Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

The is the best definition I have seen of your posts. Look back over the many threads where we have had discussions. You invariably introduce some new scenario which you claim disproves my scenario and you never address the physics issues as presencted in the original scenario.

Hmmmm. No wonder you were able to construct such a good definition.

I guess I am less than appropriately impressed to know somebody that can dictate the physics of the universe. Your fiat is not a physics rebuttal of my assertion that invariance is a consequence of frame dependant photon existance due to quantum energy functions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No fiat. I am only stating that I see no reason to think a photon that has left it source belong to or is "in" any unique frame and have repeated asked you to explain why you think the opposite - I.e. my mind is open - give me some reason to think as you do.

Recall I asked you which frame a photon was "in" just before striking your skin at the beach? (I suggested many alternatives to assit you; the frame of sea breeze, the sun, the center of Earth, the CoM of solar system, etc.) But again rather than help me understand by reply to a specific example, you refused /ignored this request for help in understanding you.

I am beginning to think that you have recognized that photons and Events being in only one unique frame is simple nonsense or "incomprehensible gibberish" but I still extend to you the opportunity to clarify what you are trying to state via specific example(s)

I do not consider the creation of a specific example, especially one designed to clarify general statements, as either introducing new "topic" (point 1 of the now agreed definition of D&W) OR not a discussion of the original physics (Point 2 of he D&W definition)

Make up a few specific, but not very simple, case examples if you do not like mine, which will make clear that you are not just spouting "incomprehensible gibberish" when you speak of photons or events being ONLY "in" one unique frame and only "observed" in all others. General claims like yours to this effect should be applicable to All special cases and I am only asking for a few examples.

I would apprecaite it if you would use at least one of the two I have suggested (photon which is soon to be absorbed in your skin at beach, Or man on train shooting clay pigeon to make the "smashing event.")

Note one of my examples asks about your "photons are in" and other about "events are in, or occur in" unique frames.

If you continue to ignore both I must conclude you (1)Either do not know what you are stating well enough to apply it to any specific case, Or (2) it is just "incomprehensible gibberish."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And until you can understand what it means to be energy dependant to exist, i.e. v = c and how an observers motion effectively changes that energy such that the old vanishes and new is created at v = c relative to the observer, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again, I would have to choose the rest frame of the Earth's surface as the preferred frame, the rest frame of the nearest gravitating object. Why? To accurately calculate the scenario, the gravitational effects on the moving clay pigeon and bullet must be accounted for, the wind effects on both the clay pigeon and bullet must be accounted for, and the 'shooter' must consider these effects when calculating how much he must 'lead' the clay pigeon. If the shooter considers himself and the launcher in a 'rest' frame without considering the Earth's surface, he will miss the pigeon. Start with the basic frame that has effects on all other frames influencing the event, and proceed from there. There is also may be a frame in which an astronaut is watching from the International Space Station, but that frame would just complicate the calculations immensly, as well as a frame in which a distant observer was at rest with respect to the CMB.

 

So does "preferred frame" only mean that the physics are easier to calculate in the earth frame than the space station or CMB frames? Or do mean something more fundamental by "preferred frame"?

-Dale

 

2Inquisitive,

I received the following e-mail from Dr Dowdye objecting to your post about his theory.

************************* Excerpt *************************

I quote in red the above which is TOTALLY off, not what my theory states. This guy has NOT read my book, understand it or look at any Gedanken experiments on the web-site.

"He asserts that the reason the light signals are of different time measurements is because the photons are emitted, absorbed, then re-emitted over and over again in their travels throught the atmosphere. "

The Sagnac effect has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ATMOSPHERE or an ABSORBING medium. Nowhere in my work or book is it asserted that signals are emitted, absorbed at different times to explain this effect. This demonstrates clearly how people really DO NOT UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY the emission theory or have any knowledge or appreciation of Euclidean Space Geometry and it applications. See http://www.extinctionshift.com/topic_01.htm Phenomena explained where Relativity fails.

"An atmosphere is not necessary for the Sagnac effect to arise. It also happens in the vacuum of space where no absorption/re-emission is happening."

Nowhere is it stated that an ATMOSPHERE is needed.

"In GPS, the effect is calculated correctly from the satellites orbital position in mid-high orbit to the distance corresponding to the surface of the Earth."

The web-site states clearly, posted since May 2001 http://www.extinctionshift.com/topic_01.htm TWO WAY Time of Flight Phenomena exactly explained on my web-site, where Relativity fails.

"Most of the signals travel is through the vacuum, the atmosphere only a part of the distance. The Sagnac effect has been demonstrated in other in-space interferometer experiments, leading to the inclusion of the effect in the LISA mission I outlined above. Sorry, Dr. Dowdye."

Most LASER-Gyroscope used in satellites and spacecraft, have atmoshperes of gas, such as He-Ne are other GAS-RING lasers. The inter-atomic space between the atoms of He and Ne is essentially an ideal vacuum, enough for emissions and re-emission in ideal vacuum medium (Nothing important for the Sagnac effect which is due to the rectilinear path of the PRIMARY-PHOTON only).

You can always ask these guys if they have read the book. Have they done the Gedankexperiments, worked through the excercises.

I do think you can straighten this all out and send them ALL back to school Dan.

EDowdye

 

Dr. Dowdye in MacM's post:

"The Sagnac effect has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ATMOSPHERE or an ABSORBING medium. Nowhere in my work or book is it asserted that signals are emitted, absorbed at different times to explain this effect. This demonstrates clearly how people really DO NOT UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY the emission theory or have any knowledge or appreciation of Euclidean Space Geometry and it applications. See http://www.extinctionshift.com/topic_01.htm Phenomena explained where Relativity fails."

Dr. Dowdye's webpage:

"Taking the rotational rate of the Earth of (2x3.14159 / (24x3600sec)) = 7.27E-5 radians per sec, the radius of Earth, 6.37E+6 meters, the area A = 1.275E+14 sq meters enclosed by a signal that would circle the globe around the equator, the Sagnac effect (4A/c2) x angular rate of Earth yields 412 ns, which represents the difference in transit times of the signals in opposite directions. Taking a projection of the area enclosed by New York, Los Angeles and the Earth center onto the plane of the equator, one gets approximately 28 ns for the difference between signals in opposite directions between New York and Los Angeles. This time difference is routinely observed in the extremely high data rate communication systems where, the pulse rates are more than sufficiently high enough to resolve the time differences between the transit times of the opposing directions.

Note, this effect is clearly due to emissions and re-emissions of electromagnetic signals on a rectilinear path by N point emitters rigidly attached in a rotating frame."
==============================================================

Dr. Dowdye is correct, I have not read his book and do not fully understand his theory. I assume he is stating the 28 ns difference in propagation times of emissions east--> west vs west-->east is due to emission/reemission of photons in the atmosphere, but that this is not a Sagnac effect. I believe it IS a Sagnac effect, an effect that appears whether there is an atmosphere or not. I do not know exactly WHY it happens (possibly a gravitational ether), only that DOES happen, confirmed by experiments.

 

*************** Extract from Dr Dowdye e-mail above *************

Nowhere is it stated that an ATMOSPHERE is needed.

*********************************************************

You both seem to agree on no requirement for an atmosphere.

 

Dr. Dowdye:
"Note, this effect is clearly due to emissions and re-emissions of electromagnetic signals on a rectilinear path by N point emitters rigidly attached in a rotating frame."
================================================================

Did you not see this quote? It is the point of our disagreement. He believes the differences in times is due to THE ATMOSPHERE on Earth's surface. I do not believe so. I think it is a purely Sagnac effect. He only states that an atmosphere is not necessary for the Sagnac effect to arise, which is correct. A gravitational ether, the same thing as curved spacetime, rotates with the Earth. Besides the Sagnac effect, it also is responsible for the Lense-Thirring (sp?) effect and the Shapiro effect, among others. No atmosphere is required for any, only 'distorted' spacetime. I believe that distorted spacetime IS the same as a gravitational ether.

 

I'm a newcomer here, but something in my head changed recently, in what I beleive to be a profound and new way. As far as I know, based on my knowledge of feeling I'm correct, what I have in my head is what I've been taught to recognize as the Grand Unified Theory. I need to talk to MacM and Billy T if thats privatley possible. I need to express my views on your two views put together.

 

What I'm openly saying though is that even our measurement of absolute zero being -273 degress celcius implies that we know the exact measurement of the temperature at which something is at absolute zero, but we can't know because we have nowhere near the sources needed to see precisely enough to know if something is at our perception of absolute zero that no energy is in it. So if we can never see precisely to the root of alllll thingssss, then at some small enough point, to our limited perception and bigger time frames and spatial measurement, it will display the same properties as absolute zero because we just cant see past a certain point. You say if a tree falls in a forest, it still makes a sound even if no one hears it? Then you have to beleive what i just said, and you have to beleive infinity is possible, because even if we cant see past our perception of absolute zero as our stop to all motion, meaning no more energy, that doesnt mean that if something on a smaller scale us can't perceive it, because if its on a smaller scale than us, it can see more precisely than us if our perception of absolute zero is truly correct.

 

To GUTman:

Welcome to these forums. It is hard to tell what you want or are saying. based on what you posted I see no reason to exchange PMs with you.

You seem to be at best unclear. Absolute zero is well defined and via magnetic relaxation after cooling or by certain laser Doppler "selection out" techniques has been nearly achieved and measured (a few micro degrees "hot" as I recall is the record).

That cold stuff can have lots of kinetic energy, however, in another frame of reference, so "zero temperature" is not same as "zero energy," but perhaps you were just careless in your post and know this.