new physics model

[RJBeery]

The "look" of the paper stems from the fact that I don't publish in journals, and I don't claim this to be a contender for such. To try mimicking the style of other papers in hopes of lending credibility to my model is cargo cultish and does not interest me. I try to support my model with reasoning and mathematics (e.g. look at the twin paradox section). I try to support the subjectivity in the paper with an appeal to aesthetics.

You also presume that this is the only forum I've posted in, which it certainly is not. This is the forum which I expected the least amount of intellectual sincerity and maturity from but any substantive comments about the paper or the model, from any source, can usually be turned into something constructive.

 

[paddoboy]

You also presume that this is the only forum I've posted in, which it certainly is not. This is the forum which I expected the least amount of intellectual sincerity and maturity from but any substantive comments about the paper or the model, from any source, can usually be turned into something constructive.

Forums such as this are for discussion. No one, except no one will ever change, invalidate or falsify any mainstream theory from any science forum.
To believe otherwise is foolish.

if you are sincere in seeking a reconciliation between macro and micro, what you should be doing is talking to professionals in the field, not posting to a science forum asking for feedback from random sources that can't be validated.

 

[origin]

This is the forum which I expected the least amount of intellectual sincerity and maturity

I think your paper is poo-poo.

 

[The God]

Forums such as this are for discussion. No one, except no one will ever change, invalidate or falsify any mainstream theory from any science forum.
To believe otherwise is foolish.

I disagree...

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The "look" of the paper stems from the fact that I don't publish in journals, and I don't claim this to be a contender for such. To try mimicking the style of other papers in hopes of lending credibility to my model is cargo cultish and does not interest me.

RJBeery,
it's not about the "look" ... it's about the data, details, and references. it's about the evidence. i suppose this should have been spelled out to you, but i assumed (wrongly) you would understand what i meant because i've been harping on evidence, references etc.

i assumed your education would take you to the important parts of the paper. not the "look" of the paper.

that is my mistake.

I try to support my model with reasoning and mathematics (e.g. look at the twin paradox section)

all fine and dandy for a hypothesis, but science is about more than speculation. if you want to stick with speculation, stick to philosophy. that is where you'll be safe from any threatening argument to your paper.

You also presume that this is the only forum I've posted in, which it certainly is not

I already told you: i presume nothing.
need i quote that back to you? to insure clarity, i will:

2- i am presuming nothing. i base my arguments on evidence.

everything i stated is based upon the evidence i see in this thread, in your paper, in your discussions and on your profile page

period

This is the forum which I expected the least amount of intellectual sincerity and maturity

1- this is not the original forum thread you chose. it has been moved. see comment below

the posting section is Forums > Science > Physics & Math, therefore it is not a place for fringe alternative dissertations

I copied and pasted that from the top ... it is the reason there is a link on the comment

2- the original thread (as noted above) means you either consider evidence and science minded people to be immature with your claim of "expected the least amount of intellectual sincerity and maturity" or that you listed the "model" as a means to intentionally troll or piss off the science folk. the thread it is now in is pseudoscience, the place where immaturity tends to reign supreme.

BTW, this is more of what i call "evidence" that is telling as to your motivation or intent.

i find it interesting that you would choose such ... erm... descriptive wording for those you've asked for "feedback".

... just sayin'

any substantive comments about the paper or the model, from any source, can usually be turned into something constructive

yes and no
it depends a lot on what you want to do with it

....hmmm.....

lets look at some interesting facts:
-you chose a science thread

Forums > Science > Physics & Math

-then you posted your beliefs (you have no real evidence or even a means to validate your "model")

-you worded it in such a manner as to intentionally bait the knowledgable by calling it a "model" - a specific term in science

the first draft of a physics model

-you asked for feedback

feedback / criticism / questions / comments, etc.

-you essentially called all those who gave feedback immature

This is the forum which I expected the least amount of intellectual sincerity and maturity from

so what is it that you are really seeking?
attention?
a flame war?
are you just baiting to see who bites?
do you want someone to take your parents place and tell you how smart you are?
or do you really want to write up a physics model?

so far the evidence points to the first few, not the latter...

I disagree...

The God

a forum is a great place to learn... if you're able to differentiate the BS from real science. pseudoscience tactics often intermingle the two for a reason... it makes it harder to separate fact from bullsh*t. if this were a collegiate forum and there were standards for membership and discourse, then you would have a far better argument. but there isn't standards for membership... nor is there a requirement to even be accurate (which is a serious faux pas in science - it is why a study is far harder to get published than, say, a book about angels - https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n:25,k:Angels )


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

 

[paddoboy]

I disagree...

Disagree all you like...the proof of the pudding and all that jazz.
Or perhaps you can give us all an example of where it has happened?
Even your "friend/colleague/brother" is proof of that fact over at Cosmoquest.

 

[RJBeery]

TCS, it's well known that sciforums has gone down hill in terms of quality contributing members. It didn't used to be like this, I've been posting on here for a decade and I've watched it happen.

Anyway I appreciate all of the advice but a conversation doesn't interest me unless it's about the model as defined in the paper. You asking for "evidence" implies that you have not read the paper. Under the twin paradox section I show that considering velocity as the cause of time dilation and acceleration / distance as the cause of time dilation are equivalent. They are mathematically equal, so evidence supporting SR also supports this model. This is differentiated by gravitational time dilation, though, and I mention this under "Model Predictions".

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

RJBeery
so it seems that what you really want is attention and someone to say how intelligent you are. well... so long as you're posting pseudoscience that aint gonna happen (or at least, it will not come from people who actually know anything about physics, math, science or reality in general)

you argue that you don't want conversation but you also are ignoring the important information that would help you fix your "model".

are you attempting to build a cult and establish yourself as the new "realitycheck" or "zephyr" of the internet?
because that is exactly where this is going...

TCS, it's well known that sciforums has gone down hill in terms of quality contributing members. It didn't used to be like this, I've been posting on here for a decade and I've watched it happen.

so long as you're willing to ignore the scientific method and support the others who also do that then you can blame yourself for being part of the problem
especially when you intentionally target the science thread with pseudoscience or philosophy

science aint about free speech - it's about the evidence.

it don't matter if you make a pretty paper, talk good, truly believe in your point or argue fervently if you can't actually produce the evidence required. (grammatical irregularities intentional for purposes of impact - just in case you didn't get it)

but a conversation doesn't interest me unless it's about the model as defined in the paper. You asking for "evidence" implies that you have not read the paper

i read enough

what you're doing is attempting to reconcile the macro with the micro.
more to the point, you've listed statements that imply relativity isn't factual. what you have not done in said paper is prove this. you don't offer any explanation for relativity being wrong because you're not aware of the thousands (or more) of experiments that validate relativity.
as "god" noted:

You have squarely rejected time dilation based on relative speed.

you offer absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that this is potentially true, nor do you provide a testable means to prove your own statements (you only CLAIM that the evidence supports your argument...). more to the point, you've entirely ignored reality and the tested relativity experiments while doing this

by definition this is pseudoscience and a load of crap-o-la, as Toad noted. (do i need to quote that one too?)

that is why i have been attempting to get you to pull your head out of your [expletive deleted] and learn something about the facts before you attempt to try this again

so YES, i am not being specific... because you are not being specific.

a "model" is a means of making something easier understood or learning more about something... it is often used as a means of testing a hypothesis or conjecture to establish a proof of concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

you have not published a "model"... you've published your "thoughts" on relativity and the micro/macro

Under the twin paradox section I show that considering velocity as the cause of time dilation and acceleration / distance as the cause of time dilation are equivalent.

no, you haven't

before you can "show" that one, you must first establish a means to refute or redefine the already known of relativity. (PROTIP - it's "known" because of experiments that validate relativity, not just because the math says so... therefore you will have an uphill battle establishing why it is "not" relativity)

you have not done that ... nor have you provided a means to redefine relativity, it's experiments, knowns or established knowledge

They are mathematically equal, so evidence supporting SR also supports this model.

and yet they're not equal.

just because the math works out nice doesn't mean it's equal. even more importantly, science advances on knowledge that is better or more able to accurately predict something. your model does NOT do that.

why did GR/SR replace Newtonian mechanics?
because it was better able to explain or predict. this is important to remember: until you can provide something that is better able to predict, define or explain the universe than GR/SR then you are not doing anything other than exercising your right to futility and nonsensical musing.

the whole reason GR/SR is so effective is that it does consider issues that Newtonian mechanics does not. therefore if you want to supplant it you must be far, far better and more accurate in your own explanations.

you aren't



so again: until you go back to the drawing board and learn the basics (and that will include being versed in the topics you wish to supplant... ) then you're posting pseudoscience.

 

[RJBeery]

just because the math works out nice doesn't mean it's equal

That is exactly what it means.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

That is exactly what it means.

ahem...

I tried to make the case that inertial relative velocity would produce apparent (but illusory) time dilation as predicted by SR, but it isn't relevant anyway because declaring it illusory until acceleration is involved is technically an unfalsifiable position.

are you using a new a-typical definition for "equal" ?

perhaps i should reiterate this:

so again: until you go back to the drawing board and learn the basics (and that will include being versed in the topics you wish to supplant... ) then you're posting pseudoscience.

 

[RJBeery]

I wrote the following:

Regardless, framing time dilation in terms of acceleration and distance is preferable in this model for a variety of reasons:

First, it aligns with our rejection of velocity as being a cause of time dilation. Any experiment in the absence of acceleration would reduce gamma to unity as evidenced by any of the equations above.

Technically speaking, the claim that time dilation due to velocity (in the absence of acceleration) is not a testable position anyway so considering it illusory is a matter of choice.

On the other hand, a rotating object or one in a gravitational field can display time dilation with respect to another clock with which it has no relative velocity.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Technically speaking, the claim that time dilation due to velocity (in the absence of acceleration) is not a testable position anyway so considering it illusory is a matter of choice.

Assume three identically constructed clocks, A, B, and C. Let A and B be stationary with respect to each other, a very large distance apart, and synchronised to each other.

Assume clock C is in uniform translatory motion, and it passes clock A at a very close distance which allows clock A to record the time displayed on clock C in the instant it passes by, as well as recording its own displayed time in that instant.

Assume clock C continues in uniform translatory motion until it passes clock B, again at a very close distance, which allows clock B to record the time displayed on clock C in the instant it passes by, as well as recording its own displayed time in that instant.

Now let the times recorded by A and B be transmitted to someplace where they can be compared. SR says that the time difference between the two recorded times displayed on clock C will be less than the time difference between the recorded times displayed on clock A and clock B. Yet clock C never accelerated.

Would you still call this "illusory"?

 

[RJBeery]

Assume three identically constructed clocks, A, B, and C. Let A and B be stationary with respect to each other, a very large distance apart, and synchronised to each other.

Assume clock C is in uniform translatory motion, and it passes clock A at a very close distance which allows clock A to record the time displayed on clock C in the instant it passes by, as well as recording its own displayed time in that instant.

Assume clock C continues in uniform translatory motion until it passes clock B, again at a very close distance, which allows clock B to record the time displayed on clock C in the instant it passes by, as well as recording its own displayed time in that instant.

Now let the times recorded by A and B be transmitted to someplace where they can be compared. SR says that the time difference between the two recorded times displayed on clock C will be less than the time difference between the recorded times displayed on clock A and clock B. Yet clock C never accelerated.

Would you still call this "illusory"?

This is good! But the problem here is the three "identically constructed clocks" which are "synchronised to each other". At the moment of synchronization, C will not agree that B is synchronized with A and C. In order for this to be possible, C needs to start at rest.

 

[Neddy Bate]

This is good! But the problem here is the three "identically constructed clocks" which are "synchronised to each other". At the moment of synchronization, C will not agree that B is synchronized with A and C. In order for this to be possible, C needs to start at rest.

Thanks! Only A and B need to be synchronised to each other. C does not need any synchronisation, but it must of identical construction as the others.

 

[RJBeery]

Thanks! Only A and B need to be synchronised to each other. C does not need any synchronisation, but it must of identical construction as the others.

Any way you slice it you will find that A and B will reach a conclusion which C does not agree with. Let's say they all meet up at a bar after the experiment. A and B proclaim that they have "proven" that C's velocity made his clock run more slowly. C will reply with "That's absurd. Both of your clocks were running slower than mine and when you supposedly synched them you were actually setting B's into the future. Of course you got skewed results."

 

[Neddy Bate]

Any way you slice it you will find that A and B will reach a conclusion which C does not agree with. Let's say they all meet up at a bar after the experiment. A and B proclaim that they have "proven" that C's velocity made his clock run more slowly. C will reply with "That's absurd. Both of your clocks were running slower than mine and when you supposedly synched them you were actually setting B's into the future. Of course you got skewed results."

Yes, clock C would say that. But what is the reason that C would give for the other two clocks running slower, their velocity or their acceleration? None of the clocks accelerated, so that's not really a sensible option. So my question to you is, do you consider the recorded times to be "illusory?" Note that all clocks agree that the recorded times were the actual times displayed in the instant they were recorded.

 

[RJBeery]

Yes, clock C would say that. But what is the reason that C would give for the other two clocks running slower, their velocity or their acceleration? None of the clocks accelerated, so that's not really a sensible option. So my question to you is, do you consider the recorded times to be "illusory?" Note that all clocks agree that the recorded times were the actual times displayed in the instant they were recorded.

C would not agree that A and B were synched in any way so A's inclusion in the experiment is nonsensical from his perspective. The only thing he could say is that B's clock appeared to be slow. Did you see the picture on page 9 with the rotated rulers?

 

[Dr_Toad]

Why don't you have children with Farsight or something?

 

[Neddy Bate]

C would not agree that A and B were synched in any way so A's inclusion in the experiment is nonsensical from his perspective. The only thing he could say is that B's clock appeared to be slow. Did you see the picture on page 9 with the rotated rulers?

If C understands Einstein's clock synch procedure, then C would understand exactly how A and B were synchronised, and therefore C would understand that A and B are synchronous in their own frame, but not in the frame of C. Furthermore, C would be free to use the same procedure to synchronise itself with another clock stationary with respect to itself, perhaps called D. Then the C/D pair could record the times on A and/or B in the same way that the A/B pair can record the times on C and/or D. Then, when they all meet up at the bar later, they would all agree that time dilation occurred for the relatively moving clock(s), that time dilation was reciprocal between the two reference frames, and that time dilation must be the result of relative velocity rather than acceleration (which would have no place at all in this particular thought experiment).

Note that none of these recorded times are the result of appearance, but rather they all follow from Einstein's clock synch procedure, and the postulate that the speed of light is the same constant in both the A/B frame as it is in the C/D frame. The recorded times would not be distorted by appearance in any way -- they would be real times on real clocks.

If you can suggest a better method for synchronising clocks than Einstein's, then you might have something, but calling it all "illusory" just makes you look like you don't understand SR fully. Yes I saw the picture on page 9, and you also make a mistake there by conflating length contraction with the Penrose-Terrell effect. The latter is an appearance but the former is not.

 

[RJBeery]

...Then, when they all meet up at the bar later, they would all agree that time dilation occurred for the relatively moving clock(s), that time dilation was reciprocal between the two reference frames, and that time dilation must be the result of relative velocity rather than acceleration (which would have no place at all in this particular thought experiment).

This isn't right. A/B and C/D would agree that time dilation appeared to have occurred but they would insist that it occurred "for the other guy". You seem to be trying to make that case that time dilation occurred "somewhere," therefore it indeed occurred in some absolute sense, but that simply isn't possible because their respective proclamations are literally contradictory. "You're shorter than me and I'm shorter than you, therefore shortening has occurred in some absolute sense, " is a statement which is absurd. The only answer is that shortening (or time dilation) did not occur at all.

If you can suggest a better method for synchronising clocks than Einstein's, then you might have something, but calling it all "illusory" just makes you look like you don't understand SR fully. Yes I saw the picture on page 9, and you also make a mistake there by conflating length contraction with the Penrose-Terrell effect. The latter is an appearance but the former is not.

This is false. The Penrose-Terrell effect has superseded length contraction as the predicted visual effect of motion, which is exactly why I used it in the analogy. It's what we "see", but we can calculate that it's an illusion.

For images of passing objects, the apparent contraction of distances between points on the object's transverse surface could then be interpreted as being due to an apparent change in viewing angle, and the image of the object could be interpreted as appearing instead to be rotated. A previously-popular description of special relativity's predictions, in which an observer sees a passing object to be contracted (for instance, from a sphere to a flattened ellipsoid), was wrong.

The fact that you consider the Penrose-Terrell effect to be an appearance but length contraction to be an actual physical phenomenon would demand a preferred frame. I don't think mainstream Physics would agree with you on this point.