Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[MacM]

MacM, Please look at my edits.

-Dale

I have and I think the problem here is that you have thought I was quoting my view of his theory. I am not. I am quoting my own views. In my view the veloicty of light will measure invariant but that does not invoke relativity as a solution in that photons are frame dependant. That is you are looking at different photons in different frames.

 

[MacM]

Dr. Dowdye's theory is wrong. One reason lies specifically with the Sagnac effect. He asserts that the reason the light signals are of different time measurements is because the photons are emitted, absorbed, then re-emitted over and over again in their travels throught the atmosphere. An atmosphere is not necessary for the Sagnac effect to arise. It also happens in the vacuum of space where no absorption/re-emission is happening. In GPS, the effect is calculated correctly from the satellites orbital position in mid-high orbit to the distance corresponding to the surface of the Earth. Most of the signals travel is through the vacuum, the atmosphere only a part of the distance. The Sagnac effect has been demonstrated in other in-space interferometer experiments, leading to the inclusion of the effect in the LISA mission I outlined above. Sorry, Dr. Dowdye.

I have trouble in Dr Dowdye's Theory seeing how a measurement of a re-emitted photon after several light years travel could substantally alter the measured speed of light.

But my position regarding simultaneity is not based on Dr Dowdye's work. It is based on my own view that photons are frame dependent and the photons observed and measured in different frames are hence different photons.

This accounts for the measured invariance but does not invoke relativity as a solution.

 

[MacM]

I don't get it. Is MacM trying to disprove a theory on theoretical grounds?

Not disprove. I can no more prove photons are frame dependant than you (or relativity) can prove the same photon is being measured in different frames even tough that creates absurd consequences physically.

This is a bit backwards. This endless rehashing of a gedanken experiment isn't going to lead to any fixed conclusion when MacM working from completely different assumptions...

I would agree. Most here rather seem to believe I do not understand relativity but the facts are I do but I reject the assumptions and conclusions made by it.

I have been trying to get people to realize that relativity is not the only solution to the measured invariance of light. There most likely is a completely benign and rational physical cause.

 

[MacM]

I designed this scenario to avoid using any theory.* Only use your mind and fact speed of light is independent of direction of travel. (I do not even require that it is the same in all frames!) It could be 3x10^8 on train and 2x10^8 on the ground and my thought experiment still shows:

AND IT CAN AND IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT PHOTONS ARE FRAME DEPENDANT AND WHAT YOU MEASURE IN DIFFFERENT FRAMES IS DIFFERENT PHOTONS WHICH HAVE THE C+V OR C-V COMPONENT ALREADY IN THEM SUCH THAT THEY REMAIN V = C IN THE MEASURMENT FRAME.

Events Simultaneous in one frame are NOT Simultaneous in any other.

ONLY IF THEY ARE THE SAME PHOTONS IN EACH FRAME. IT IS MY ASSERTION THAT IN YOUR SCENARIO THE BOMBS WILL GO OFF SIMULTANEOUS IN BOTH FRAMES BECAUSE THE EVENT IS LINKED ONLY TO THE PHOTONS IN THE TRAIN FRAME AND THE PHOTONS YOU SEE IN THE EMBANKMENT FRAME DO NOT EXIST IN THE TRAIN FRAME.

THE EMBANKMENT OBSERVERS WILL FIND THE EXPLOSION TO HAVE OCCURED WITH NO DEPENDANCE UPON THE PHOTONS IN THAT FRAME.

I assumed only that MacM has a mind, not SRT, not constant speed c for all frames, nothing else! I did this to try to limit the number of “duck” and “weaves” available to him. His ability to produced 14 irrelevant duck and weaves, confirms he has a mind, but unfortunate it is so closed, he will not discuss the real issue.

SPEAKING OF DUCK AND WEAVES. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY TRUE POSITON. BETTER YET WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ANY BASIS WHICH SUGGESTS MY VIEW IS NOT COMPERABLE TO YOURS.

HAVE YOU ANY DATA TO SHOW OR PROVE THAT THE MEASURED INVARIANCE OF LIGHT IS BASED ON THE SAME PHOTONS? I THINK NOT.
______________________________________________

*In another post MacM ignores this and claims that SRT is not proven so his theory is just as good. (Of course SRT is not proven - only confirmed in every test - and there have been zillions if one only considers muons reaching the surface of the Earth and zillions more with accelerated particles. - but I agree that is not proof.)

SRT has been confirmed by man’s observations, at least a million times more that the theory that the sun will rise tomorrow!

SIMPLY A SHORT SIGHTED INTERPRETATION OF DATA. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING OR PHYSICAL FACTS OF THE ISSUE. SHOW WHERE ANY OF THE ABOVE ADDRESSES THE ARGUEMENT THAT THE EXISTANCE OF PHOTONS ARE ENERGY (FRAME) DEPENDANT.

 

[MacM]

Yes, and that is shown by the thought experiment of this thread.

AND IS COMPLETELY VOIDED IF AS I SUGGEST PHOTONS ARE FRAME DEPENDANT.

 

[MacM]

No - The clocks are adjacent to explosions and record the time of the explosions. Humans only look at them weeks later - perception has nothing to do with this thought experiment.

SURE IT DOES. THE PERCEPTION THAT MEASURED INVARIANCE OF LIGHT IS BASED ON THE SAME PHOTON IN DIFFERENT FRAMES (UNIVERSAL ENERGY LEVELS).

 

[MacM]

What you say is true, but I like my answer (first of my few below) much better as I do not assume special relativity. (Not a good idea to prove things to MacM as he rejects SRT.)

You seem to miss the distinction. I reject the basis for SRT and that is the interpretation (assumptions) made for the measured invariance of light.

Once you understand that photons are like binding energy release at Lorentz Contraction dimensional collapse you will understand that in different frames you are seeing and measuring different photons.

Hence the photons in the train frame detonate the bombs simultaneously and that event will be observed (measured) to have been simultanous in every frame but the light triggers will appear to have caused the explosion ONLY in the train frame where the photons for that frame exist at v = c.

The photons seen in the embankment frame have nothing to do with the explosive events.

Photons in my view are oscillations (excitations) of a carrier which extends over a broad range or spectrum of energies (velocities) and also accounts for the connection in particle entanglement.

I also predict that we will find not only does light measure invariant at v = c but so will gravity. Why because the illusive omnidirectional flowing (kenetic) energy medium which is the carrier for light energy at v = c and coupling for particle entanglement is also the basis for production of gravity.

Hmmmm.

 

[Billy T]

...I do not dispute the postulate that claims light is measured to be invariant. I simply see a more reasonable explanation for such invariance than relativity. ...

What is it?

I note that special relativity follows from the speed of light being constant. Does your theory also follow from this single* fact?
_______________________________________________
*Actually the constancy of the speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations and the assumption, (Well confirmed by fact that every 6 months Earth has changed frames by twice the orbital speed!) that physics is same for all frames. One of the great achievements of Mawell was to PREDICT electromagnetic wave which a few years later Hertz proved exist and travel at speed of light. Radio waves thru gamma "rays" are all the same thing, just different in wavelength.

Thus the really fundamental requirement for SRT to be valid is the fact physics does not depend upon the frame any and all experiments are done in. To refute SRT, you must be either willing to:

(1) Think illogically, deny math etc or

(2) Support the view that:
in frame 1 there is physics 1
in frame 2 there is physics 2
…
in frame 769834927... there is physics 769834927...
…
in frame n there is physics n
Where n is infinite.

MacM tell me again about “simple verse complex” and Ocham’s razor.

Your theory must postulate different physics in each frame, or SRT follows by math and logic as outlined above from Maxwell’s theory and measurement of vacuum permeability and dielectric constant of the vacuum.

You admit to believing in an absolute reference frame, ARF, so at least in this point you are consistent. Your “SRT is wrong” physics must differ in all frames, to the extent the frame differs from the ARF, unless you prefer option (1) above (Think illogically, deny math etc.)

My dogs have really missed Gieskiel, so I have given them permission to bark you:
ARF,ARF,ARF, physics1 in frame 1.
ARF,ARF,ARF, physics2 in frame 2.
ARF,ARF,ARF, physics3 in frame 3. …..

 

[Billy T]

AND IS COMPLETELY VOIDED IF AS I SUGGEST PHOTONS ARE FRAME DEPENDANT.

Yes their frequency is frame dependent, but not their speed of travel in vacuum - that is the issue, not what color they are.

PS - When a photon is measured, it is absorbed in the measuring device. Your concept of the same photon being measured in two different frames is also nonsense.

 

[2inquisitive]

Right, all of the satellites are *in orbit* and so feel a force (gravity from the sun and earth) acting on them. Thus their rest frame is not inertial. The fixed relative positions of the satellites in their rest frame is because all of them are subject to the *same* gravitational forces.

If we sit on opposite ends of a merry-go-round, we'll remain stationary relative to one another no matter how fast it spins. But we'll sure as shit be able to tell whether the thing is spinning or not, even with our eyes closed.

No, I said a person, or instrument, INSIDE the spacecraft would FEEL no force on them. No different from being on the space shuttle. From the frame of reference of someone INSIDE the spacecraft, the frame is inertial. If they were in a windowless room inside the spacecraft, how could they detect their motion?

Now about the triangle rotating. The individual satellites do not rotate, nor do they 'circle' about a fixed point like observers on your merry-go-round.
The rotation comes about because of a slight inclination of orbits relative to each other. Each individual satellite is just following its own orbit around the sun, but because of the relative inclinations, the 'triangle' formed by them will rotate as it moves around the sun. Just look at the animation at NASA's site,
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it:
http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/STRATEGY/getThere2.html

 

[2inquisitive]

.....

However, I do not understand your point about the three laser in orbit of 1AU in equalateral triangle geometry. I can detect rotation, with a bucket of water a lot less expensively. Please tell my more clearly your point.

I hope you read my last post and looked at the animation also, Bill T. Remember the discussion you had with Janus58 concerning the Earth/moon orbits around the sun? The principle is similar here, except there are three bodies and no gravitational attraction between the three bodies, only their individual orbits around the sun.

 

[MacM]

What is it?

I note that special relativity follows from the speed of light being constant. Does your theory also follow from this single* fact?

NOTE: The measured speed of light being invariant DOES NOT dictate that a photon's velocity is constant between frames. It in fact can (and most likely) means you are measuring different photons in different frames.

Hence relativity is not indicated from measured invariance of light.

 

[MacM]

Yes their frequency is frame dependent, but not their speed of travel in vacuum - that is the issue, not what color they are.

You make this as a statement of fact and it is nothing more than an assumption. What evidence do you have that the photon you measure in a moving frame is the same photon you measured in the stationary frame?

PS - When a photon is measured, it is absorbed in the measuring device. Your concept of the same photon being measured in two different frames is also nonsense.

FUNNY. I have said photons measured in another frame ARE NOT the same photons. I have said nothing about measuring the same photon more than once.

The issue is your insistance that the light striking the detonator detectors is seen striking at different times in different frames.

BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION HERE: The frame in which the photon if absorbed first precludes it from being absorbed at some other time in some other frame.

 

[DaleSpam]

I have and I think the problem here is that you have thought I was quoting my view of his theory. I am not. I am quoting my own views. In my view the veloicty of light will measure invariant but that does not invoke relativity as a solution in that photons are frame dependant. That is you are looking at different photons in different frames.

Haha. That's correct, my comments were specifically directed towards your friend's theory (hence my use of the words "he" and "your NASA friend" instead of "you" and "yourself").

Then I believe we are in agreement that your NASA friend is attacking relativity by rejecting the frame invariance of c. I was quite upset by your assertions that I was making false statements when I was accurately assessing his material. I never claimed nor did I assume that your views and his were the same, but please read more carefully next time before you say something accusatory like that. Except when I am very tired I make a concious effort to be precise in my statements.

I believe that your friend's assault on relativity (rejecting the invariance of c) is the only approach that even has a chance of being successful. I don't know enough about your frame-dependent photon idea to evaluate it, but I suspect that you will eventually find that you either must actually reject the invariance of c or you will get relativity anyway. Just remember, relativity is a consequence of the invariance of c, not an explanation for it.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

No, I said a person, or instrument, INSIDE the spacecraft would FEEL no force on them. No different from being on the space shuttle. From the frame of reference of someone INSIDE the spacecraft, the frame is inertial. If they were in a windowless room inside the spacecraft, how could they detect their motion?

This is because orbit is considered continuous freefall and freefall is inertial.

However this is accepted as pseudo inertial because infact it technically is not inertial in that under the most ideal conditions there is only one singularity where there exists no grvitational affect. all around that point one has micro-gravity because of tidal affects. (Gravity points to a common point and places non-parallel forces on orbiting objects.)

 

[MacM]

Just remember, relativity is a consequence of the invariance of c, not an explanation for it.-Dale

Only if the invariance is based on measurement being of the same photons.

In my view photons in one frame do not exist in anyother frame. Other photons are created at v = c in that frame.

Since they are not the same photons no cause for relativity exists.

Do you have any evidence that photons measured in one frame are the same photons in anyother frame?

Do you have any evidence to suggest much less show that photons are not frame dependant?

 

[DaleSpam]

Only if the invariance is based on measurement being of the same photons.

I don't think that relativity depends on the same photons being measured. I think it only requires that c be the same for any two observers in relative (inertial) motion for whatever reason.

I see no reason that the idea of different photons existing in different frames would be incompatible with relativity. Consider the Unruh effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect) where an accelerating observer encounters black-body photons that an inertial observer does not encounter. Admittedly it is a GR/QM effect and not a strictly SR effect, but the point is that your fundamental idea here, in some form, is already considered a consequence of relativity.

-Dale

 

[2inquisitive]

This is because orbit is considered continuous freefall and freefall is inertial.

However this is accepted as pseudo inertial because infact it technically is not inertial in that under the most ideal conditions there is only one singularity where there exists no grvitational affect. all around that point one has micro-gravity because of tidal affects. (Gravity points to a common point and places non-parallel forces on orbiting objects.)

Of course, MacM, everyone knows that. But at a distance of 1AU from the sun, do you belive anyone would FEEL, or could even measure, that tidal effect? While you are sitting at your computer, do you think you could measure the sun's (not the Earth's) tidal effect on your body? You are at the same distance from the sun as the satellites.

 

[MacM]

I don't think that relativity depends on the same photons being measured. I think it only requires that c be the same for any two observers in relative (inertial) motion for whatever reason.

We certainly disagree on this issue. If they are different photons then there is no linkage between the respective time of arrivals at common points between frames. One frame sees photons at c in its frame and those photons are not observed in the other frame. A completely different set of photons at v = c exists in the other frame.

The photons in Billy T's embankment frame are not measured by the photo sensors in the train frame.

I see no reason that the idea of different photons existing in different frames would be incompatible with relativity.

It eliminates the requirement for relativity. Light is no longer a common link between moving frames.

Consider the Unruh effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect) where an accelerating observer encounters black-body photons that an inertial observer does not encounter. Admittedly it is a GR/QM effect and not a strictly SR effect, but the point is that your fundamental idea here, in some form, is already considered a consequence of relativity.

-Dale

I fail to see the connection of Unruh to relativity. I posted a thread on the Unruh affect over a year ago. The virtual particles become real particles and the energy comes from the energy of the moving observer.

But it is a valid point which suggests the idea of frame dependant photons may well be the correct answer.

 

[MacM]

Of course, MacM, everyone knows that. But at a distance of 1AU from the sun, do you belive anyone would FEEL, or could even measure, that tidal effect? While you are sitting at your computer, do you think you could measure the sun's (not the Earth's) tidal effect on your body? You are at the same distance from the sun as the satellites.

Absolutely not. I have posted on this issue before. It is generally accepted as an inertial situation. It technically however is not. That is why in technical information you no longer see the statement "Zero" gravity but "Micro" gravity.