It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 6
14
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:13 PM

No one is asking for your "help" so feel free to save it. Phage and Arb know way more than you do and they know how to share it without being like....well.... you.

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by intrptr

I don't get it...

If I am looking back at a clock on earth as I accelerate away from it at the speed of light, the clock back on earth appears frozen because the light from the clock is keeping up with me. The clock on earth is still ticking at the same speed as my clock on the ship. The people of earth are still moving thru time at the same rate as I. The image of the clock outside my window is frozen, not the actual passage of events back on earth.

So why do we hold that when I return the time elapsed is different for Earthers than me?

Sorry for the dumb down in a smart thread, maybe someone can explain that for me...

Yes I can, in a most easy to understand way. The clock doesnt look like it is frozen because your going the exact same speed as the light so iit stays the same, if you go kight speed and turn on the headlights, the light leacing the ship would do so at the speed of light relative to your ship, so yes your going C ( the speed of light in physics is denoted by the letter C) light will travel the speed of light away from you, this is where time dilation comes from. This is why the speed of light is absolute, it doesnt care your speed, it travels at C away from yo uh, relative to you, not the space around you.

As an example to make this more easily understood, you are on earth, and watch a ship going the speed of lightfly by right as it turns on its lights, the light doesnt go 2 times the speed of light from the ship, the time of the ship stops, allowing light to travel at C away from the ship.

So you would see the crew at a frozen moment in time, as it passed, yet to the crew on the ship, they would see time outside zooming by at rediculous speed, for example, the crew would see the pyramids be build and erode away in a matter of moments.

Do you see how time is relative here? On earth you woukd swear they were frozen and unmoving, yet to them they are moving normally, to them you woukd be moving at unimaginable speeds, yet to you, you woukd be moving at normal speed.

It is all relative to the observer and their velocity, and or proximety to a gravity well.

Hope that helped.

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:28 PM
So, OP if you don't accept special relativity as fact, then do you believe in some sort of Aether that is the preferred reference frame for light? Just exactly how far back are you attempting going with your challenge to "mainstream physics"? Was Maxwell a fraud and his equations also just a "theory" as well, despite the fact they are the essentially the basis for the existence of modern civilization?

Special relativity is essentially Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism without a preferred reference frame. Hence, it's either you believe in the Aether despite the fact it has been proved experimentally to not exist, or you think Maxwell was wrong. Which one is it and why?

edit on 3-3-2013 by Diablos because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:35 PM

Very well out jigger, my lord you guys have some very interesting thought experiments, a lot of thought is obviously going into this and you really do want to understand, which keans your on the right track.

Ok, time is not a constant, it is maliable ( maybe that isnt the right word, but it will work for this explanation) and subject to change. It is different for everything, relative to their speed and proximity to a fravity well.

I wilk use your string of watches, as this was very well put and I havent heard this example used before.

All the clocks on the string would not have the same time, as the ones that left the earths gravity first would gegin experiencing time differently by the inch, as they were strung out from here to there, the one at the farthest end woild not be in time with one at this end on the ground, as the one on the ground would be at earth time, and the one farther out woild be in its own time relative to the one on earth. There is not one time we all inhabit, time is only relative to the observer, not everything.

Time moves differently here than on mars, or the moon or the sun.

We will say that we have discovered real time coms over any distance, with no time lag at all. Your on the sun, I am on earth. We both start our stop watchs and let them run at the exact same time. On earth my clock is worling perfectly, on the sun yours is working perfectly, both counting seconds exactly perfect (relative to our frame of reference), yet mine is counting faster than yours, and the longer they run, the larger the discrepency gets. As your proximity to higher gravity slows your time, relative to mine in a lower gravity field.

Now we have our string with all the clocks spaced exactly one foot apart from here to there, they will also all have recorded time differently as they are all at differnt proximity to differing gravity wells. The farther from the earth or sun they would run faster than their counterparts that are closer. As time is situationally specific, not all encompassing and absolute.

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:51 PM

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Phage
But using your logic, why does a clock run faster when it is in orbit than it does on Earth surface?

edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I thought the clock ran slower in orbit? The faster the clock moves, the slower time goes, right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's true all other things being equal, but all other things are not equal in this case.

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

No one is asking for your "help" so feel free to save it. Phage and Arb know way more than you do and they know how to share it without being like....well.... you.

Lol very nice, straight to the point, a little obtuse, but no more so than I. I woukd point out the amusement of someone who doesnt know what I might or might not know, telling me what I dont know about a subject they obviously dont know, but well you know. You asked for info, I provided it, much as I would for anyone who wishes to have knowledege I posess, as it isnt mine to keep, it is for everyone, such is the nature of the beast.

Please dont take offense, I wasnt trying to insult, I am just a male phallus in real life, and dont try to be, I just am.

Please accept my apologies, and my sincere regret in upsetting you, it wasnt my intention, though I can see looki. Back how you may have been put off by. Response.

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Diablos
So, OP if you don't accept special relativity as fact, then do you believe in some sort of Aether that is the preferred reference frame for light? Just exactly how far back are you attempting going with your challenge to "mainstream physics"? Was Maxwell a fraud and his equations also just a "theory" as well, despite the fact they are the essentially the basis for the existence of modern civilization?

Special relativity is essentially Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism without a preferred reference frame. Hence, it's either you believe in the Aether despite the fact it has been proved experimentally to not exist, or you think Maxwell was wrong. Which one is it and why?

edit on 3-3-2013 by Diablos because: (no reason given)

I could be wrong but I thought Maxwell believed in an aether. I think modern physicist do too, they just refer to it as the omnipresent EM field. (throw the higgs field in there just for fun too and it sounds like we found the aether)

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:58 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I could be wrong but I thought Maxwell believed in an aether.

By 1856, the issues with 'aether' had Maxwell looking for an EM theory that didn't require it. By the time he wrote 'Dynamical Theory' in 1864, he had abandoned aether. Also, Maxwell's equations do not depend on an 'aether', anyway. Even the original set, despite the yammering of the odder CT sites.

I think modern physicist do too, they just refer to it as the omnipresent EM field. (throw the higgs field in there just for fun too and it sounds like we found the aether)

You're missing what the 'aether' is supposed to be, I think. An 'omnipresent EM field' could not qualify. Neither would the Higgs rigging field.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:02 AM

Right. I am moving and outside the window of my car the raindrops are no longer falling vertical, but at an angle. When I stop at the light they resume their vertical fall.

What has changed is only my frame of reference. The drops of rain fall down regardless of my action. But they appear to take longer to fall the same distance when I am moving. Relativity.

I guess I am out of my element here and need to do some more re-reading. I thought I knew this at one time.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.

Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.

edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

Have you ever died? How do you know that you will, let alone can, die? Truly, you can know of nothing other than your own existence. Everything is a fabrication of your mind, but for the sake of maintaining sanity you choose to believe that the universe works in certain ways and operates by certain laws.

With that being said, I think it's fair to assume that the things you want to be proven wrong of have already been proven right by some rather genius minds.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:55 AM
It seems a few here are having issues differentiating time and the measurement of time. Phage has given some wonderful examples that have been presented with patience and stated in ways that everyone should be capable of understanding.

Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can vary depending on what frame of reference you happen to be in. Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down, only our perception of time changes. That's where relativity comes in.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:23 AM

Thank you, apology accepted. My apologies to you for my dig at you. I have plenty of my own "style" issues to work on myself.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Phage
Again your use of an inadequate analogy is confusing you. Inflation doesn't stretch space, it is an expansion of space.

Doesn't stretch spacetime? You sure?

Such expansion would stretch space and smooth matter, while leaving small density variations that show up in the CMB.

source: www.bbc.co.uk...

As time passed, the Universe expanded, meaning that the fabric of space was stretched in all directions. The possibility that space can be dynamic is a consequence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The expansion of the Universe pulled material apart and caused the world to cool.

When the Universe was just a tiny fraction of a second old, it is believed that space underwent a tremendous stretching, probably by more than a factor of 10^50. This event, know as inflation, was the idea of Dr. Alan Guth, currently a professor of physics at MIT.

source: www.jupiterscientific.org...

And that’s what inflation is. It says that, in order to set up the Big Bang, just prior to this hot, dense, expanding state, the Universe was expanding exponentially fast, doing the following things:

Stretching space — whatever shape it was in before — to be so large that it appears flat.

source: scienceblogs.com...

A simulation at this link portrays the distortions in space and time at the subatomic scale, the result of quantum fluctuations occurring continuously throughout the universe. Near the end of the simulation, cosmic inflation begins to stretch space-time to the cosmic proportions of the universe.

source: www.universetoday.com...

Same region stretched to macroscopic size

source: www.physics.umd.edu...

The hypothesis of inflation is that a rapid expansion of the universe occurred shortly after big bang. The expansion would be rapid enough to stretch space time, making it as flat as we see today

source: cp3-origins.dk...

Naturally, the only other alternative to inflation is that "new" spacetime is "injected" beteew the space-time as universe expands... Like tectonic plates on Earth. But that would require some sort of "space-time reservoir", which has never been observed.
edit on 4-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So you're not denying the redshift, you're saying it's not caused by a "rush-away-from-each-other movement" or more correctly the "metric expansion of space" as others have pointed out, but by something else

That's right. And I'm not the only one you know.

There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.

No known interaction... So you can't know for sure. Quantum wave (from which zero-point energy arises even in total vacuum), which can't be observed (only its effect) is believed to interact with EM signals and may be the cause for redshift.

It is possible to model the current cosmological redshift as an energy decrease per distance based on the interaction of spherical quantum waves, which are postulated to define mass-energy density based on previous investigations [1]. In this paper, quantum waves are postulated to have a limited range of Ru = 1.9 × 1026 meters, which defines a Hubble sphere around a point of observation, where the observation of distant objects appears to be redshifted with reference to our local sphere. The redshift is due to the reduced interaction between quantum waves of our local sphere and the quantum waves of the sphere that is centered around the distant object.

source: redshift.vif.com...

It is shown by the author that if gravitons are super-strong interacting particles and the low-temperature graviton background exists, the basic cosmological conjecture about the Dopplerian nature of redshifts may be false. In this case, a full magnitude of cosmological redshift would be caused by interactions of photons with gravitons. A new dimensional constant which characterizes one act of interaction is introduced and estimated. Non-forehead collisions with gravitons will lead to a very specific additional relaxation of any photonic flux.

source: arxiv.org...

Too lazy to look it up even when I give you an exact search term? OK lazy bones

Let's just say I don't have all the time in the world. Some people do have a job, you know.
edit on 4-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by kthxbai
It seems a few here are having issues differentiating time and the measurement of time.
I have to wonder if you're one of these few.

Phage has given some wonderful examples that have been presented with patience and stated in ways that everyone should be capable of understanding.
I agree, and I'm going to quote one such example I don't believe you understand yet.

Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can vary depending on what frame of reference you happen to be in. Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down, only our perception of time changes. That's where relativity comes in.
This is partly true and partly false. When you say "Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can.." and "Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down, only our perception of time changes.", what is the difference between "Time Itself" and our "measurement of time"?

How can you say "Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down"? Phage said:

Originally posted by Phage
So on Jupiter you would age slower relative to Earth. On a black hole, very much slower. In fact you could probably watch the universe end from there.
He may be right about that though I would say orbiting very close to the event horizon of a black hole since I don't really know what happens inside the event horizon. How would you be able to watch the universe end from that location if time hadn't really slowed down in that location? You wouldn't have to be measuring time to watch the universe end so it's not just a measurement issue.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by intrptr
If I am looking back at a clock on earth as I accelerate away from it at the speed of light, the clock back on earth appears frozen because the light from the clock is keeping up with me. The clock on earth is still ticking at the same speed as my clock on the ship. The people of earth are still moving thru time at the same rate as I. The image of the clock outside my window is frozen, not the actual passage of events back on earth.

So why do we hold that when I return the time elapsed is different for Earthers than me?

Let's say you travel away from Earth at light speed. Let's add a third party: Let's also say the galaxy's core pulsate each seconds. Finally, let's say you accelerate away from Earth at light speed, but you trajectory is parallel to the Core. No matter what speed you'll go at, both you and the Earth will see the same amount of Core pluses. That means both your clock and Earth's clock are synchronized - And Earth people didn't really aged faster. It was just an illusion because of the increased distance (between you and Earth) and the "slow" speed of light, which is "only" about 300 000 km/s.

A close analogy would be, if you send a tennis ball to your opponent in tennis, your opponent's time is not shifting - your opponent is just receiving the ball (light) later.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:57 AM

Thanks for the kind words.

I'll think about it. I don't have alot of time, though. I work alot. And there is a couple of my arguments whose sources are actually from other physicists.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by kthxbai
It seems a few here are having issues differentiating time and the measurement of time.
I have to wonder if you're one of these few.
This is partly true and partly false. When you say "Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can.." and "Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down, only our perception of time changes.", what is the difference between "Time Itself" and our "measurement of time"?

Look at it this way. You have a ruler. You know, with inches marks on it. The ruler is always 1 foot long. but it you watch it from its end, you'll think (and measure) it to be only about 1/8 of an inch. Does that meant the ruler isn't 1 foot long anymore? No, it still is, it didn't change - it's just you don't see it because of your angle. Your perception of it changed. But as for you, you did not shrinked to a couple of inches tall simply by looking at your ruler differently.
edit on 4-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:03 AM

Time doesn't change

I'm being told it does and not by nutters but by members whose info I typically feel I can take to the bank. This isn't easy for me to disagree like this.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:07 AM

Time doesn't change. See my explanation.

top topics

14