[size=+2]Introduction[/size] Greeting sciforumites! I've decided to join the ranks of cranks, and promote my own alternative to the obviously flawed models of the universe proposed by everyone else. Well, perhaps, anyway. I personally think that the model I'm promoting is functionally equivalent to Special Relativity (in a narrower domain). But, as some of you may have noticed, MacM and I disagree on what the Special Relativity model does and doesn't predict, and I suspect that we disagree on what the Special Relativity model actually is. This makes it difficult to have meaningful discussions about whether it is consistent with reality or not. Now, I've consistently berated MacM for arguing against SR without actually understanding it... then I decided to honestly consider whether I actually understood it myself. Now, this type of self-assessment question is difficult if not impossible to address impartially, so I'm taking a leap: I'm going to work on the heroic assumption that MacM's idea of SR (the conceptual model that MacM attaches to the term "SR") is an accurate representation of the SR model, and that my idea of SR is not. From this premise I reach three conclusions: MacM is right - SR is fatally flawed. My own conceptual model, the one that I previously attached to the term "SR", is a brand new model, previously undiscussed. Since I believe my model to be both internally consistent and consistent with known experiments in its domain, it is a better model of the Universe than SR! So, in the interest of productive discussion unhindered by our preconceived ideas of what SR is and isn't, I've decided to ditch the SR model altogether, and instead use my own brand new model that I'm going to call Pete's Paradigm. This is the model that I'll personally be using in future to predict the outcomes of all relativistic experiments and scenarios proposed on this forum. This model might or might not be functionally equivalent to the SR model... but I'll thank you to treat it on it's merits, rather than treating it according to what you *think* SR is or isn't. Make no assumptions! Before I describe my model, I should point out that I've approached it a bit backward to other alternative theorists... rather than having an extensive qualitative description and an incomplete quantitative description, I have a fairly complete quantitative description, but almost no qualitative. I'm hoping that my fellow alternativists can help me explore the model and flesh out the qualitative side. I should also note that in order to distance my model from SR, and to avoid confusion over the meaning of terms, I've made up some of my own terminology, which will be described in the next post.
So here it is... [size=+2]Preamble - definitions and scope[/size] [size=+1]Key terms of PP:[/size] TIC - a Tic is a particular time period, of vanishingly small duration. LOCA - a Loca is a volume of space, vanishingly small in all dimensions. BLINK - a Blink is the intersection of a Tic and a Loca. STRETCH - a Stretch is a measurable difference between any two Blinks. OVSERBER - an Ovserber is something that could potentially measure a Stretch. An Ovserber occupies a Loca at all Tics. An Ovserber can not accelerate. [size=+1]Scope[/size] The only thing that can be measured directly in PP is a Stretch, and Stretch measurements must be made by an Ovserber. PP specifies a standard method of Stretch measurement. There may be other ways of measuring a Stretch, but unless they always give the same result as the standard method, they are not valid in PP. To measure the Stretch between two Blinks - PP standard method: Identical and accurate time measuring devices must be present at each Blink to record a time associated with the Blink's occurence. The devices must be connected by a fixed rod, which is in turn connected to the Ovserber in a rigid manner. The device timers must be synchronized like so: Two identical mechanical crawlers are set at the centerpoint of the rod. Starting together, the crawlers move at equal and constant speeds in opposite directions. When each crawler meets the device at the end of the rod, the device's timer starts counting time from zero. When the Blink of concern to each measuring device occurs, it records the reading of its timer and numerically communicates it to the Ovserber. The Stretch between the two Blinks is completely described by the Length and Orientation of the rod, and the difference between the two timer readings. For convenience, the Length and Orientation of the rod are usually converted into x, y, and z distances against an arbitrarily defined set of orthogonal 3D space axes. This may seem complicated, but I believe that it pays to be rigorous. If there's ever any doubt over whether some time or distance measurement is valid, the question can be resolved by referring back to the standard Stretch measurement method. If the standard method would produce the same result, then the measurement is valid. Notes: Time measurement in PP is assumed to be based on some standard process commonly accepted as a standard clock (such as human heart beat, oscillating spring, 555 timer, vibrating quartz crystal, nuclear decay half-life, cesium atom vibration, whatever). A Stretch corresponds directly to a Distance if the Time component of the Stretch is zero. A Stretch corresponds directly to a Time if the Distance component (the length of the rod) is zero. It follows that the only guaranteed valid way for an Ovserber to measure Time in PP is to measure a Stretch between Blinks that occur at the same Loca for that Ovserber (same distance and direction from the Ovserber), and the only guaranteed valid way of measuring Distance in PP is to measure a Stretch between Blinks that occur at the same Tic for that Ovserber. A Stretch measurement can be used to determine a velocity. If a particular object is present at both the Blinks, then the object's velocity is the Distance component (rod length) divided by the Time components (difference in timers), in a direction parallel to the rod. This is the only guaranteed valid method to measure velocity in PP. A Stretch is represented like this: SPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!t, x, y, z) Where t = Difference between readings of the "standard method timers" x,y,z = Length and orientation (in cartesian coordinates) of the "standard method rod"Note that a Stretch is polarised, in that the Stretch from Blink A to Blink B is the opposite (all components have opposite sign) to the Stretch from Blink B to Blink A. OK, so much for the preamble. Let's move on to the model itself.
[size=+2]Pete's Paradigm[/size] If an Ovserber validly measures a Stretch as SPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!t, x, y, z), and the Ovserber validly measures the velocity of another Ovserber to be parallel to the x-axis and speed v, and the other Ovserber validly measures the same Stretch using the same orthogonal 3D space axes, then PP predicts that the second Ovserber's measurement will be: SPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!(t - vx)/√(1-v<sup>2</sup>), (x-vt)/√(1-v<sup>2</sup>), y, z) That's the complete description. I believe that's enough to completely address many (most?) of the relativistic scenarios recently (and not-so-recently) discussed at Sciforums. Limitations PP does have some problems, aside from the domain limitations described above. Firstly, the model only works for particular units of awkward values. x, y, and z must be in lsarks (ls for short), t must be in sorks (s for short), and v must be in lsarks/sork (ls/s). One lsark is equal to approximately 94,239 metres, and one sork is approximately 0.00031416 seconds. I've done this deliberately, in order to keep the model simple. It should be noted that the units were chosen so that the speed of light is equal to one. Any other units for which c=1 would also work. Secondly, the equations are not dimensionally correct. This is because I've simplified them by removing the 'c' terms, since PP only uses units where c = 1. Finally, the equations obviously fail when v >= 1. However, all this really means is that the case of an Ovserber measuring another Ovserber to be moving at greater than or equal to light speed falls outside the domain of PP... and I can live with that.
MacM, are you willing to play along? Are you willing to work with me, work through the ugly equations, awkward terminology, and cripplingly rigorous measurement restrictions to discover a qualitative description of this model with me, and to attempt to determine if it is internally consistent, and consistent with known valid experiments?
This could be interesting. It will require a bit of analysis to determine if you are describing anything real however.
Pete, Shame on you!! Now explain your idea in non-mathematical terms. What exactly are you suggesting that leads to that equation?
Pete, Welcome to the cranky side. (Just kidding; I think I see that this new found crankism is meant to be taken with a grain of salt.) Except for the terminology, it seems to me that your theory is essentially the same as Special Relativity. Forgive me if I do not consistantly use your terminology in this reply, I would try to, except I am just already so used to the old terminology. Your theory appears to suffer from the same problem from which Special Relativity suffers. Namely, that clocks moving in uniform translational motion to each other can theoretically be considered to be ticking both slow and fast without actually ever losing simultanaety of an event that occurs locally in both frames of reference. This unhinges the concept of Now from the clocks, and it seems to me to indicate that although the "ticking dilation" is real at a strictly local level, the "time dilation" is not real overall -- at least not with respect to uniform translational motion. (If you restrict your time theory to one LOCA only, and add a concept of NOW, it might satisfy me.) Then something strange happens once the theory is expanded to its more general form, GR. In these cases, the time dilation is real, accumulated, and non-reciprocal. Of course simultanaety of local events is also maintained despite the differently ticking rates of clocks, and that supports the concept that there is a Now. The reason there is no contradiction in this case is because the clocks are either fast or slow but not both. So the theory apears to be sound in general, and the best I can say is that it tends to be somewhat misunderstood in the special case of uniform translational motion. I think we can unite most of the non-SRTists with the SRTists if we can all agree to something along the lines that I have outlined above. It might not be enough to satisfy the absolute motion advocates, but it should be enough to satisfy some people like me, and a few others who are dissatisfied, for the most part, only with the reciprocal time dilation in SR. I would be interested to see how strict SRTists feel about this idea.
Hi Prosoothus, That's where I need your help. The idea is completely quantitatively expressed by the maths, but I'm not completely sure what it means qualitatively. I got the quant description from my own interpretation of Special Relativity, but I'm no longer sure that my previous notions of SR's qualitative nature are correct... so here we are. The questions I want to explore in this thread are: What is the qualitative nature of PP? Is PP internally consistent? Is PP consistent with our universe, in its (PP's) specified domain?
Hi Neddy, I'm afraid I'm going to ignore all discussion which views my theory through SR-tainted spectacles. That's the whole point of this thread - if I wanted to have another same-old same-old SR discussion, I wouldn't have bothered with PP, would I? So thanks, but if you want to play my game, you need to forget SR, and treat PP on it's own merits. Pete
Shall we begin by attempting to analyse a twin paradox situation? Or, we could use the old three-clocks scenario? Or perhaps we're unable to look at those objectively any more? Should we try analysing a brand new situation instead?
I suggest you propose a new one and let me give it the once over. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You and I seem to be very close on our views. It is indeed reciprocity that kills SR. In my opinion that is because of the arbitrary and false condition established in SR of there being only two points of referance. SRT'ist should give full consideration to the example I gave earlier. Given a condition where "A" has a relative velocity to "C" of 0.3c and "B" has a relative velocity of 0.566c (neglecting velocity additon since it doesn't alter the conclusion but masks the problem); in SR "A" and "B" wrongfully conclude that they are at rest and that the other has a total velocity of 0.866c. Just as GPS shows that this "total" relative velocity does not compute the correct time dilation (except when the total relative velocity is in fact where "C" is in agreement that "B" is 0.866c and "A" is 0.0c. But even in those cases where the "A" and "B" relative velocity computes correctly, viewed from a real universe with more than two points of referance, reciprocity is prohibited.
*Ahem* No SR discussion in here, please!! OK, let's try this. An alien observation outpost is drifting in space. A star with attendant planets approaches at high speed: 0.6 ls/s as measured by an ovserber on the outpost. As the star passes, the outpost releases a pod which accelerates to intercept an interesting planet which happens to be the Earth. The pod is designed to enter an orbit around the planet, then begin observations and send data back to the outpost. Let's say the pod accelerates very very rapidly to match the star's velocity within a few sorks (as measured by an ovserber on the pod) (a negligible time). It then takes 10^9 s (as measured by an ovserber on the pod) to achieve the required orbit and begin signalling. The pod immediately discovers the presence of an advanced civilisation on the planet and signals accordingly. Upon receiving the signal, the outpost sends a signal to its home galaxy, sends an acknowledgement to the pod, releases another pod, then continues drifting, patiently waiting for its next encounter. The second pod accelerates quickly to 0.8 ls/s (as measured by an ovserber on the outpost) and coasts until it catches up with the star. It then quickly decelerates to match the star's velocity and spends 10^9 s (as measured by an ovserber on the pod) maneuvering into orbit around Earth. This second pod then compromises a communication satellite and begins spamming the Earth, making offers of counterfeit ozone and carbon sink enlargers, along with a promise of several trillion intergalactic credits if you can help sumggle it out of the Great Attractor. Just supply your bank account details, and help meet some incidental fees... 10^9 s (as measured by an ovserber on Earth) after arriving, both pods are by destroyed by the newly established International-Anti-Spam agency. At the same time, the agency also fires an interstellar nuclear warhead toward the outpost. The rocket carrying the warhead quickly accelerates to 0.8 ls/s (as measured by an ovserber on Earth) and coasts until it reaches the outpost and destroying it. The signals between the outpost and the pods transmissions are high speed particles, rather than radio or light signals. It is known that the ejection speed of the particles is within an immeasurable fraction of 1 ls/s (as measured by an ovserber on the transmitter). So, what's to analyse? Perhaps we could start by identifying interesting Blinks? Blinks of interest: Star passes outpost. First pod released First pod enters orbit around Earth. First pod sends signal to outpost. Signal reaches outpost. Outpost sends return signal. Second pod released. Second pod reaches star Both pods destroyed. Warhead fired. Outpost destroyed What does PP say about these Blinks? Is it consistent in its predictions?
Or, we could try analysing this situation in PP, if you like. Objects A, B, and C are drifting together in Space. A quickly accelerates up to a speed of 0.433 ls/s (as measured by an ovserber on C). B quickly accelerates in the opposite direction up to a speed of 0.433 ls/s (as measured by an ovserber on C). A and B's departure from C happen at the same Blink. If two ticks of a clock on A occur 1 s apart (as measured by an ovserber on A), what duration does B measure between those two ticks, according to PP? If two ticks of a clock on B occur 1 s apart (as measured by an ovserber on B), what duration does A measure between those two ticks, according to PP? What is A's velocity as measured by an ovserber on B, according to PP? What is B's velocity as measured by an ovserber on A, according to PP?
Neddy, I should also add that I'd prefer not to assume that time is Universal and absolute when considering PP. That would add an artificial and unproven constraint, completely unnecessarily.
