Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Scott Patrick Ryan: on 1/16/21 at 21:33pm UTC, wrote Scintifict exprement double slit shot test proves we live in an Computer...

Thomas Ray: on 1/9/16 at 21:24pm UTC, wrote "If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/9/16 at 21:12pm UTC, wrote If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then...

Thomas Ray: on 1/9/16 at 15:40pm UTC, wrote " ... it is the speed of the light relative to the observer ..." Since...

Thomas Ray: on 1/9/16 at 12:07pm UTC, wrote Once more, slowly. Two clocks A and B, in relative uniform motion,...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/9/16 at 10:03am UTC, wrote How Einsteinians Confuse the World (2) ...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/8/16 at 22:25pm UTC, wrote Tom, PhD stands for Philosophiae Doctor. What do you mean with Phd in...

Thomas Ray: on 1/8/16 at 17:25pm UTC, wrote No. Each observer sees the other's clock as running slower. You could...

FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

ARTICLE: Time Dilation Gets a Quantum Twist [back to article]

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 02:10 GMT
Dear Sophie Hebden,

Your article point out the correct way to deal with double slit experiment - Time is the important issue when we deal with space wave patterns.

I wish you could read my essay "Rethink of the Double Slit Experiment",

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Xiao_Ke
XiaoFQXi828.pdf

which discussed the space-time model of particle scattering and wave interference combination. My work shows

$\triangle T=T_{c}[\cos(\theta_{1})-\cos(\theta_{2})]$

and more importantly the cross-linked angle with time.

Yours,

Ke Xiao

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT
"While developing relativity, Einstein realized that gravity affects the rate at which clocks tick. This has been confirmed experimentally, using atomic clocks raised to different heights; clocks closer to the ground tick more slowly."

This is simply not true. The only measurable effect is the gravitational redshift, and it is due to the acceleration of photons in a gravitational field...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 13:04 GMT
Gravitational time dilation or variable speed of light?

David Morin, Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."

Is that true? If the top of the tower emits light towards the ground, the observer on the ground will measure the frequency to be higher than the initial frequency measured at the top. Two reasons are conceivable:

1. Higher clocks run faster than lower clocks (gravitational time dilation).

2. Light accelerates as it falls. If the initial frequency (measured at the top) is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the final frequency (measured on the ground) is f'=(c+v)/L, where v is the increment to the speed of the light.

If (1) is true, (2) is false and vice versa.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT
I'm not sure if light accelerates as it falls. For instance, as it falls to a black hole, it slows down to zero, turns back completely into mass, and can't escape (zero velocity).

Likewise, when the wavefunction collapses, or higher Bohr orbitals collapse to lower orbits, the photons slow, not speed up. They fully collapse on the screen in the double slit, and collapse back to their black hole -like state.

As for MTS, the M side represents Black Holes, and the S side vaccuum energy (Dark Energy). The "M" side represents slower light, not faster. Light slows down in a gravitational field, Full curvature of space = black hole= light can't escape = zero velocity.

This all should be consistent with CIG Theory.

Maybe not

Who Knows, Long Day

doug

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 05:32 GMT
doug wrote: "I'm not sure if light accelerates as it falls."

According to Newton's emission theory of light, light accelerates like all material objects (in 1911 Einstein explicitly used this). According to the final version of general relativity, "light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter":

"...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT
I'm looking forward to the results, which I predict will show that there is no such thing as time dilation.

I would also like to point out that clocks do not measure time. They merely count the number of cycles in a periodic and cyclic system. Hence the slowing down of the mechanism of a clock does not imply the slowing down of time, which in my opinion is nothing more than a relational concept allowing to compare events to cyclic and periodic systems we call clocks.

In fact, the only evidence that time is a physical aspect of reality is that time dilation is verified, but as mentioned above, the slowing down of a clock does not imply the slowing down of time.

This is why the experiment suggested in this article is so important. If, as I predict, it shows no time dilation, the repercussions will be enormous and will put into question the prevailing physics theories.

report post as inappropriate
Doug replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 01:04 GMT
I think "Time Dilation" is represented in reality as Space ceation, and this explains the new space in the expanding Universe.

As excerpted from CIG Theory:

"Where there is a different time there must be a different

place. Where there is a different place, there is a different

space. Where there are different spaces, there are different

volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of

space created as the result of different times imparted onto

the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic

nature of nature."

www.cigtheory.com (donation PO Box down)

need help in furthering CIG Theory - please attempt a read THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Harlan Swyers wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 17:49 GMT
Before people lose a whole lot of money betting against quantum mechanics, you need to look at similar experiments performed on neutrons being sent to horizontal slits at different potentials, which show the interference pattern. The good researchers at Ford Motor Company and Purdue University played similar games in 1976 with neutrons ( http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/ao%20refs/aifm%20refs%20s
orted%20by%20topic/inertial%20sensing%20refs/gravity/COW75%2
0neutron%20gravity.pdf ) and more recently in 2002 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6869/abs/415297a.
html where it was concluded:

"The particles are allowed to fall towards a horizontal mirror which, together with the Earth's gravitational field, provides the necessary confining potential well. Under such conditions, the falling neutrons do not move continuously along the vertical direction, but rather jump from one height to another, as predicted by quantum theory"

report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
There are no such things as discrete "here then there with nothing in between quantum jumps". The "in betweens" are new spatial quantities at the expense of mass; conversely, the creation of mass at the expense of space.

www.cigtheory.com

report post as inappropriate

Harlan Swyers replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
Thanks doug. I can't say I've been to Coney Island, so it is entirely possible the laws are physics are different there.

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 19:43 GMT
Thanks Harlan! I truly appreciate that you went to my site. I hope you understand the theory. (& ignored the part about alien beings)

The laws of physics are the same in Coney Island, even for the sword swallower. CIG offers a paradigm shift. CIG brings determinism back into the picture. I have attempted its application to many things.

I hope I'm right. If not, I'll spend the next few years sending emails apologizing for my antics.

Can you answer my balloon question?

Can anyone answer my balloon question?

doug

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 01:29 GMT
To All,

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 01:34 GMT
The above, above CIG Attempt at explanation (www.cigtheory.com)

, was taken from WIKI, which I meant to credit.

I am attemting to explain away the measurement problem.

I hope that you follow my rationale. It may require a full read and total understanding of CIG Theory. (www.CIGTheory.com)

Don't forget the marshmallows...

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT
doug,

The so-called measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been solved. Please read the first chapter of this book:

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Not only is time important, but scale is crucial too.

The other morning I was about to leave my homr for work, as I looked out of the window to see what weather like, I noticed while looning up at Orion, the image I observed was I dentical to the diffraction grating image on the head page of this article. when I moved my head left, to a point where there was no net curtain, the star I was looking at reverted back to a "point like" white dot? The fact fine net curtain can reproduce this effect macroscopically, has got me thinking about scale and distance.

This effect is no different to the quantum douvle slit experiment, go find a fine mesh and try for yourself, the bigger the mesh (slit), the more pointlike the image, you can actuall perform the double slit experiment on a macro scale yourself :) !

report post as inappropriate
paul valletta replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT
Sorry this was my post above.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
time has no physical dimension,

time is a mathematical dimension of change running in a 3D quantum vacuum.

see my papers in Physics essays - AIP

Amrit Sorli

report post as inappropriate

Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:11 GMT
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Sophie Hebden replied on Dec. 8, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT
Professor El Naschie's 'breakthough' is a little unbelieveable: Einstein's equation is easily derived from F=ma and you don't get a factor of 1/22.

El Naschie recently lost a law suit against the journal Nature, criticised by the judge for having little consideration of the norms of sicentific pubishing, or respect of the ethics that underpin it, so he's in the scientific long grass now. There's even a blog watch of his activities.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
by double slit experiment happens that by sending particles only through one slit interference pattern will appear because each particle moving in space creates also a wave of space which than pass the other slit.....and time here is just numerical order of motion of particle in a 3D space

attachments: Time_is_a_mesuring_system_derived_from...pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hector Daniel Gianni wrote on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 23:10 GMT
Professor Caslav Brukner:

I will refer not to the whole of your article, but only to “time dilation” or “relativistic time” We first should know what it is time

I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
Hector

As you say, time is not the timing devices, these just ‘tell’ the time. The reference is actually a conceptual constant rate of change. In other words, within the realms of practicality, all timing devices are synchronised to this (the same point applies to distance). The purpose of timing being to calibrate rates of change. Alteration is what is occurring physically, which apart from substance (ie what altered), and order (ie in what sequence it did so), happens at a rate.

Einstein (or more precisely Poincaré) did not understand this, which gave him the ‘ability’ to argue for a timing differential in physical existence, having conflated physical existence with the photon based representation of it which we receive. There, obviously, being a time delay between these two actual physical occurrences. So, he shifted a timing differential which occurs at the end of the physical process to the start. The light he refers to is not observational light, it is a time and distance measuring device, which as a reference, must be constant. This is why, in attempting to explain the core idea of relativity he always uses examples in which there is lightening, or a ray of light, etc, because this disgiuses the fact hat there is no light for observers to see with.

All this is immediately obvious in 1905 section 1, part 1

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Hector Daniel Gianni replied on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
Paul:

Thank you for your answer, my language is Spanish, but I will try to be as clear as possible. What I am saying in my article is much, much radical than you thought; in fact I am replacing “time” by movement.

Gravity, inertia, rationality tell us that always existed we just put them a name. Time did not, time was a man creation is not something...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 06:18 GMT
Hector

I have not read your article, and have not got time today, but will do. Presumably it is referenced above? So I will just respond to your post now.

It is not movement, that is just a specific form of change. The physical occurrence is alteration, or change, (ie from one physically existent state to the next), irrespective of what that involves, ie why the state altered and how. Time is the duration unit of the measuring system timing, which calibrates rates of change against a conceptual constant rate of change.

There is no such phenomenon as ‘time dilation’, because time is physically non-existent. It is a reference system to establish when, and/or for what duration, something physically occurred. There is no such phenomenon as space, as in ‘a spatial position where nothing exists’. Or perhaps to be more precise, we have not proved it so, and as we can only detect something which is different from something else, not nothing, we could not track this nothing as a reference anyway. It may be that when a differential in force incurred causes a change in momentum, it also causes a change in dimension (this being their original thought-particularly Lorentz), but that will not make any difference to the misconception of time which is the crux of the problem. The timing differential is between physical occurrence and receipt of light.

In simple language. The physical existence we are able to investigate (we can dream up all sorts of possibilities, but that is not science) exists in one definitive physically existent state, at a time. We know there is something, and that it alters, which means it is existential sequence. Physical existence is only spatial. Change is a feature of the difference between one physical existence and another, not of any such physical state.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Bert wrote on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 05:24 GMT
Since one of the principles of GR is the equivalence of acceleration and Gravity, I wonder if the experiment can be constructed to operated inside a centrifuge. The outer slit (high gee part) would be the slow clock and the slit near the center of rotation would be the " normal" clock. Instead of light use a 300 MHz rf beam generated with a traveling-wave tube amplifier where the slits can be 1 meter apart

Cheers Bert Murray

www.lhdev.com

report post as inappropriate
on behalf of Caslav Brukner replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
Bert - that is indeed sensible and we had similar ideas.

Caslav

report post as inappropriate

Bert replied on Feb. 7, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Attached is a paper where double slit was performed using microwaves in the 10 Ghz range (3 cm wavelength). Is 3 cm enough of a separation adequate to detect time dilation?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1137v2.pdf

Cheers, Bert

report post as inappropriate

Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 19:43 GMT
Dr Brukner,

Is your analysis related in some way to the one by Paul Dirac in his Lectures on Quantum Mechanics? A quick example is this partial quote from page 66 of the currently paperback version: "... it doesn't seem possible to fulfill the conditions which are necessary for building up a relativistic quantum field theory on curved surfaces." His arguments are based on a use of Hamiltonian methods that I strongly suspect are equivalent to the assuming the existence of a flat space, thus leading to the overall incompatibility. Are Dirac's arguments related to yours, or am I misunderstanding the intent of your analysis?

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 19:44 GMT
Fundamental time which is a numerical order of change has only a mathematical existence. Emergent time which is aduration of change enters existence when measurement by the observer.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.113

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 08:15 GMT
Einsteinians Will Measure Gravitational Time Dilation Again

"The World's Most Precise Clock Could Prove Einstein Wrong (...) Einstein also predicted that clocks in different gravitational fields would tick at different speeds. For example, a clock in Boulder, Colo., which is a mile above sea level, would feel a slightly weaker gravitational pull than a clock at sea level in Washington, D.C....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Glorious Confirmations of General Relativity

According to Jean Eisenstaedt, in 1960 general relativity was confirmed for the first time by an experiment done on earth:

Jean Eisenstaedt: "Le renouveau n'est pourtant pas loin et on peut le dater asssez précisément. C'est sans doute, en 1960, le succès de l'expérience de Robert Pound et Glen Rebka qui le marque scientifiquement....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
The Mystery of the Twin Paradox

In order to prove that the twin paradox is an absurdity one has to show that special relativity implies that the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother. The problem is that:

(A) "returns younger" can ONLY be demonstrated if the travelling twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 13:00 GMT
The Mystery of Einstein's Rotating Disc

Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 13:40 GMT
The Mystery of Length Contraction and Length Elongation in Special Relativity

"The Bug-Rivet Paradox (...) In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c."

According to special relativity, in the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
The Mystery of Mutual Length Contraction

As judged from the 40 m barn's frame, the 80 m pole is shorter than 40 m and accordingly the pole is gloriously trapped inside the barn. As judged from the 80 m pole's frame, the 40 m barn is shorter than 20 m but nevertheless the relativity of simultaneity allows the pole to get gloriously trapped inside the barn. Some Einsteinians believe that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein

Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

This means that, as light falls, e.g. from the top of a tower to the ground,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 14:40 GMT
Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein II

An emitter at the bottom of a tower of height h sends light upwards:

UCSD: "In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

The frequency measured at the bottom of the tower is f=c/L, where L is the wavelength. The frequency measured by a stationary observer at the top of the tower is:

f' = f(1-v/c) = f(1-gh/c^2) = (c/L)(1-v/c) = (c-v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c-v is the speed of light relative to the observer at the top of the tower. From the equivalence principle, c'=c-v is also the speed of light relative to an observer moving, in gravitation-free space, away from the emitter with speed v (v is assumed to be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored).

Somewhat paradoxically, the behaviour of light in a gravitational field topples special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Einstein's 1918 Refutation of Relativity

In his 1918 paper:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, by Albert Einstein

Einstein shows that, if the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 15:24 GMT
" ... Einstein in fact refuted his theory."

No, he refuted absolute time and absolute space. Which was the point.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 3, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax

David Morin: "A light source on top of a tower of height h emits flashes at time intervals Ts. A receiver on the ground receives the flashes at time intervals Tr. What is Tr in terms of Ts?"

If bullets are shot downwards at time intervals Ts, the receiver on the ground will receive them at time intervals Tr=Ts. Yet David Morin's calculations...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 6, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax II

Nowadays only Bingo the Einsteiniano defends Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!!

In the past there were very clever Einsteinians who could by no means be called "Bingo the Einsteiniano". So Banesh Hoffmann, although wrongly believing that the frequencies of emission and arrival of the light pulses differ, still knew that there is no gravitational time dilation and that the gravitational redshift is a consequence of the acceleration of light signals in a gravitational field:

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 26, 2013 @ 09:25 GMT
Gravitational Time Dilation and Doublethink

"Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT
"Insofar as the speed variation in a gravitational field is concerned, the analogy between bullets and photons is straightforward"

Your perverse thinking process twists perfectly reasonable and well tested explanations into a fake controversy. The facts are far more interesting than your fictions.

Fired bullets are not in free fall. Massless photons, radiating perpendicular to a ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 17:50 GMT
Einsteinians Test Time Dilation

Einsteinians have discovered that, when fast flying muons crash into an obstacle, they disintegrate more quickly than muons which do not crash. Einsteinians claim (some even believe) that non-crashing muons undergo time dilation, an effect predicted by special relativity, and for that reason live longer than crashing muons (in Divine Albert's world crashing muons are called "muons at rest"):

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."

Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."

In a world different from Divine Albert's world, the short lifetime of muons "at rest" would be analogous to the short lifetime of a driver whose car has come to a sudden stop into a wall.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 07:50 GMT
Einsteinians Test Ritz's Emission Theory

Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute Ritz's emission theory but Einsteinians know that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light - what else could it be? And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Viva Divine Albert's Divine Theory! Down with Ritz's emission theory!

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 15:30 GMT
Pentcho,

Don't you consider the double star argument already compelling? Even if you prefer Robert's view considering electromagnetic waves consisting of single particles, I wonder: Does this make sure that they behave like material particles which are conveying kinetic energy? Aren't they actually rather quanta of energy themselves?

Incidentally, please don't ascribe CSL just to Einstein. He admitted having preferred emission theory for quite a while and he returned to it with his GR.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 19:55 GMT
Eckard,

"Don't you consider the double star argument already compelling?"

I don't:

"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 09:52 GMT
Pentcho,

In your posts above, "The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity...", and "... in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 10:30 GMT
Eckard,

"How can you deny that de Sitter's argument is compelling if there are no experimental results that confirm a value k equal or at least close to one?"

On close inspection, all reliable (that is, no unknown or uncertain parameters) experiments show that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the source or observer (k=1 or c'=c+v). Examples: Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, measurements of the Doppler frequency shift.

De Sitter's experiment is not reliable - no experiment involving distant celestial objects is. For instance, neither de Sitter nor Brecher discusses the role of the gravitational field of the double star, and this role might be crucial. And there could be other crucial factors of which we know nothing.

Unreliable experiments give support to the winner - Einstein in this case. (After a century of brainwashing, even reliable experiments start giving support to the winner.) If Walther Ritz had not died in 1909, the double star observations would have been regarded as confirming his emission theory.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 18:03 GMT
Pentcho,

Could you please specify why you are invoking "measurements of the Doppler shift" as supporting emission theory? Doesn't the Doppler effect belong to waves?

And how to explain MGP 1925 with emission theory?

While I abstain from speculations about effects of gravitational force on light I nonetheless don't question de Sitter's argument that a constant speed of light from the double star to the earth is perhaps the most plausible explanation of the missing influence of the emitter's velocity.

Even if there was a compensating effect, wouldn't full compensation to zero be extremely unlikely?

I consider Michelson's 1881/1887 null-result likewise compelling:

There is no aether wind. You know my suggestion to explain this enigma:

There is no natural point of reference in space; the speed of a linear steady motion can only relate to distances. A null-result was to be expected.

What about gravity, I tend to consider Akinbo's suggestion serious. If necessary in practice, it might be reasonable to correct the speed of light in vacuum by the usually very tiny deviation from its value on earth.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT
Eckard,

When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency with which the wavecrests hit him shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. This can only happen if the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v, a prediction of the emission theory that contradicts special relativity.

In this sense the Doppler frequency shift confirms the emission theory and refutes special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 11:41 GMT
Pentcho,

"When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v" is this different from when the light source starts moving towards the observer with speed v?

In case of acoustic waves, both cases are different from each other because v relates to the assumed at rest medium air.

As one has to infer from Michelson's 1881/1887 null result, there is no such medium to refer to in case of electromagnetic waves in vacuum.

To me this is plausible because acoustic waves/phonons can be understood as conveying energy from particles to particles while electromagnetic waves/photons are thought as consisting of energy. Therefore they don't need a carrier.

Acoustic waves exhibit specific velocities of propagation c but not specific frequencies.

I reiterate my question: How to explain MGP 1925 with emission theory?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 11, 2014 @ 17:47 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Sirius B Hoax

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 12, 2014 @ 15:37 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Hafele-Keating Hoax

Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains, J. C. Hafele; Richard E. Keating, Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 166-168: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space."

By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither nonrotating nor inertial - they rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy etc. It may well have been that, during the experiment, the Earth center temporarily rotated around some other center of rotation even faster than the jet used by Hafele and Keating, which means that Einstein's theory of relativity, true or false, was totally unable to predict the outcome of the experiment.

Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results, misled by the subconscious feeling that the Earth center is the nonrotating inertial center of rotation of the whole Universe.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 13, 2014 @ 08:42 GMT
Interesting point you note Pentcho. Even the earth-centred clock is rotating! Humanity should steer the future by taking a comprehensive look at some of these foundational experiments.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli replied on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 08:09 GMT
rate of clocks is different bacause of diferent density of quantum vacuum. SR effect is 7 microsecond a day clocks on the satelite of GPS run slower than on the earth. 45 microseconds is GR effect, clocks run faster on the satelite bacause density of quantum vacuum there is denser than on the earth surface. And this corrections are VALID FOR ALL OBSERVERS.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 16:35 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Orbit-of-Mercury Hoax

The blatant lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 17, 2014 @ 14:14 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Michelson-Morley Hoax

"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 31, 2014 @ 16:58 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder: "How is time-dilatation in a gravitational field less strange than entanglement?"

Gravitational time dilation is not just strange - it is absurd. Einstein fabricated it in 1911. According to him, the effect occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field, which means that the two clocks, although at different heights, are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them runs faster than the other. In other words, in a homogeneous gravitational field, the miraculous effect has no cause.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 08:02 GMT
there is no time dilatation at al, time cannot dilate as time is not phycical. Rate of clocks is "relative" regarding density of quantum vacuum. Less qv is dense less is speed of clocks and all other change, speed of light inclusding. Shapiro experiment shows light has a bit lower speed in lover density of quantum vacuum. But this change of C is so small that SR remains valid.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 23, 2015 @ 13:30 GMT
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It follows from...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on May. 25, 2015 @ 09:19 GMT
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers, and that during the trapping the objects undergo compression and do not undergo compression at the same time:

"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 10:30 GMT
Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that, in the bug-rivet scenario, the bug is both dead and alive. Einsteinians camouflage the absurdity by introducing two additional absurdities: 1. The rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length. 2. "The end of the rivet will just keep on going [at 87%...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 29, 2015 @ 11:46 GMT
Did Einstein Tell Einsteinians How to Leapfrog into the Future?

Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."

Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:41 GMT
time has only a mathemaical existence

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:43 GMT
Hello Amrit,happy to see you again

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Nov. 4, 2015 @ 21:35 GMT
there is no such a thing as "time dilation"

only speed of changes is slowing down.....

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
How Einsteinians Confuse the World

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapter
s/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html

John Norton: "If we are to retain both of Einstein's postulates, we will have to make systematic changes throughout our physics. Let us begin investigating these changes. They will overturn our classical presumptions about space and time. The first change we will investigate has to do with time. An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest."

The conclusion

"An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. What follows is:

(A) An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest, as judged from the system at rest.

(B) An inertially moving clock runs faster than one at rest, as judged from the moving system.

The combination of (A) and (B), a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, makes the famous time travel into the future impossible and converts Einstein's special relativity into an absurdity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 17:25 GMT
No. Each observer sees the other's clock as running slower.

You could have had a Phd in relativity by now if you were serious.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 22:25 GMT
Tom,

PhD stands for Philosophiae Doctor. What do you mean with Phd in relativity if Relativity is a religion rather than a science?

In order to clarify your issue, let's assume two point-like thought atomic clocks A and B that emit periodic signals of the same frequency and

a) were just synchronized at a common location and are now moving away from each other each with the same velocity v

or

b) are moving toward each other and will confirm the synchronism of their clocks at the location where they will meet.

A will receive the same frequency as does B. However, f_a is red-shifted due to the increased time of flight of the signals, while f_b is blue-shifted due to the decreased time of flight. The Doppler-shifts depend on v, not on v^2.

Einstein's Relativity is not symmetrical. It was fabricated by means of an asymmetrical and unwarranted method of synchronization. One must avoid taking two contradictory views at a time. In that, Georgina is right.

++++

report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 12:07 GMT
Once more, slowly.

Two clocks A and B, in relative uniform motion, synchronized.

One clock accelerates away from this reference frame.

Got it so far?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 10:03 GMT
How Einsteinians Confuse the World (2)

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/
big_bang_observed/index.html

John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)."

The "observer" can be just a clock that registers the time of arrival of wavecrests. It can neither change nor measure the wavelength of the incoming light:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/do
ppler_static.gif (stationary observer)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/do
ppler_detector_blue.gif (moving observer)

John Norton is forced to lie blatantly here because, since the motion of the observer can by no means change the wavelength of the incoming light, it is the speed of the light relative to the observer that increases and causes the frequency shift, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 15:40 GMT
" ... it is the speed of the light relative to the observer ..."

Since the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, the lie is yours, not John Norton's. We know why you waste your time here. Any other forum blocked you long ago.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 21:12 GMT
If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this:

The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/cl
ass19_doppler.html

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 21:24 GMT
"If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. "

Simply, there is no c + v. You can invent terms all day long, and they still won't change the fact of the measured speed of light in all reference frames.

report post as inappropriate

Scott Patrick Ryan wrote on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 21:33 GMT
Scintifict exprement double slit shot test proves we live in an Computer universe and top Scientist know this and are covering it up.

Double Slit shot test proves it because two electrons never hit the same spot twice so probibilty is gone meaning it's sequenced so an program.

First off what was the Scientist thinking about double slit shot test by putting an camera next to it seeing...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate