox" or the "train and platform > > light flash" thought experiment: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#The_train-and-platform_thought_experiment > > > > Consider this last example as the velocity of the train approaches c. > > Inside the train car, the observer at the center of the car will view > > the experiment as very simple. If there are mirrors at each end of the > > car, from the point of view of the observer at the center of the car the > > light flash reaches the two end mirrors at exactly the same time, and > > the reflected light pulses arrive back at the center simultaneously. But > > from the point of view of the observer on the platform, the light > > reaches the "back" mirror long before it reaches the "front" mirror, due > > to the rapid motion of the train. > > > > -- > > Bill Byrom N5BB > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Chris Albertson wrote: > > > Is this a valid TN subject? It's about time but a little off of the > > > usual > > > subject of 10Mhz oscillators. > > > > > > I heard of an alternate way to describe time dilation caused by > > > velocity. > > > I think this makes it easier to understand but I've not been able to > > > verify the math. This alternate explanation also makes it easy to see > > > why > > > we can never go faster than light. But I've not seen a mathematical > > > derivation so it could be wrong or just an approximation. > > > > > > Here goes: > > > > > > 1) We assume a 4 dimensional universe with four orthogonal axis, x, > > > y, z, > > > and time (t) > > > 2) assume that at all times EVERY object always has a velocity vector > > > who's > > > magnitude is "c", the speed of light. The magnitude of this vector > > > (speed) > > > never changes and is the same for every particle in the universe. > > > > > > This at first seems a radical statement but how is moving at c much > > > different from assuming every partial is at rest in t's own reference > > > frame? I've just said it is moving at c in it's own reference frame. > > > Both > > > c and zero are arbitrary speeds selected for connivance. > > > > > > How can this be? I know I'm sitting in front of my computer and > > > have not > > > moved an inch in the last four hours. c is faster than that. Yes > > > you > > > are > > > stationary in (x,y,z) but along the t axis you are moving one > > > second per > > > second and I define one second per second as c. Now you get smart and > > > try > > > to move faster than c by pushing your chair backward in the Y > > > direction > > > at > > > 4 inches per second. So you THINK your velocity magnitude is > > > the vector > > > sum of c and 4 inch/sec which is greater than c. BUT NO. Your speed > > > along Y axis causes time dilation such that your speed along T is now > > > slower than 1 second/second. In fact if you push your chair backward > > > along Y real fast at exactly c your speed along t axis is zero, time > > > stops. Try pushing your chair at 0.7071 * c and you find > > > yourself moving > > > through t at 0.7071 sec/sec and the vector sum is c. You can > > > NOT change > > > you speed from c all you can do to change the direction of the > > > velocity > > > vector and your speed through time is determined by the angle between > > > that > > > vector and the t axis. > > > > > > It works ok to just use one of the three spacial axis because we can > > > always > > > define them such that (say) the Y axis points in the direction > > > of motion. > > > So a plot of your speed in the dy,t plane covers the general case and > > > looks > > > like an arc of radius c. > > > > > > If this works out then I have some work to do, like defining > > > momentum as > > > a > > > function of the area between the velocity vector and the t axis > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Chris Albertson > > > Redondo Beach, California > > > _________________________________________________ > > > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > To unsubscribe, go to > > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > > and follow the instructions there. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] <javascript:;> > > To unsubscribe, go to > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > and follow the instructions there. > > > > > > -- > > Chris Albertson > Redondo Beach, California > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] <javascript:;> > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > -- I am Pulse. Unbreakable. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
