Thunderbolts Forum

'14-02-20, 18:31 Sparky	Re: Relativity What you've described is the classical expectation ------time dilation The only thing that can change is matter, in response to bombardment of aether, adding or subtracting energy. There is no time dilation, because there is no magical space"time". Space is aether, being influenced by EM. Time is a way to organize a mathematical concept.
'14-02-20, 18:56 marengo	Re: Relativity Sain84 wrote: What you've described is the classical expectation with a finite speed of light, not relativity. What relativity added was that not only is there this "signal retardation" caused by the distance changing but that there is also a transverse time dilation and Doppler effect. In other words if you have a clock moving tangentially to the line of sight, not getting closer or further for a short time, there is still time dilation and a Doppler effect. There is time dilation, a Doppler effect and even distorted images like the train if you simply add a finite speed of light to Newtonian dynamics but relativity adds new factors to that and removes the paradoxes of a finite speed of light in ND. There is Special Relativity and there is Aether Relativity. Special Relativity has several serious problems. For example, how can a distance of Space be of many different magnitudes depending upon the relative velocity of the observer. Secondly, the theory is derived from IRFs and so applies only to IRFs and hence inertial bodies (of which none exist). I could go on but that is enough for now.
'14-02-20, 19:49 Sain84	Re: Relativity marengo wrote: For example, how can a distance of Space be of many different magnitudes depending upon the relative velocity of the observer. Secondly, the theory is derived from IRFs and so applies only to IRFs and hence inertial bodies (of which none exist). I could go on but that is enough for now. Does the universe require distance to be fixed with speed? I don't think so. It may be unfamiliar to us but we don't expect to observe such things. Special relativity can actually deal with accelerating bodies. GR expands this to include gravitating bodies. It is often said, erroneously, that Special Relativity cannot deal with acceleration because it deals only with inertial frames, and that therefore acceleration must be the preserve of General Relativity. We must, of course, only allow transformations between inertial frames; the frames must not accelerate, but the observers in the frame can move as the please. Special Relativity can deal with anything kinematic but General Relativity is required when gravitational forces are present. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/stcs/co ... ction6.pdf
'14-02-20, 21:51 CharlesChandler	Re: Relativity Sain84 wrote: In other words if you have a clock moving tangentially to the line of sight, not getting closer or further for a short time, there is still time dilation and a Doppler effect. You need to go to CosmoQuest or JREF, and inform the mainstream of this, because they're still thinking that the Doppler effect is a simple function of relative velocity (i.e., parallel to the line of sight, not perpendicular to it). And Big Bang cosmology will fall apart if redshift is no longer proof of an expanding Universe.
'14-02-20, 22:08 Sain84	Re: Relativity CharlesChandler wrote: the Doppler effect is a simple function of relative velocity (i.e., parallel to the line of sight, not perpendicular to it). That's the classical Doppler effect. It does exist but relativity introduces a second component. The expansion of the universe is really written in the language of general relativity and not special relativity. It's not really the Doppler effect at all although it acts very similar, recession velocities aren't really velocities either. Redshift certainly isn't proof of the expanding universe, the expanding universe is simply one model that set out to explain it. Although in all fairness the expanding universe was proposed as a solution to the friedmann equations before Hubble's law was established, so you could say it was predicted.
'14-02-20, 23:03 CharlesChandler	Re: Relativity I'm soooooooooo confused!!!!
'14-02-21, 05:55 oz93666	Re: Relativity CharlesChandler wrote: marengo wrote: .....it seem as if the clock is running slower. Likewise, on the way back, the clock is moving toward you, and it appears to run faster Theory and experiment show that time slows for a moving object , weather moving away from, OR towards the observer. The great body of prof for this lies in particle physics. When a particle, which has a well known half life, is made to move fast, it life is extended to an extent precisely predicted by theory, becoming almost immortal at the speed of light.
'14-02-21, 07:02 CharlesChandler	Re: Relativity oz93666 wrote: Theory and experiment show that time slows for a moving object, weather moving away from, OR towards the observer. The great body of prof for this lies in particle physics. When a particle, which has a well known half life, is made to move fast, it life is extended to an extent precisely predicted by theory, becoming almost immortal at the speed of light. Are you going to describe how that was experimentally verified, and perturbing factors ruled out? I'm still waiting for you to explain how relativistic mass was verified, from earlier in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14874#p92618
'14-02-21, 10:19 marengo	Re: Relativity Sain84 wrote: Does the universe require distance to be fixed with speed? I don't think so. It may be unfamiliar to us but we don't expect to observe such things. Special relativity can actually deal with accelerating bodies. GR expands this to include gravitating bodies. Whatever does that first sentence mean? Surely we cant expect Space distance to vary according to the observer. Aether physics is more successful than modern physics. it also has a non-varying Space distance. Why choose something which is so complex it is unbelievable. I fail to understand why anyone with any brain whatever could believe in Einstein's ideas. By its own postulates SR states that it cant deal with accelerating bodies. What other 'learned' people say is totally immaterial.
'14-02-21, 10:29 marengo	Re: Relativity Sain84 wrote: That's the classical Doppler effect. It does exist but relativity introduces a second component. The expansion of the universe is really written in the language of general relativity and not special relativity. It's not really the Doppler effect at all although it acts very similar, recession velocities aren't really velocities either. Redshift certainly isn't proof of the expanding universe, the expanding universe is simply one model that set out to explain it. Although in all fairness the expanding universe was proposed as a solution to the friedmann equations before Hubble's law was established, so you could say it was predicted. It is not possible to say the Universe is expanding. This is simply because we dont know what is happening to Time. I dont mean matter Time here.but Space Time. I cant see the point of confusing people over the Doppler effect. Matter time and length are MEASURED to be different as a function of IRF velocity. Hence the Doppler effect which depends upon time and distance is also changed as a consequence. That is the end of the story on Doppler. In order to understand these matters you need to first understand the basics. Basic No1 is the Aether exists.
'14-02-21, 10:36 marengo	Re: Relativity CharlesChandler wrote: I'm still waiting for you to explain how relativistic mass was verified, from earlier in this thread: Charles there are two ways of looking at Relativity. One is to observe its affects. The other is to examine its derivation from basics. For that I suggest that you read my Aether papers. The derivation is relatively simple. I also suggest that you do not allow yourself to be confused by Einstein's relativity. Einstein's derivation is a nonsense.
'14-02-21, 11:51 oz93666	Re: Relativity CharlesChandler wrote: Are you going to describe how that was experimentally verified, and perturbing factors ruled out? I'm still waiting for you to explain how relativistic mass was verified, from earlier in this thread: A few experiments are covered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilat ... _particles The increase in mass is shown by the effect when it impacts another particle, there is 'conservation of momentum' .
'14-02-21, 12:32 CharlesChandler	Re: Relativity oz93666 wrote: A few experiments are covered here... Can you explain it? If you can't, and given that you are educated in such matters, can you explain why I would bother trying to figure it out?
'14-02-22, 03:38 oz93666	Re: Relativity CharlesChandler wrote: ... can you explain why I would bother trying to figure it out? Because the effort required exercises your intellect , develops the grey-matter more effectively than being spoon fed . It also makes you understand the establishment view, which at the moment you don't or you wouldn't talk about time going faster on a moving object traveling towards observer!! The established view never suggest such a thing. Many posters here think they can dismiss the official view in many areas before they even understand what it is, just because it doesn't sound right, or cannot be understood immediately. Again I will suggest why it's shown time time slows down on moving particles. All particles have a half life . That's to say if you have a hundred muons for example, half will spontaneously explode after the half life has passed, about one micro second , after ten or so micro seconds all will be gone. This is when at rest. So we know approximately the 'life' of a muon , at rest. When made to move fast in particle accelerators, it has been shown that muons and a hundred other particles have extended life's, being almost immortal near c , life extension is precisely that predicted by theory, this has been observed in a thousand different experiments by millions of scientists. To spell out precise details of experiments would take many pages , it's all on the web.
'14-02-22, 04:27 seasmith	Re: Relativity oz93666 wrote: That's to say if you have a hundred muons for example, half will spontaneously explode after the half life has passed, about one micro second , after ten or so micro seconds all will be gone. This is when at rest. So we know approximately the 'life' of a muon , at rest. When made to move fast in particle accelerators, it has been shown that muons and a hundred other particles have extended life's, being almost immortal near c , life extension is precisely that predicted by theory,... No such thing as "muon, at rest". In accelerators, the particles are being Regenerated By the acceleration. Time is derivative of motion, not the other way around. Relativity is not all that complex really; it's just the 'observer's' relation to motion, time and distance that confuses.