Time and Motion

[altonhare]

This is an extension of the special relativity thread previously "To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel". That was a verbose, thought-experimenty treatment of a single ideal case. This will be more formal and will extend the idea a bit more. Before reading this I recommend you read the last thread.

Perfectly Uniform Unidirectional Motion

Very briefly. Object A is considered to be in the inertial reference frame in addition to an observer (such as a photoelectric tube). Object A is some distance from the observer D. Object B is initially in the inertial frame and is adjacent to the observer. Object A and B initially “blink” perfectly in phase. Then they blink out of phase, then they blink perfectly in phase again. Object B is now adjacent to A i.e. it has traversed the distance D. So D is the distance-traveled by B. We make the erroneous assumption that B is either stationary or in perfectly uniform motion. We define the time that B was in motion as:

T=NB-NA

Where N is the number of blinks of a body (B) while it was out of phase with another body (A). We define the velocity in a single direction along the line of site (x) as:

Vx = T/D

This seems counterintuitive because “time” is in the numerator. It is ultimately a matter of convention, but I choose this convention because we generally want velocity to increase as the difference in photon counts increases (B leaves the inertial frame).

Perfectly Uniform Unidirectional Acceleration

In the above scenario the observer counted over the distance-traveled D. Now the observer divides D into smaller units di. He counts over each smaller distance-traveled and defines the difference between the velocity over the distance-traveled di and the velocity over the distance-traveled di+1 as the acceleration:

A = V(x)i+1 – V(x)i

Elliptical Rotation

Now we consider a rotating body. The object A is again the inertial frame and B is considered to be rotating around A. We assume the path traveled by B is circular or elliptical, i.e. there is motion in only two directions. The observer perceives that, along his line of site, B has its maximal velocity when it is maximally distant from A. He uses his measuring rod (D) with its smaller tick marks (d) and counts blinks from A and B as B traverses the distance between two tick marks along his line of site (dx). He defines the maximum velocity in the x direction:

Vxmax = (NB-NA)/dx

Analogously, he moves his line of site perpendicular to his original line of site. He knows it is perpendicular because the point that previously appeared to be at a maximal velocity now appears to be at minimal velocity. He defines the maximal velocity along his new line of site in the y direction:

Vymax=(NB-NA)/dy

Now he defines the radial velocities in terms of trigonometric functions of the ratios of linear velocities to the maximal velocity in that direction:

VR=sin(Vx/Vxmax) + cos(Vy/Vymax) delta Counts/Rotation

Where Vx an Vy are linear velocities along two perpendicular lines of site, as defined in the first example.

Eccentricity of Earth’s Orbit

An observer in a tower above the atmosphere records the black body spectrum of the sun (i.e. his line of site is always directly from the earth to the sun). At each count he triangulates the sun’s position. If the earth’s rotation is perfectly circular the observer would not perceive a shift in the black body spectrum with distance-traveled (he is always the exact same distance from the emitter). This is true under the assumption that the sun’s temperature is perfectly uniform and invariant. If, however, the orbit is elliptical there will be a shift that is proportional to the eccentricity of the orbit €. If Im is the maximal intensity at a particular wavelength and I0 is the minimum then the ratio of the difference to the max will equal the eccentricity:

(Im-I0)/I0 = €

Doing a “quick swag” calculation, if we believe Wikipedia’s numbers for the annual change in solar intensity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) we can calculate the eccentricity:

(1412-1366)/1412 = 0.03

The accepted value is 0.0167 if we, again, believe Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity).

The difference can be explained by how “rough” the solar intensity numbers are. Wikipedia gives averages from “January to early June”. In actuality the observer will triangulate the sun’s position and get precise values for the maximal velocities in either direction (and thus know exactly where the maximum and minimum intensities are). Additionally, 1412 and 1366 are probably conglomerates of the entire spectrum. Certain regions of the spectrum are known to fluctuate a great deal more than others due to “sun spots”, “solar flares”, and other anomalies. The choice of a suitable wavelength and more precise maximum and minimum intensities could easily produce the correct value. It is of note that Mercury’s eccentricity is 0.2056, making this 2 second calculation look not too bad.


Motion of a Body Leaving the Earth

The acceleration of a body (B) as it leaves the earth is of interest. If the body is tagged with an emitter whose wavelength is different than we expect to detect in the atmosphere, and that doesn’t interact appreciably with the atmosphere, then the motion of the body can be tracked by counting the photons from the emitter. An identical tag is kept on the ground as the inertial standard (A). Photons are counted from B and A. We take the difference between the photon counts at a standard point, i.e. we have a standard NA (and thus a standardized distance-traveled d). So each data point is an integer multiple of NA with whatever value of NB we detect. Each data point produces a difference in photon counts, which we define as the time T. As the body accelerates the time to travel the standard distance d will decrease (the photon count difference will increase). We can then plot the body’s acceleration.

Again, we do not need to resort to "time dilation" or "length contraction" to deal with motion at any velocity. If the velocity of a body equals the velocity of the light it emits then we simply cannot detect the body. Nothing funky happens and time travel is a huge lie.

[mague]

As the body accelerates the time to travel the standard distance d will decrease (the photon count difference will increase). We can then plot the body’s acceleration.

Again, we do not need to resort to "time dilation" or "length contraction" to deal with motion at any velocity. If the velocity of a body equals the velocity of the light it emits then we simply cannot detect the body. Nothing funky happens and time travel is a huge lie.

Hello altonhare,

time travel has no proove. Its a theory and a theory cant be a lie.

Light doesnt accellerate. To compare an accellerating body with light is comparing apples and pears. To have a true comparison a body must start at lightspeed like light does. But then the body is light already. If a body accelerates to lightspeed it is not an icrease of speed, it is rather a transformation into light. Once a body reaches lightspeed and transforms into light it looses his memory of acceleration and will keep moving at lightspeed without any further accelleration. IMHO.

I am sceptical, but lest asume light is the fastest wave we are able to observe. If something is moving faster then light, then there will be an academical effect. It leaves the observable space. What happens then is pure theory. Some say it will be time travel, i say it would leave the by humans observable dimensions.

But then, within my personal system of emotional logic, i do know that there are things faster then light within our observable universe. The intention of light is faster as the light itself for example.

[altonhare]

Mague:

FTL travel is conceivable from a physical (classical) point of view. Imagine two ladders each a light year across. Imagine all the rungs are removed except for one rung at either end. One ladder is slightly wider than the other. You slide the thinner ladder in between the posts of the wider ladder so that you have an "X" shape, but with the bottom of the "X" much smaller than the top. The ladders are perpendicular to one another. You place a ball (larger than the ladders) in the crook of the bottom of the "X". Then each ladder is translated at 0.9c in the direction the other ladder is lying. The result is the original "X" shape inverted i.e. now the bottom of the "X" is large and the top is small. The ball will move foward at >c.

This scenario simply illustrates that "speed limits" placed by equations such as E=mc^2*(1-(v^2/c^2))^-.5 are purely mathematical, not physical. Talk of "alternate dimensions" or "becoming light" simply because an object travels at c are a matter of reification of mathematical concepts and are religious at best, insane at worst.

The claim of physicists is that "there is no physical law preventing time travel". In fact, there is, it's called "causality". This is the lie. If they wish to say that "time travel is possible if causality can be violated" that would be honest. Then they simply have the monstrous task of showing how causality may be violated without self-contradiction, paradox, and duality.

Mague you have not understood my post at all. I am not saying light accelerates. In fact, my post has nothing at all to do with the speed of light! It has to do with the distance between light signals, indicating the distance-traveled by an emitter compared to the distance between light signals of another emitter with 0 distance-traveled. We simply cannot detect any object if what we are using to detect it moves more slowly than the object itself. It's simple logic to understand. I don't think you could convince a 5 year old that her basketball disappears if it goes too fast. You could convince her that it moves too fast for signals to get to you, though, and it might appear to have disappeared. Unfortunately as we get older we are indoctrinated into fantastical and magical explanations.

[mague]

religious at best, insane at worst.

[soulsurvivor]

It all becomes really interesting when physical realities momentarily overlap. I've been in my former physical body prior to this lifetime. I was an old man of color somewhere in AL, wearing the only clothes I owned (think layers) and I was kicking up the dust on the path. I was "there". Inner self took me there. I've also been in the next physical body that I inhabit. Again, I was "there" and inner self took me there. It's me and I have no doubt of that. What seems as only a moment "here" can translate into an hour "there".

When you become one with inner self, you will physically time travel.

[altonhare]

The laws of the measurement of motion have now been formulated objectively under the following assumptions:

1) The propagation of the signal from a body is independent of its source
2) The signal is discrete, it can be counted

Thus, nothing has been directly stated about the structure or architecture of the signal transmitted other than it is countable and its velocity is independent of its source. The actual underlying architecture of the signal is irrelevant to the observed motion of the body in addition to the underlying structure of the body itself.

In this same vein the concept known as mass will be discussed. Whereas before we defined the concepts of time, velocity, and acceleration based on the observation that some objects arrive at a point before others though they start at the same point, we now define a concept "mass" based on the observation that objects of identical volume sometimes move with different velocities although they are struck identically. We start with a thought experiment again, treating motion strictly in a single direction knowing that the motion in other directions can always be resolved using trigonometry.

Two perfectly continuous objects (indivisible objects A and B) in uniform motion in opposite directions (velocities of +v and -v)touch and stop. They do not pass through because they are perfectly continuous. They do not continue moving because their velocities have canceled each other. We then imagine a continuous object of very large volume (A) and one of very small volume (B) and imagine the same scenario. Is there any fundamental physical reason object B should act differently than A? There is not. They are each simply one entity with a single velocity, they will touch and stop. Now imagine identically sized, continuous spheres (A and B) moving uniformly in the same direction, both at +v, separated by a distance much smaller than their radius (they are almost touching). For whatever reason, they become rigidly attached (AB). They collide head on with a single indivisible (C) that is moving at -v. Their motion will be conserved, will they simply stop just like in the original case because v-v=0? This would imply that, no matter how "much" of an object there is, only its velocity matters. In fact we observe this is not the case. Velocity is not conserved but rather velocity distribution among indivisibles. When AB collides head on with C (and C "sticks to AB") the group moves at a velocity consistent with velocity distribution: (2*v-v)/3 = (v/3). In other words, we have v divided up amongst three indivisible entities. In the first case above the final velocity is calculated: (v-v)/2=0. Zero velocity is divided among two indivisible entities. This is nothing new, we have simply developed the millennium-old law of conservation of *momentum*, which we can also think of as the law of constant velocity distribution among indivisibles.

But, why should two continuous objects become rigidly attached? Why is the universe not composed of only lone indivisible entities colliding elastically? In a universe like the one illustrated above this would be all there was, there would be no aggregation. We conclude that the universe simply cannot be composed of billiard-ball like structures, but that the architecture of the fundamental constituent must be sufficiently complex to allow for aggregation. We can imagine indivisible entities that are permanently interlocked as in a bicycle chain or a series of ball/socket joints. If such a chain were wrapped into a coil and fastened to form a closed loop the result would be something akin to a yarn-ball. Two such yarn balls can, upon colliding, become enmeshed (outer chains wrap around each other). This is how we explain the aggregation of indivisibles into a rock or chair or ball of metal. The aggregation of indivisibles at long distance is another matter altogether.

A ball of indivisibles as described above would not be perfectly continuous and thus would not engage in perfectly elastic collision. The tighter the ball is wound (i.e. the more indivisibles per unit volume defined as the density), the more it will *resemble* a continuous object. We can now imagine an experiment to compare the number of indivisibles among objects, although we cannot actually count them directly. Two dense balls of identical volume are either blinking perfectly in phase by their nature or are tagged with emitters that do so. They are accelerated down identical opposite inclines enclosed in high vacuum. At the bottom of the inclines is a perfectly flat floor. Photon counters are arranged around the perimeter of the floor. They measure the velocity of the balls as mentioned in the original post. The velocities should be identical and constant on the floor. At some point the photon counts will change drastically, indicating collision. The initial and final velocity of the two balls (equal in perfectly elastic collision) can be used to calculate the relative difference in the number of fundamental constituents composing each ball:

vi*(n1-n2)=vf*(n1+n2)

vi/vf=(n1+n2)/(n1-n2)

One of the balls is assigned a standard value of 1.

n2=-(Vi/Vf-1)/(1+Vi/Vf)

Repeated experiments with multiple balls would reveal that n1 and n2 always differ by an integer multiple. This integer multiple would be used to find an absolute value for the number of fundamental constituents composing a macroscopic ball. Although measurement precision may be limiting, many repeated measurements could elevate the signal to noise ratio and a good absolute value of n1 could be gained. However, it would only give the value for a ball of chain, not a value for the individual links in the chain. To get a value for individual links of the chain would require colliding two individual balls of chain (of differing numbers of links) and performing similar analysis. This is essentially the goal of modern super-colliders. Unfortunately, the physicists working at these projects treat the atom (ball of chain or w/e) is itself composed of billiard balls! We showed with a simple thought experiment that the universe simply cannot be composed only of billiard balls because there simply would not be any aggregation! The physicists claim the balls stay "together" with "fields", for which they themselves admit they have no physical interpretation. Clearly there is a problem here. Is the field a chain connecting the balls? Is it a kinked string? Do the balls have whip-like objects protruding from their surfaces that wrap around other billiard balls, capturing them in orbit? How can they expect to derive the nature of the atom without a physical hypothesis? What exactly is it they're trying to show/prove/demonstrate? One can only conclude that they are just trying to get all their equations to fit the experimental evidence with no_regard to the scientific method (hypothesis first). It's easy to corroborate a nonexistent hypothesis.

[junglelord]

The way one views the universe makes all the difference.
Almost everyone thinks Time and Matter.
Infact what they need to see is Frequency and Angle.

These inverse relationships are too be inspected fully.
Time is linear, 2-D.
Frequency is distributed, 3-D.
Mass is linear, 2-D
Angle is Distributed, 3-D

If you view the universe in linear units, you will surely be fooled.

[kevin]

Junglelord, today is sambain,
halloween, at 21.40 GMT I noted a standstill, the flows stopped, they then reversed, and are still reversed 23.30, no wonder they celebrated this TIME, it is reversed, who invented clocks?
I realise they had sun dials, but what about cloudy days?

Back in TIME, there were no clocks, they must have relied on their senses, and that will have been for everything, planting of seeds, everything, this clock business is rubbish, imposed to control
Kevin

[junglelord]

Well something was "off" today.
I have a body that is very susecptable to any change.
Thanks for telling me what it was.
I also think due to my medical issues, I can indeed feel the cyclic change in gravity I discovered.
.7% every six months.
Seems to me that the heavy day so to speak would be the Winter Solstice.
The lightest day would be the Summer Solstice.

[soulsurvivor]

I know about the heaviness of body moreso on some days/times than others. It's as though some outside force is trying to make me cry "uncle" for mercy and relief from the heaviness. Most recent bout with this started at 1:00 pm EST yesterday, 10/30/08 and finally ended at 3:00 pm EST today, 10/31/08. Even though it's now 12:30 pm EST on 11/1/08, I am extremely relieved to feel "lighter".

[kevin]

I have very little TIME, right now, a shop to open, but, the flows are back to normal.
Gravity will be different as the flows standstill (solstice, sun, still) but It's the aether flows that are moving, tidal interferance patterns?
If you look back before clocks, WHAT?
I can detect the daily alterations in the flows, it really is a doddle, this fixed timing of clocks is nonesense, the universe is fractal and cyclic, ebbing and flowing, we are not living with this anymore, no wonder there is so much stress etc?
Must dash, the clock is ticking.
Kevin

[klypp]

Again, we do not need to resort to "time dilation" or "length contraction" to deal with motion at any velocity. If the velocity of a body equals the velocity of the light it emits then we simply cannot detect the body. Nothing funky happens and time travel is a huge lie.

The speed of light is not dependent of the speed of its source. All light from any body at any speed in any direction will reach you at the same speed! Most of the time this will simply be the speed of light in air...
This is nothing special to light, same thing applies to sound waves, or any wave. This is simply what waves do. The speed of any wave is determined by the medium the wave propagates through, not the speed of its source.

This means that you will be able to detect any body that emits light, no matter how fast this body moves!

The problem Einstein wrestled with was: How can light speed be independent of the speed of its source if light is not a wave?
Well, he never solved it. But he sure managed to create a huge mess...

[junglelord]

The way one views the universe makes all the difference.
Everyone thinks Time and Matter and Current.
Infact what they need to see is Frequency and Angle and Charge.

These inverse relationships are to be inspected fully.
Time is linear, 2-D.
Frequency is distributed, 3-D.
Mass is linear, 2-D
Angle is distributed, 3-D
Current is linear, 2-D
Charge is distributed, 3-D

If you view the universe in linear units, time, mass, current, you will surely be fooled due to the 2-D.
If you view the universe in non linear distributed units, frequency, angle, charge, you will see clearly due to the 3-D.

When people talk to you about time and mass and current, the choice of words shows their viewpoint.
This shows they do not understand the universe, which is why they ask questions about time, mass, current.
They do not know what it is. They cannot deduce the universe from 2-D and are not clear about anything.
Not even the "definitions" of 2-D. Hell they do not even know if its "real".
Just look around at the forum lately!


2-D is about half brain thoughts, all left hemisphere or all right.

Those who talk about frequency, angle, charge, know exactly what is going on.
They have no trouble with definitions and philosophy. That is a 3-D mindset.
It requires more then the right hemisphere or the left, it requires whole brain integration.

Anyone who talks from half a brain is not getting it anyway.


It took 12 years to gather the information.
It took 12 months to figure it out.
Very Synergetic, 12 is the Vector Equilibrium.
Frequency, Angle, Charge.
Welcome to the whole brain club.

Those time, mass, current half brained ideas are for the birds.

The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.

The reason they are both wrong....each is thinking with only half a brain. One is left brained, one is right brained.
Neither is whole brained. They are both 2-D, Linear thoughts. Neither is whole. They can only see in 2-D as they only talk in 2-D. Watch the choice or words. Remember their Space co-ordinates are 2-D and half brain linear.
If they ask about time, mass, current, ignore them. They cannot see in 3-D anyway, and will infact deny its existance.


There is nothing more annoying then a 2-D Philosopher talking "down" to you from 2-D, at your 3-D take on a 3-D world.
Thats how it goes however. Surface gurus, grammer police of the 2-D plane. Telling us what the 3-D non linear distriubuted universe is all about from their 2-D linear plane. Ignore such as these.

If they use 3-D, whole brained, non linear and distributed> this will tell you right away if its even worth talking about.

[altonhare]

klypp:

You are correct and I did misspeak. What I mean is that, as the velocity of an emitter increases, it becomes more difficult to measure its velocity. The quality of your measurement is proportional to the frequency of the emitter and inversely proportional to its velocity. For instance, if the emitter produces a photon every time it travels d and d is 1/10 of the total distance over which you measure then you will count 10 photons. On the other hand, if the emitter is moving so fast that it emits 1 photon every 11*d, then it will not be detected. You are right, it has nothing to do with the emitter moving at c and everything to do with the specific experimental setup. This is my main point, thank you for clarifying.

If you develop a theory that assumes some upper limit on velocity (such as C) then, to maintain consistency, the mathematics will have to break down at that velocity. This is what special relativity does. It does not *prove* that nothing can travel faster than C, it assumes it. The fact that it gets the numbers right in experimental/measurement situations simply means that it is a good assumption for quantitative purposes. I argue that, if we simply counted the number of signals emitted by objects, there is no need for a "time dilation" term because we are using a common reference standard.

The problem Einstein wrestled with was: How can light speed be independent of the speed of its source if light is not a wave?

-Klypp

There are all kinds of reasons to believe that light is not a particle or wave. The observation that light travels rectilinear invalidates the particle hypothesis. The observation that light is emitted and absorbed discretely invalidates the wave hypothesis. The only physical hypothesis that explains both phenomena is the propagation of a torsion along a twined rope between two atoms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

[klypp]

There are all kinds of reasons to believe that light is not a particle or wave. The observation that light travels rectilinear invalidates the particle hypothesis. The observation that light is emitted and absorbed discretely invalidates the wave hypothesis. The only physical hypothesis that explains both phenomena is the propagation of a torsion along a twined rope between two atoms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

Just to make one thing clear: Until someone can show me an experiment that cannot be explained with wave theory, I'll stick to that!
"The observation that light is emitted and absorbed discretely" would be interesting, as a wave should be continuous. Where can I find this observation?

The "twined rope theory"??? Well, my first reaction was that this must be a joke. And, come to think of it, that was my second reaction as well...
Where is the experimental proof? Oh yes, grandma's clothesline:

The one-way particles and waves of Quantum cannot explain why light travels so swiftly. With the rope the mystery vanishes. You can prove this to yourself the next time you hang your clothes outside. Attach pins to the ends of a
taut clothesline and move one of them with your little pinky. The other one moves’ instantaneously’. The signal is so fast that you can’t even catch it on tape! This is as close as it gets to realizing 'WHY' light is so fast! No particle accelerators, no Math, no bull! Torsion travels from one end to another along a taut rope almost instantly. (Check to see how much
'energy' you spent sending the signal from one end to the other. Now you know why a 'photon' is also mass-less!)

http://youstupidrelativist.com/06QM/04L ... Speed.html

One problem with grandma's fast signal is that it is nowhere near the speed of light. I think you'll easily find that it is more like the speed of sound...

However, the particular experimental setup described above strongly suggest another theory: Some grandmas can find extremely ingenious ways to make you show your pinky!