Gravitational Waves. oh really?

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No. The time as it would be experienced by the light itself would stop, not the time outside it.

If someone is moving faster than someone else, his/her time would move slower than the time for the other person. Time would still be "normal" for the second person.

If a person would be moving at the speed of light, he wouldn't experience time at all, while everyone else would see him fly by at the speed of light, without every moving within his own framework. Like having a picture of someone flying really fast.

That's why time is considered relative. It's experienced different from different perspectives.

So consider it from the perspective of the photon.
It moves A->B->C

B is half way from A to C, ok?
Half way in space and in time for the photon.

From the perspective of the photon it has to at some point be
half way from A to C in time,
or else it could not get from A to C unless it did so instantly!!

I am well aware that you will just quote special relativity saying otherwise, now.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Do gravity waves move at the speed of light? Not sure.

Me neither, but that is what the mainstream theorists are saying.

I'm busy doing a critique of General Relativity in conjunction with Gravity Waves
to follow on from my analysis of special relativity:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm

This thread is just the curtain-raiser.

 

[Ouroboros]

So consider it from the perspective of the photon.
It moves A->B->C

B is half way from A to C, ok?
Half way in space and in time for the photon.

From the perspective of the photon it has to at some point be
half way from A to C in time,
or else it could not get from A to C unless it did so instantly!!

Good question. Don't know.

I am well aware that you will just quote special relativity saying otherwise, now.

Ok. Just wanted to be sure.

 

[Ouroboros]

Me neither, but that is what the mainstream theorists are saying.

I'm busy doing a critique of General Relativity in conjunction with Gravity Waves
to follow on from my analysis of special relativity:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm

This thread is just the curtain-raiser.

I guess, this is why time-space and all other things just fall apart at that level of reality. There are some experiences that suggest that cause and effect can work backwards in time, so who knows what really happens at that level.

 

[Thief]

My point is that special relativity makes two contradictory claims.
i) Light moves at the velocity of light
ii) Time slows down for an object that approaches the velocity of light.

The first is obviously true,
but the second would cause light to stop moving if it were true.

The light moves from A -> B -> C
(from a to b thru c)

At the point 'B' it is half way, both in space and time,
so at B its time has moved.

So the photon cannot have 'indeterminate' time as would be the result if applying
the relevant time dilation formulae.

time is not a force or substance....
only a measurement....a means of calculation.

the measure of time slows as the measure of velocity goes up
one number over another on a chalkboard
never anywhere else

 

[Digital_Monk]

I love topics like this, but only so far. I know just enough about modern physics to make a total fool of myself in a conversation with a more learned person, but they are fun to think about...right up to the point where people are making more and more examples to try to illustrate a point, and the illustrations are just as obscure as the main topic. So, after reading the OP and the comments, I can say I know as much or more about gravity waves now than I did.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

ii) Time slows down for an object that approaches the velocity of light.

This is not only not true, but incompatible with special relativity. In special relativity, time and space are no longer considered separate. It is true that length contraction and time dilation are observable effects that are explained by special relativity, but they are explained by the realization that time is simply another dimension of our 4D reality. Different observers in different reference frames cannot agree on the measurement of intervals of time or length, and we can (and have) tested this by e.g., precision clocks on space shuttles vs. on earth.

The first is obviously true,
but the second would cause light to stop moving if it were true.

The light moves from A -> B -> C
(from a to b thru c)

At the point 'B' it is half way, both in space and time,
so at B its time has moved.

If we assume there is no time dilation, we must either assert that light travels at different velocities (because light would reach any instrument or eye measuring when something happens exactly the same, even if it were a light year away), or there is no time. As our measurements and classical electromagnetism show the velocity of light is constant, and our observations show that measurement of time intervals differs from reference frame to reference frame, the latter conclusion is the one supported by logic and evidence: time doesn't exist (at least not as we think, independent of locations in space), spacetime does. In spacetime, movement is much more complicated.
In general relativity, things get EVEN MORE complicated, because we aren't exactly dealing with a single geometric object like the 4D Minkowski space of spacetime in special relativity.

So the photon cannot have 'indeterminate' time as would be the result if applying
the relevant time dilation formulae.

Photons can't be treated using general relativity, and in relativistic quantum physics (quantum field theories) they are defined in spacetime (with all the trappings of SR, e.g., light cones). In particular, quantum field theory is FUNDAMENTALLY based upon the truth of special relativity, because only here do we find the relativistic mass-energy correspondence (e=mc^2 and its more general form). Virtual particles, most almost all known particles, annihilation operators, even the generic mathematical structures, etc., in quantum field theory are all due to the incorporation of special relativity. Without special relativity, there is no Higgs boson, no standard model of particle physics, no quarks, no positrons, and so on.

 

[Iti oj]

motion is
distance/time

Your right.

 

[`mud]

Maybe...
distance/speed
momentum/inertia
photons/resonance
~
'mud

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I guess, this is why time-space and all other things just fall apart at that level of reality. There are some experiences that suggest that cause and effect can work backwards in time, so who knows what really happens at that level.

I know!
I really do!
Its just taking a bit of time to flesh out the details and write the paper.
Stay tuned!

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

the measure of time slows as the measure of velocity goes up

Actually Albert was wrong:

This thought experiment proves special relativity wrong:

You may want to print it out and read it carefully.
It took me a year and a half to distill the problem to such a simple and succinct idea,
so take your time pondering it.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I love topics like this, but only so far. I know just enough about modern physics to make a total fool of myself in a conversation with a more learned person, but they are fun to think about...right up to the point where people are making more and more examples to try to illustrate a point, and the illustrations are just as obscure as the main topic. So, after reading the OP and the comments, I can say I know as much or more about gravity waves now than I did.

The most complex theory is just a lot of simple calculations.

Nobody ever knows it all, and it is very easy to get into the position of
'I don't know the answer to that question.'
The trick is to finish the above sentence with 'yet'.

I can assure you, that there are so many fundamental errors with both theories of relativity,
that if you read this document thoroughly:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/Light and Spin - Chapter xxvii.pdf

... then it is highly likely that you will know more about astrophysics than a large proportion of professional physicists.

I have been unable to do anything but think about my model for reworking the illogical errors in relativity for the last 2 years now.

Psychologically, its actually scary how people use emotional bullying to convince people
that they 'understand' relativity when it is not actually understandable.

Nobody ever has a reason to feel a fool if they do not understand something, honestly (yet).
The only ones who need to feel like a fool are those who have pretended to understand something that actually makes no sense at all.

 

[Thief]

Actually Albert was wrong:

This thought experiment proves special relativity wrong:

You may want to print it out and read it carefully.
It took me a year and a half to distill the problem to such a simple and succinct idea,
so take your time pondering it.

actually, the above offering is not the error.

consider your approach at the speed of light to an oncoming object likewise....

Albert would say....all motion is relative
and he would say the speed of light cannot be exceeded
(not sure if he can be quoted for the last line)

but ....as you approach the oncoming item you do so....
at twice the speed of light.

but if mass increases as velocity rises.....are you double the mass the initial equation calls for?
oooops!

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

actually, the above offering is not the error.

consider your approach at the speed of light to an oncoming object likewise....

Albert would say....all motion is relative
and he would say the speed of light cannot be exceeded
(not sure if he can be quoted for the last line)

but ....as you approach the oncoming item you do so....
at twice the speed of light.

but if mass increases as velocity rises.....are you double the mass the initial equation calls for?
oooops!

You are correct in showing Albert's equations do not add up.

There are countless ways to prove him wrong.
Here a more than a dozen more such proofs:
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm

The real mystery however, is how it is that so many people believe
him to be genius, when his work is more just error after error than anything else.

It just goes to show how most people are utterly incapable of thinking logically.

 

[Parsimony]

actually, the above offering is not the error.

consider your approach at the speed of light to an oncoming object likewise....

Albert would say....all motion is relative
and he would say the speed of light cannot be exceeded
(not sure if he can be quoted for the last line)

but ....as you approach the oncoming item you do so....
at twice the speed of light.

but if mass increases as velocity rises.....are you double the mass the initial equation calls for?
oooops!

That's not what happens.

Using the equation listed in the video (u+v/1+uv/c^2), two objects travelling towards each other at the speed of light (where the speed of light is set equal to 1) will see each other moving at:

= 1+1/1+(1)(1)/1^2
= 2/1+1
= 2/2
= 1

So two such objects would still perceive each other as travelling at exactly the speed of light. You can't just add up velocities linearly at relavistic speeds.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

That's not what happens.

Using the equation listed in the video (u+v/1+uv/c^2), two objects travelling towards each other at the speed of light (where the speed of light is set equal to 1) will see each other moving at:

= 1+1/1+(1)(1)/1^2
= 2/1+1
= 2/2
= 1

So two such objects would still perceive each other as travelling at exactly the speed of light. You can't just add up velocities linearly at relavistic speeds.

Thus 1+1 =1 ?

 

[Parsimony]

Thus 1+1 =1 ?

Straw-man.

 

[Thief]

That's not what happens.

Using the equation listed in the video (u+v/1+uv/c^2), two objects travelling towards each other at the speed of light (where the speed of light is set equal to 1) will see each other moving at:

= 1+1/1+(1)(1)/1^2
= 2/1+1
= 2/2
= 1

So two such objects would still perceive each other as travelling at exactly the speed of light. You can't just add up velocities linearly at relavistic speeds.

that's not what happens.....
two vehicles head on.....60mph......
collide at 120mph....

that the vehicles can be as small as one particle .....
that the velocity can be C.....

the collision 'pops' at 2C

 

[Parsimony]

that's not what happens.....
two vehicles head on.....60mph......
collide at 120mph....

Which are speeds greatly below the threshold of relativistic effects. You can add those together linearly and get realistic results. That doesn't work when you get close to the speed of light. The equation also works for these very slow speeds, however. 60 miles per hour is 8.946989445 x 10^-8 c, so:

= (8.946989445 x 10^-8)+(8.946989445 x 10^-8)/1+(8.946989445x 10^-8)(8.946989445x 10^-8)/1^2
= (1.789397889 x 10^-7)/1+(8.0048620136 x 10^-15)/1
= (1.789397889 x 10^-7)/(1.0000000000000080048620136376196)
= 1.789397889 x 10^-7 c
= 119.99999999 miles per hour

that the vehicles can be as small as one particle .....
that the velocity can be C.....

the collision 'pops' at 2C

I'm guessing you didn't even watch the video I linked. Watch the first part at the very least. You can't just add relativistic velocities together.

 

[`mud]

And then it's gravity !
~
'mud