Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[Billy T]

That reasoning only applies if space was bounded, Billy... do you think space has actual edges?

No, that is why I gave the "throughout the entire universe alternative. Some simple views do hold that the universe has edges and for them I included that alternative. Likewise there are those that think unverse is bounded, and I guess I tend to this view, but believe that no matter where you are in it you can still move in any direction - I.e. you can't arrive at the edge of the unverse.

But regardless, movement is a relative concept.
If a field is stationary in one frame, then it's moving in other frames, right?

Yes, but I would content the mass created gravity field is not moving in any of them nor stationary in any. It is not the sort of thing that can move. It is more like space itself - every possible point (x,y,z) exist and at each point there are some vector and scaler fields that don't move, but if you fix your attention on a particular field strength being measured at some point by a test charge, then in most frames, that point is moving with the test charge. gravity, ordinary source produce electric and magnetic fields are examples of these SINGLE, non-moving all uiverse filling fields which are modulated by the motion of there sources. There are electromagnetic fields that have only their on selves as sources (such as photons, radio waves, etc) that do move or propagate and do not fill all space. There probably are gravity waves also that do self propagate and move. All of these moving fields did at least once have a source, but as they are finite in extent, they are not necessarily connected to their source any longer. I can only think of energy density as an example of a scalar non-moving field. It is also modulated by passing EM waves and it does have a moving componet as mass is energy. I admit that it is impossible to draw a clear line betwen my static electric field field concept and the EM wave. For example, one can claim that that any frequency of current oscilation or even a slow accelerating electron is producing a low frequency EM wave. So I won't agrue with you, but that is how I tend to think about this.

 

[Prosoothus]

Billy T,

If you're standing still and an electron zooms past you, you'll notice a magnetic field in the vicinity of the electron. Because of this, it can be concluded that a moving electric field produces a magnetic field at right angles to the electric field and the motion of the electric field. Therefore, the electric field must be moving.

However, someone might claim that the magnetic field was generated not because the electric field was moving, but because the intensity of the electric field changed as it moved past the observer. So how do you confirm whether the electric field can move, or not? You perform a simple experiment:

You take a hollow metal sphere and you charge it. Next, you place an observer 1 meter from the sphere with a device that measures magnetic fields. Finally, you rotate the sphere while the observer attempts to detect a magnetic field. Since the observer is at a fixed distance from the sphere, and the sphere is uniformly charged on its surface, the intensity of the electric field remains constant for the observer. If the observer detects a magnetic field, you must conclude that the magnetic field is generated by the moving electric field because the strength of the electric field remains constant to the observer. In other words, the magnetic field in the experiment is proof that the electric field is moving.

I'm simply claiming that the gravitational field can move just like the electric field.

 

[Pete]

Hi Prosoothus,
I thought that moving electric *charges* (not fields) produced magnetic fields?

 

[Billy T]

....So how do you confirm whether the electric field can move, or not? You perform a simple experiment:
You take a hollow metal sphere and you charge it. Next, you place an observer 1 meter from the sphere with a device that measures magnetic fields. Finally, you rotate the sphere while the observer attempts to detect a magnetic field. Since the observer is at a fixed distance from the sphere, and the sphere is uniformly charged on its surface, the intensity of the electric field remains constant for the observer. If the observer detects a magnetic field, you must conclude that the magnetic field is generated by the moving electric field because the strength of the electric field remains constant to the observer. In other words, the magnetic field in the experiment is proof that the electric field is moving.

Interesting you should mention this experiment (at least to me). I got my physics Ph.D at Johns Hopkins. R.W. Wood was (before my time) the world famous physicists associated with JHU - I think he still came around some to visit in the astronomy dept, but I never met him. He wrote a great book on practical techniques of physic - I forget the title, but his recomented proceedure for getting fine glass fibers for torsion balances etc. was to bind one end of small quartz rod to an arrow, and hold the other end. When quartz in the middle was red hot, shoot the arrow fast. etc.

He did lots of famous experiments and made the world's first screw accurate enough to scratch lines, very uniformly, on aluminum covered glass - I.e. made a machine that coud engrave a difraction grating - that machine was still in the concrete of the basement of the physics building while I was there. Unfortunately, it was also a simograph so it was used mainly at night, years earlier and no loner in use now that you can buy gradings cheaper.

He did your experiment as a test of Maxwell's equations, but used a plastic (probably "bakealight" which was the first plastic available) disk, not a metal sphere, that he had charged up with static electicity and then spun it fast. (He wanted a direct measure of the velocity of the charge which under mutual repulsion was on the out side of the disk (I forget some details, pehaps there was a thin metal rim.)

Unfortuntely for you, when describing why a magnetic field was produced, he did not talk about the electric field of the charges, but how clearly it was moving charges (we call that a "current") that makes the magnetic field.

 

[Aer]

Billy T, not to get too off topic.. well ok, completely off topic - but what is darkvisitor.com?

 

[Billy T]

Billy T, not to get too off topic.. well ok, completely off topic - but what is darkvisitor.com?

The center of a scary book I wrote in effort to recurit bright "pre-law" etc students for physics by hidding a lot of physics in it, very nonconventionaly taught.

There is a whole chapter discussing possible candidates for the Dark Visitor, the most obvious being a small black hole. the Dark Visitor has just been discovered by book's astronomer (via pertubation of Pluto which Jack has been carefully studing) It can't be seen in telescopes but when it passes solar system, its impuse changes Earth's orbit slightly (actual results of three-body, finite-time-step code I wrote) and Earth will be rapidly plunged into new permanent ice age (Only in the Northern hemisphere as 11% greater apogee occurs in summer there and all the prior winter's snow does not melt.)

Perigee is closer to sun, but in my Souther Hemisphere, summer is only a little hotter as clouds cover Earth an increase albedo, but the greatly increased ocean evaporation from Southern Hemisphere makes cloud cover nearly global and that supplies the great snow falls in US/ Europe's/ Asia's milder winter. (Big snow falls always come in the mild part of winter, but in the new orbit, that is all winter long)

Go to www.DarkVisitor.com to see a list of physics and climatology hidden in the book (and sample text, the physics of why there are more small black holes than stars etc.) My intended reader would never pick up a physics book. There are even "easter eggs" hidden in the book and except for them all the physics is correct One egg is the statement that "Black holes can't be detected in telescopes" sounds plausible, but to not miss lead the book decribes how quasar work and gravitational lensing, either could make the small black hole visible, but as it eats the difuse solar wind it is only a "micro quasar" etc. As for the other "eggs" - they also are very plausibe statements that are false and careful reading plus intelligence will expose them. My real name is in book but "Billy T" wrote it
.

 

[Aer]

Go to www.DarkVisitor.com

Umm yeah, I already tried that - I just get a blank page. Good effort I guess?

 

[MacM]

Umm yeah, I already tried that - I just get a blank page. Good effort I guess?

I couldn't access it either although at one time I could some months ago.

 

[Billy T]

Umm yeah, I already tried that - I just get a blank page. Good effort I guess?

Thanks for telling me. A friend set it up and I have not been there for months - I will try and see what happens. If it is down, I ask him to put it back up. He has a Portugese cultural web cite and put five pages of mine in English as favor to me. I don't know how to maintain web pages etc.

PS by edit: You are correct - the page seems to be found, but it is blank. I will ask what is going on and let you (by PM) and others here know when it is back up.

 

[Neddy Bate]

</em>Strange! Results M&M type experiments and several others are generally accepted by most physicist as showing that not only does the speed (constancy is observed) of light imply c does not depend upon motion thru an aeither, but also that it does not depend upon many other things, like path length (rejects "tired light" crackpots explanation of the red shift) or the strength of the gravity field were the experiment was done. Earth's gravity field is a vector field with different strength in different locations and when sun's and moon's gravity is considered, it is even modulated at each location. I asked you for a published reference that states that the speed of light does depend upon the strength of the gravity field and you give one that shows it does NOT!!!! :bugeye:

Does anyone know whether M&M factored out the Sagnac effect in analyzing their data? I ask this because it would seem to me that they would have found at least that much of a difference in light speed as they rotated their interferometer device. Since Sagnac was earlier than M&M, I assume that it was well-known enough that they would know to factor it out.

Sorry if I'm a bit off-topic, I've been gone awhile.

 

[Billy T]

Does anyone know whether M&M factored out the Sagnac effect in analyzing their data? ....I've been gone awhile.

Welcome back. I don't think Sagnac effect was considered, but even if it was, it may not occur in the type of interferometer I think the used. Sagnac effect is due to the clockwise circulation light having to travel a different total path than the counter clockwise traveling light because the interferomenter is rotating while the light is on its journey

It is hard for me to undstand "clockwise" and "counter clockwise" in a interferometer that has two different paths (one roughly parallel to Earth's velocity vector and the other perpindicular to it. Both beams just go from source to screen without traveling two different ways around some path. The rotation M&M gave their interfrometer was not only very slow, but non existent when the pattern was observed in a new position, static in the lab.

There is of course some rotation of the Earth, but surely the travel paths being from source to screen (both either "clockwise" or "counter clockwise") within the lab's rotation caused by the Earth does not resemble the SAGnac effect's counter rotating beams.

I may be missing something here here, but surely not if you are concerned only by fact that to change between static in the lab position of observation they rotated (and then stopped) the interferometer that was floating on shallow Hg pool.

If you are good with calculus, please visit my "Jell-O..." thread one or two pages back and read the post that starts with a poem about Humpty Dumpy and his broken egg. I need help with the well defined "egg problem" you will find there. (I'd like to get my hands on you before you get too sucked into some of the silly discussions here. The king, humpty Dumpy and I are very concerned about the egg. )

 

[Neddy Bate]

Welcome back. I don't think Sagnac effect was considered, but even if it was, it may not occur in the type of interferometer I think the used. Sagnac effect is due to the clockwise circulation light having to travel a different total path than the counter clockwise traveling light because the interferomenter is rotating while the light is on its journey

It is hard for me to undstand "clockwise" and "counter clockwise" in a interferometer that has two different paths (one roughly parallel to Earth's velocity vector and the other perpindicular to it. Both beams just go from source to screen without traveling two different ways around some path. The rotation M&M gave their interfrometer was not only very slow, but non existent when the pattern was observed in a new position, static in the lab.)

Now that I have thought about it some more, I realize that I should not have brought up the rotation of the M&M device. What I meant to ask was why the eastward light did not measure at a different speed than the westward light. The eastward light is chasing the eastern screen as the earth rotates it away. Likewise, the western screen is moving into the westward light as the earth rotates it. This creates different path lengths according to Sagnac.

There is of course some rotation of the Earth, but surely the travel paths being from source to screen (both either "clockwise" or "counter clockwise") within the lab's rotation caused by the Earth does not resemble the SAGnac effect's counter rotating beams.

Just because the paths are not complete circles going all the way around the earth should not change the principle of one screen moving toward the light, and the other screen moving away from the light.

If you are good with calculus, please visit my "Jell-O..." thread one or two pages back and read the post that starts with a poem about Humpty Dumpy and his broken egg. I need help with the well defined "egg problem" you will find there. (I'd like to get my hands on you before you get too sucked into some of the silly discussions here. The king, humpty Dumpy and I are very concerned about the egg. )

I have posted a drawing there, but I doubt I can handle all of the maths involved. I can answer questions about the dimensions of the drawings, if needed.

 

[MacM]

There is of course some rotation of the Earth, but surely the travel paths being from source to screen (both either "clockwise" or "counter clockwise") within the lab's rotation caused by the Earth does not resemble the SAGnac effect's counter rotating beams.

Wonder why so many people do not recognize that the situation of light beams bouncing off the mirrors at the end of a moving train are identical to the Sagnac affect?

 

[James R]

Wonder why so many people do not recognize that the situation of light beams bouncing off the mirrors at the end of a moving train are identical to the Sagnac affect?

Er... because it isn't?

The Sagnac effect involves rotation, or light beams travelling around a closed loop in space.

 

[MacM]

Er... because it isn't?

The Sagnac effect involves rotation, or light beams travelling around a closed loop in space.

Er, see what I mean. Perhaps you can explain your dud comment. Sagnac has to do with the varying distance traveled by the counter moving light beams around a path which is being rotated.

A light beam comoving with the train goes further than a light beam that is going in the opposite direction of the train.

If you place a reciever recorder in a Sagnac unit and rotate it at a specific perpherial velocity and record you get an interferance pattern based on (c+v) and (c-v). Then place reciever recorders at both ends of the train, simultaneously start both recorders, put the train in motion with the same linear velocity as the perpheral velocity of the Sagnac unit and turn on a light in the center of the train recording the light signals. Then subsequently bring the recorded data back and merge the signals you will get the exact same (c+v) and (c-v) interferance pattern.

 

[Billy T]

To Are & PM

You are wasting your time trying to get MacM to understand that his "reciprocity proves SRT is wrong" argument is itsself wrong. I tried in this thread (and repeated the effort latter with each logical step number so he could tell where the proof went wrong - of couse he did not, only more proclaimation from his "throne of knowledge" that SRT was wrong.

I replyed to first post of this thread to resuce it for decay. Not tht unlike PM pointing out that the clocks must be broght back to gether for non complex comparision, the train of my example here never returns to the station.

I plan to bring back one more post from this thread (should be above this one soon.)

Assume a train is moving past a line of men who are standing extremely close to the passing train. Assume two small bombs have been placed on the outside of the train and they just graze the noses of the men standing along the track as they pass. The bombs will explode when light from a flash bulb, placed on the train’s side, equally distant between the bombs, reaches them. An observer on the train standing midway between the bombs observes simultaneous explosions shortly after setting off the flash bulb.

Two of the thousands of men, who were standing on the ground right next to each other and right next to the passing train are killed by the exploding bombs. The man near the end of the train dies before the one near the front. They do not die simultaneously because in the line of men’s reference frame, the light flash moving towards the rear of the train explodes its bomb before the bomb at the front of the train explodes. (During the transit of the light towards the bombs, the bomb at the rear of the train has been moving towards the on coming light, while the one at the front of the train was trying to race away from the on coming flash of light.)

Note that their “non-simultaneous deaths” is not due to the time for light to travel to any observer - I had the two (now dead) stationary observers stand right next to the bombs when they exploded. If a third stationary observer, is standing mid way between the two that get killed, that third observer would observer them die at different times. (The two delays for him to see them die, due to finite speed of light, are equal.)

CONCLUSION: Simultaneous event in one frame are not simultaneous in one moving wrt to it. This is real effect of SRT. It is not due to any delay of light traveling to an “observer” waiting to sees the events.

People who dispute SRT often claim that the events are “really” simultaneous in all frames, but only “seen to be non simultaneous.” Events (or clocks) synchronous in one frame are not synchronous in a different frame and “seeing delays” are not the reason for their lack of simultaneity as most opponents of SRT claim. Thus clocks that strike noonday chimes simultaneously in one frame can not strike them at the same time as synchronized clocks are striking noon day chimes in another frame. That is, synchronized clocks distributed about in one frame can not be synchronous with many in another frame which are correctly keeping time in that frame.

If the time dilation of SRT is computed and used to adjust the rate of clocks in one frame, it is possible to synchronize any pair of clocks in two different frames, but not all of them, if they are to correctly keep time in their own frame. The reason is simple. A set of clocks that are separated only by space in one frame are separated by a mixture of space and time in the other. Thus clocks at different locations can not be both synchronous with each others in the same frame (keep time correctly) and yet synchronized with all synchronous clocks in another frame. Take your pick, (but only one of the following two):

(1)You can have all clocks in two different frames all show the same time (Each has a unique SRT correction to it rate, which depends on the clock‘s location.) but they do not show the same time as clocks that are synchronous in their own frame. (I.e. they are not keeping correct time in their own frame.) OR
(2) You can have all clocks in both of two different frames synchronized with others in their same frame, (Keeping correct time in their own frame.) but the clocks in one frame will not be synchronous with the clocks in the other frame.

Any comments from people who claim that all clocks in two different frames can both keep time correctly in their own frame and yet be synchronized with clocks in another frame that are all also showing the correct time in their frame? I.e. people who think time is universal for all frames and thus SRT must be wrong.

 

[Billy T]

I told MacM:

...
You are completely correct that SRT implies “reciprocity” between two inertial frames, but error when you then state that this implies a “physical impossibility” (clocks in the both frames accumulating less time than the other.)

This is not what SRT states. You do not tell how the period of time accumulation is to be initiated nor how it is to be stopped but occasionally at least imply that both use the same event to start the accumulators running and the same subsequent event to stop them.

My long post concluded with a numerical example: Train traveling at 0.8c and 20 length units (20L) long had explosions set off at each end by flash of light originating 1L closer to the rear of train than the mid point of train. Because 1L is the distance light travels in 1 time unit (1T) the explosion at the front of the train (to observers on train) is 2T after the one at rear.

To observers on the ground, if t = 0 is the instant of the flash, then the explosion at rear of the train occurs at t = 5.55555... T units and the one at the front at t = 50 T or 44.44444... T units Later.

If these two explosions are the “start” and “stop” events used for accumulation of time, then without any consideration of SRT effects, the ground accumulator will record the passage of time for more than 22 times longer than the train observers.

Clearly your neglect to consider even the non-SRT effects of the fact that the start and stop event have different separations in the two frames is “naïve.” Certainly both start and stop events could be with zero spatial separation in one frame, but not in both, if they are the same events.

To drive home more clearly the effect of distance, let the train be twice as long - Then the ground accumulator accumulates time almost 45 times longer. When I make these statements I am assuming that both accumulators (clocks with stopwatch function) are identical and thus each “tick” is the same amount of “proper time”. (I think you do agree that physics is the same in all inertial frames. If it were not, it would be easy to discover a unique “absolute rest frame.”)

The unavoidable fact that at least in one frame the start and stop events are physically separated is very important in determining the time accumulated, but naively ignored by you as you never describe how the two accumulations of time are to be done (the operational procedure) but only state that it is “obvious” that both can’t be less than the other (I agree with this but note SRT makes no such claim - only that each frame’s observer find time passing more slowly in the other frame. )

IF YOU WANT TO COMPARE TIMES ACCUMULATED YOU MUST TELL HOW THE COMPARISON IS TO BE DONE. It is neither trivial nor "obvious" as you naively assume.

I made this shorter post to encourage you to go thru the longer one and tell which of the numbered paragraphs in it is the point of error in your view. If you continue to ignore a step by step logical demonstration that your claims that “reciprocity” disproves SRT are at best “naïve” then I will be forced to join others (see James R's & SL's posts below this one) in thinking you “duck and weave” to avoid hard questions.

 

[MacM]

To Are & PM

You are wasting your time trying to get MacM to understand that his "reciprocity proves SRT is wrong" argument is itsself wrong.

Bullshit. You are wasting your time by not directly responding to the issue but posting lengthy altered gendankins that are grossly flawed and inapplicable to my point.

Now if you want to prove me wrong just post an example of reciprocity not double talk about GR affects destroying symmetry, etc., since my post blows that arguement out of the water.

Or post evidence of spatial contraction due to relative velocity where the dilated tick rate of the clock timing the trip distance has not been ignored.

The above paragraph is a very simple request. Respond to it.

I replyed to first post of this thread to resuce it for decay. Not tht unlike PM pointing out that the clocks must be broght back to gether for non complex comparision, the train of my example here never returns to the station.

Neither of you have responded to my [post=878738]Post[/post]; which is the only answer I will accept.

 

[CANGAS]

Has anyone ever heard of the MGBGT no, wait, that's a car. I mean the MGB no that's a car too. I have it: the MGP experiment in the early 1920s? Seems like it was rectangular and did't go round.

 

[Billy T]

Bullshit. You are wasting your time by not directly responding to the issue but posting lengthy altered gendankins that are grossly flawed and inapplicable to my point.
Now if you want to prove me wrong just post an example of reciprocity.... which is the only answer I will accept.

Unfortunately NASA's budget does not allow for transport of astronaught to another frame moving near c with respect to Earth. So we can not give you the direct experimental results you require. This does not prevent you from pointing out where the error you claim exists in the proof of this thread. Note that I even number the paragraphs in one proof to make it easy for you to site where the math went wrong.

I have given my excuse / reason (NASA's limited funds) why I can not comply with your request for experimental evidence that "mutual reciprocity" between two frames predicted by SRT is real. i.e. Show the time accumulated on both clocks for the twins of "twin paradox" is less for both, etc. You do not understand "simultaneity problem" or that "time is not universal" etc.

Tell me where is error in math proof. That should be easy compared to putting person in frame moving fast wrt Earth. What is your excuse for not pointing out the error?