Modifying Newton's First Law of Motion

[hansda]

hansda:


When you're talking about adding two force vectors at a particular point in space at a particular time, there's no problem with relativistic time effects. They don't come into it.

With relativistic time, there is a possibility of time dilation. But in Newtonian Model, there is no such time dilation.

We don't seem to need any hidden forces, as things stand.

Do you imply that the Nature has only four types of forces and no new types of forces can be discovered ?

(Having said that, we do have some problems with dark energy etc. that remain open.)

So a new type of force can be associated with the dark energy.

Yes. It works well enough for many purposes. That doesn't mean it's 100% correct.

So, Newtonian Model(NM) is not 100% wrong.

It doesn't explain the precession of the equinoxes completely, and it gets the bending of light by gravity wrong, too.

This implies some hidden forces in NM.

It's an effect of viewing something from a different frame of reference than the rest frame of the something. I wouldn't exactly describe it as an optical effect, since it's separate from anything to do with the propagation of light from one place to another.

So, length contraction is not optical. Its real and physical.

Correct.

Good. You agree to this point.

But if things turned out differently we'd have to throw out lots of other results from relativity that have been confirmed experimentally.

If "compressive force" is confirmed experimentally; will you accept this or not?

 

[DaveC426913]

Consider the same case. Do you observe time dilation? Do you observe a clock slowing down?

We observe time dilation in others, because it is a relativistic effect (i.e. our frames of reference are relative, not absolute).

Now, answer the question please.

 

[DaveC426913]

With relativistic time, there is a possibility of time dilation. But in Newtonian Model, there is no such time dilation.

Indeed.

And since we have empirically confirmed time dilation, that is a win for Relativity that Newton cannot explain.

"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

"we were able to detect and measure the effects of relativistic time dilation compared to atomic clocks we left at home. The amazing thing is that the experiment worked! The predicted and measured effect was just over 20 nanoseconds."
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

"Since any periodic process can be considered a clock, also the lifetimes of unstable particles such as muons must be affected, so that moving muons should have a longer lifetime than resting ones. Variations of experiments that actually confirmed this effect took place in the atmosphere or in particle accelerators. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

 

[river]

Indeed.

And since we have empirically confirmed time dilation, that is a win for Relativity that Newton cannot explain.

"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

"we were able to detect and measure the effects of relativistic time dilation compared to atomic clocks we left at home. The amazing thing is that the experiment worked! The predicted and measured effect was just over 20 nanoseconds."
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

"Since any periodic process can be considered a clock, also the lifetimes of unstable particles such as muons must be affected, so that moving muons should have a longer lifetime than resting ones. Variations of experiments that actually confirmed this effect took place in the atmosphere or in particle accelerators. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

Oh yeah .....time depends on the energy given to a object . The faster an object goes the more resistence it experiences .

The experience of the object is three dimensional . As in water . As in being immersed in a three dimensional medium .


No surprise here .

 

[exchemist]

So, length contraction is not optical. Its real and physical.

Hansda, you seem to be determined not to understand the point about relativistic length contraction. It is real and physical* to an observer moving relative to the object observed. However, if you move with the object, you do not see the effect. This is why it makes no sense to think of a compressive force on the object (apart from the obvious objection that, since objects may be observed by multiple observers with different speeds, there would have to be different degrees of this hypothetical compressive "force" applying to the same object simultaneously - a logical absurdity).

Length is not absolute: it depends on the presence or absence of relative motion between the observer measuring it and the observed object.

Time dilation is its corollary: in the famous example of fast muons coming down through the atmosphere, we see the muons decaying at a slowed-down rate, so more of them reach the earth before decaying: they "see" their time running at "normal" rate but the depth of our atmosphere being shrunk, so more of them have time to reach the Earth before decaying. The two give the same result.


*"Real and physical" means the observer will always see the effect, in any measurement on the object in question where length comes into it.

 

[hansda]

We observe time dilation in others, because it is a relativistic effect (i.e. our frames of reference are relative, not absolute).

Now, answer the question please.

Wherever time-dilation is observed, this compressive force can be observed in NM. In NM(Newtonian Model) this compressive force can be considered as the cause for time dilation. This compressive force can be considered as a hidden force in NM.

 

[hansda]

Indeed.

And since we have empirically confirmed time dilation, that is a win for Relativity that Newton cannot explain.

"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

"we were able to detect and measure the effects of relativistic time dilation compared to atomic clocks we left at home. The amazing thing is that the experiment worked! The predicted and measured effect was just over 20 nanoseconds."
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

"Since any periodic process can be considered a clock, also the lifetimes of unstable particles such as muons must be affected, so that moving muons should have a longer lifetime than resting ones. Variations of experiments that actually confirmed this effect took place in the atmosphere or in particle accelerators. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

See my above post #186.

 

[hansda]

Hansda, you seem to be determined not to understand the point about relativistic length contraction. It is real and physical* to an observer moving relative to the object observed. However, if you move with the object, you do not see the effect. This is why it makes no sense to think of a compressive force on the object (apart from the obvious objection that, since objects may be observed by multiple observers with different speeds, there would have to be different degrees of this hypothetical compressive "force" applying to the same object simultaneously - a logical absurdity).

Length is not absolute: it depends on the presence or absence of relative motion between the observer measuring it and the observed object.

Time dilation is its corollary: in the famous example of fast muons coming down through the atmosphere, we see the muons decaying at a slowed-down rate, so more of them reach the earth before decaying: they "see" their time running at "normal" rate but the depth of our atmosphere being shrunk, so more of them have time to reach the Earth before decaying. The two give the same result.


*"Real and physical" means the observer will always see the effect, in any measurement on the object in question where length comes into it.

You can wait till the compressive force is confirmed experimentally.

 

[hansda]

Oh yeah .....time depends on the energy given to a object .

How flow of time depends on the energy of an object?

The faster an object goes the more resistence it experiences .

Which model you are considering, GR or NM?

The experience of the object is three dimensional . As in water . As in being immersed in a three dimensional medium .

Seems you are considering NM.

No surprise here .

Surprise for what?

 

[exchemist]

You can wait till the compressive force is confirmed experimentally.

That is a a very stupid remark. For the third time, how are you going to have a compressive force on an object that is observed from two different locations moving at different speeds relative to the object itself. The force would have to have two different values simultaneously.

That is self-evidently idiotic.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is a a very stupid remark. For the third time, how are you going to have a compressive force on an object that is observed from two different locations moving at different speeds relative to the object itself. The force would have to have two different values simultaneously.

This is what I've been trying to tell him. Maybe he'll hear you.

An observer on the Moon is currently observing no relative motion with us, thus they see no length contraction her eon Earth.
Simultaneously, an observer on a fleeing rogue planet is currently observing us moving at relativistic velocities - and therefore sees us compressed.
How could we be both experiencing the Hansda Compressive Force and not experiencing it at the same time?

It's a rhetorical question, for Hansda's benefit.
The correct answer is that the compressive force is entirely due to h̶a̶n̶s̶d̶a̶'̶s̶ ̶l̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶v̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ the HWAGBOACLOK Conjecture.

 

[exchemist]

This is what I've been trying to tell him. Maybe he'll hear you.

An observer on the Moon is currently observing no relative motion with us, thus they see no length contraction her eon Earth.
Simultaneously, an observer on a fleeing rogue planet is currently observing us moving at relativistic velocities - and therefore sees us compressed.
How could we be both experiencing the Hansda Compressive Force and not experiencing it at the same time?

It's a rhetorical question, for Hansda's benefit.
The correct answer is that the compressive force is entirely due to h̶a̶n̶s̶d̶a̶'̶s̶ ̶l̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶v̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ the HWAGBOACLOK Conjecture.

You too, huh? Well, we've tried.

 

[James R]

hasnda:

With relativistic time, there is a possibility of time dilation. But in Newtonian Model, there is no such time dilation.

Time dilation is amply confirmed by many experiments, so NM is wrong.

Do you imply that the Nature has only four types of forces and no new types of forces can be discovered ?

No. It's possible that a new force could be discovered. I'm not aware of any need for one right now, though.

So a new type of force can be associated with the dark energy.

Maybe, although as I understand it the description is kind of already built into general relativity. Unfortunately, GR doesn't really explain the underlying physical cause for the "dark energy".

So, Newtonian Model(NM) is not 100% wrong.

Of course not. Newtonian physics works fine for many purposes. It's a phenomenally successful physical theory, even if it is not entirely correct. The important thing is to realise its limits.

This implies some hidden forces in NM.

Expert opinion, backed by evidence, suggests that it is far more likely that NM is wrong.

So, length contraction is not optical. Its real and physical.

It's not optical.

If "compressive force" is confirmed experimentally; will you accept this or not?

Sure. A scientist should always be ready to revise his view in the light of new evidence.

But you need to explain why you're not feeling a compressive force right now as you sit in your chair. After all, from the point of view of somebody at the centre of our galaxy, you're moving along at 200 km/s in that frame of reference. And we could easily go to another frame in which you are moving at 200,000 km/s, yet you still feel no compressive force.

You also need to explain why you think a change of somebody's point of view (reference frame) could suddenly produce a force that wasn't there before the observer changed his state of motion.

Wherever time-dilation is observed, this compressive force can be observed in NM.

I thought you said there was no time dilation in your NM.

In NM(Newtonian Model) this compressive force can be considered as the cause for time dilation.

Isn't time dilation a purely relativistic effect?

 

[The God]

It seems that The God has abandoned this thread. Or, more accurately, run away.

No, it is just that I needed a desktop to make use of some earlier discussion.

Your assertion "anything which is tensor is GR", is simply wrong. Details later on when I sit on my desk.

 

[hansda]

hasnda:


Time dilation is amply confirmed by many experiments, so NM is wrong.

Here with the terms "time dilation" I wanted to mean that time is uniform in NM. Seems you are not getting the "problem of time". Why do you think, it is difficult to reconcile QM with GR.

No. It's possible that a new force could be discovered. I'm not aware of any need for one right now, though.

OK. That is your perception.

Maybe, although as I understand it the description is kind of already built into general relativity. Unfortunately, GR doesn't really explain the underlying physical cause for the "dark energy".

So dark energy is hidden energy which may cause a hidden force.

Of course not. Newtonian physics works fine for many purposes. It's a phenomenally successful physical theory, even if it is not entirely correct. The important thing is to realise its limits.

GR also has its limits.

Expert opinion, backed by evidence, suggests that it is far more likely that NM is wrong.

I am not able to understand this statement well, as to what you are trying to say.

It's not optical.

OK.

Sure. A scientist should always be ready to revise his view in the light of new evidence.

Good. You are open to change.

But you need to explain why you're not feeling a compressive force right now as you sit in your chair. After all, from the point of view of somebody at the centre of our galaxy, you're moving along at 200 km/s in that frame of reference. And we could easily go to another frame in which you are moving at 200,000 km/s, yet you still feel no compressive force.

You also need to explain why you think a change of somebody's point of view (reference frame) could suddenly produce a force that wasn't there before the observer changed his state of motion.

We can wait, till the experimental verification of this force.

I thought you said there was no time dilation in your NM.

Here by the terms "time dilation" I meant slowing down of a clock.

Isn't time dilation a purely relativistic effect?

Time-dilation or slowing down of a clock is a relativistic effect. It is a natural phenomena which can be interpreted by any model of physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

We can wait, till the experimental verification of this force.

We are verifying this every single moment. You, hansda, are verifying it as you read this.

Some entity is sitting on a fast-moving planet with their telescope right now, observing us moving away from them at .9c. According to your hypothesis, you should be feeling compressed to half your height right now.

Yet you - sitting at your computer right now - do not feel such a compressive force, squishing you to half your height.


Your hypothesis - without needing any evidence to refute it - is self-contradictory.

 

[hansda]

Some entity is sitting on a fast-moving planet with their telescope right now, observing us moving away from them at .9c. According to your hypothesis, you should be feeling compressed to half your height right now.

If there is length contraction, there will be a compressive force. If there is no length contraction, there will be no compressive force.

 

[origin]

If there is length contraction, there will be a compressive force. If there is no length contraction, there will be no compressive force.

Is it your belief that if you state a falsehood enough times that it will become true?
I am pretty sure that is not how the world works.

 

[DaveC426913]

If there is length contraction, there will be a compressive force. If there is no length contraction, there will be no compressive force.

And what if there is simultaneously length compression and no length compression - as seen by two different observers in two different moving frames of reference?

This is something that is observed.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is it your belief that if you state a falsehood enough times that it will become true?

I think it's worse than stating a falsehood.
He simply doesn't understand the length compression as-observed.
He is totally not grasping the relativity of frames of reference.

Hansda: You are standing on Earth, minding your own business. I fly by Earth at .9c.
I observe you as compressed by 50%. (This is experimentally verified.)

Tell me, does my flying by you 200 miles up cause you to experience a compressive force, shrinking you to half your width in the direction of my travel?
If you were lying in bed and didn't see me fly by, would you suddenly wake up in excruciating pain because you're being squished to only 2.75 feet tall?