Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[yevaud]

Is it, are you 100% correct or you just accept it for what it is?

I do understand that you've stated you are a reader and a bit of a novice in the realm of science. So allow me to explain one core scientific dictum: if you have a hypothesis that contradicts known - and proven, workable - science, then the onus is upon you to disprove the accepted science, not to keep requesting everyone else continue to re-explain what's known and accepted in defense.

Sorry, but that merely is how it is.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...What happens to C near a compact matter 5 times the density of a nucleus of an atom?

C is around 300,000 kps. As a speed sign, of course. In the real world, light is subject to influences that make kps a bit more ephemeral. But, I would assume that light would continue at around 300,000 kps until otherwise influenced in accords with Relativity.

Falsify the idea that speed of light is a constant, under definitions outlined by Relativity, and Einstein will be shown to be wrong and Relativity nothing more than an interesting explanation that seems to have survived simply because it rested on assumptions that just happened to fit the observed results to several decimal points in countless experiments. A very improbable prospect, to be sure.

But, if that is the case, as you seem to be implying, what is your explanation for the observed results and equations that seem to work just fine explaining them?

 

[yevaud]

^ Precisely ^

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

The speed of light is constant in a zone not influenced by matter.

That I agree

 

[a_lost_packet_]

G'day

The speed of light is constant in a zone not influenced by matter.

That I agree

Then, are you saying that it differs depending upon the influence of matter? If so, what is the mechanism involved? Is this mechanism at odds with those defined by Relativity?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day a lost packet

Please explain what you mean.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Is the Special Theory of Relativity Wrong?
http://www.webspawner.com/users/relativity/

Author: Greg Alexander
Date: 17 Sept 2003

These days it would appear that the Special Theory of Relativity was beyond any form of doubt however I have a theoretical proof that would strongly suggest that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Indeed the proof is so straight forward it is a wonder so many supposedly acute minds have previously overlooked it. The proof runs as follows :

If an observer with velocity v heads towards a beam of light one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the light beam would have been c + v. However according to the Special Theory of Relativity because time slows down and length decreases with velocity, the measured velocity of the beam would still be c. In other words a change in space and time for the observer slowed the new velocity of c + v back down to c again. However if the observer now heads in the opposite direction with the same velocity one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the beam without any relativistic effects, would now be c – v. But on this occasion a change in space and time for the observer would have to increase the measured velocity of light, the exact opposite of the case with c + v. But how could this be if time slows and length decreases with velocity, for the opposite to occur one would have expected that time would have needed to have speeded up and length increased? However both cannot be the case so therefore the speed of light could not remain constant when an observer’s velocity changed with respect to either magnitude or direction.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

G'day a lost packet

Please explain what you mean.

You had written: "...The speed of light is constant in a zone not influenced by matter. That I agree"

So, that would imply, based on previous postings, that you would say the speed of light is effected by the presence of matter (I assume you mean "mass" here but, that may not be the case.)

If that is so and you seem to believe there is a fundamental problem with Einstein's explanation of why this is so, then what mechanisms do you propose happen to effect the same experimental results but which would falsify the basis for Einstein's theories?

After all, mechanisms are everything. You can't have a credible explanation for an observed effect without one. Is yours different from Einstein's and how so?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

G'day

Is the Special Theory of Relativity Wrong?
http://www.webspawner.com/users/relativity/

Author: Greg Alexander
Date: 17 Sept 2003

These days it would appear that the Special Theory of Relativity was beyond any form of doubt however I have a theoretical proof that would strongly suggest that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Indeed the proof is so straight forward it is a wonder so many supposedly acute minds have previously overlooked it. The proof runs as follows :

If an observer with velocity v heads towards a beam of light one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the light beam would have been c + v. However according to the Special Theory of Relativity because time slows down and length decreases with velocity, the measured velocity of the beam would still be c. In other words a change in space and time for the observer slowed the new velocity of c + v back down to c again. However if the observer now heads in the opposite direction with the same velocity one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the beam without any relativistic effects, would now be c – v. But on this occasion a change in space and time for the observer would have to increase the measured velocity of light, the exact opposite of the case with c + v. But how could this be if time slows and length decreases with velocity, for the opposite to occur one would have expected that time would have needed to have speeded up and length increased? However both cannot be the case so therefore the speed of light could not remain constant when an observer’s velocity changed with respect to either magnitude or direction.

Someone trying to explain Relativity without understanding the definition of the word "Relative?"

 

[MeteorWayne]

And from a website where any kind of unscientific garbage can be posted (see many threads here in the unexplained for examples)....

 

[yevaud]

Precisely so. If one is going to grieve what has been rigorously experimentally confirmed multiple times, then one must have some solid basis for stating so and some alternative hypothesis. Otherwise, all that's being said and done is stating "I object."

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

If you think it has been proven then supply the proof.

Or we continue with the same.

I have seen this through out history.

 

[csmyth3025]

G'day

People do not understand relativity let alone science.

The two clocks have been around for sometime and have been proven wrong. Now do a bit of research and find out why.

Yes the times on the clocks were different and yet there is an explanation. I hope the following links may explain.

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

and

Shedding Light On Time:
Learning and Teaching Difficult Concepts
Rick Garlikov
http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/time

and

http://comp.uark.edu/~davewall/Molly/sp ... tivity.htm

Harry,

I really wonder if you actually read any of the material in the links you post. In the first link the author allows that observations have verified the predictions of Special Relativity and he then goes on a rant about how thought experiments can't produce any predictions. The other two links support Relativistic time dilation - and yet you say:

"... The two clocks have been around for sometime and have been proven wrong...."

Please post a link supporting your claim. I'm sure the owners and operators of the Global Positioning Satellites, the military forces of just about every country in the world, and the millions of us that have a GPS in our cell phones or in our cars would be keenly interested.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Chris

What is your point?

Do you think you can change time?

Good luck

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Rather then take my word for it read up. Once sec, I remember a paper!!!!!

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501131
Einstein's concept of a clock and clock paradox

Authors: Wang Guowen
(Submitted on 25 Jan 2005)

Abstract: A geometric illustration of the Lorentz transformations is given. According to similarity between space and time and correspondence between a ruler and a clock, like the division number in a moving ruler, the tick number of a moving clock is independent of its relative speed and hence invariant under the Lorentz transformations. So the hand of the moving clock never runs slow but the time interval between its two consecutive ticks contracts. Thus it is Einstein's concept of slowing of the hands of moving clocks to create the clock paradox or twin paradox. Regrettably, the concept of the clock that Einstein retained is equivalent to Newton's concept of absolute time that he rejected. This is a blemish in Einstein's otherwise perfect special relativity.

5 Conclusion
We have seen that, like the division number in a moving ruler, the tick number of a
moving clock is independent of its relative speed and hence invariant under the Lorentz
transformations. So the hand of the moving clock never runs slow but the time interval
between its two consecutive ticks contracts. Thus it is Einstein’s concept of slowing of
the hands of moving clocks to create the clock paradox or twin paradox. Regrettably,
his way to measure time  is identical with Newton’s. In other words, the concept of
the clock that he retained is equivalent to Newton’s concept of absolute time that he
rejected.
Similar to the clock’s ticking, the heart beating of the travelling twin never runs really
slow but according to special relativity the beating period between two consecutive
beats contracts. Since the human lifetime may be considered as being basically determined
by the total number of the heart beats, no one of the twins will become younger
than the other when they reunite. Thus, the general relativity is not required to resolve
the twin paradox. It is Einstein’s assertion of slowing of the hands of moving clocks to
create the paradox and hencemake many physicists believe slowing of all physical processes
with the increased speed, including chemistry reactions, nuclear reactions, life
process and others. This is a blemish in Einstein’s otherwise perfect special relativity.
Finally, the author would say that if the present conclusion is correct, it will prohibits
us from believing the assertion that some related experiments [8,9] have confirmed
the Einstein’s prediction of slowing of moving clocks that creates the clock
paradox.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

This paper is about 75 pages, so I will post the ABS and the conclusion.

Langevin's `Twin Paradox' paper revisited
Authors: J.H.Field
(Submitted on 21 Nov 2008)

Abstract: An in-depth and mathematically-detailed analysis of Langevin's popular 1911 article on the special theory of relativity is presented. For the reader's convenience, English translations of large parts of the original French text are given. The self-contradictory nature of many of Langevin's assertions is pointed out. Of special interest is the analysis of the exchange of light signals between the travelling and stay-at-home twins in Langevin's thought experiment, in which antinomies are found in the conventional relativistic treatment. Their resolution shows that the physical basis of the differential aging effect in the experiment is not `length contraction', as in the conventional interpretation, but instead the application of the correct relative velocity transformation formula. The spurious nature of the correlated `length contraction' and `relativity of simultaneity' effects of conventional special relativity is also demonstrated. In consequence, an argument given, claiming to demonstrate that an upper limit of $c$ on the speed of any physical signal is required by causality, is invalid. Its conclusion is also in contradiction with astronomical observations and the results of a recent experiment.

The essential idea which Langevin attempted to communicate in Ref. [1], in simple
language, without the use of mathematics, is both important and correct—a revolutionary
change in the commonsense concept of time, required by special relativity, and exemplified
in a graphical way by the differential aging that occurs in the travelling-twin thought
experiment —the travelling twin ages less than the stay-at-home one. However, there were
many errors, some purely logical (self-contradictory statements) others of a conceptual
nature, in Langevin’s account, which it is instructive to divide into two categories:
(a) Those that require a deeper and novel (for 1911) understanding of physics for their
resolution
(b) Those that require, for their correction, only the knowledge of physics which already
existed in 1911
To completely resolve the apparent antithesis between classical mechanics and classical
electrodynamics emphasised by Langevin, two ingredients were necessary: firstly, relativistic
mechanics which, following the work of Einstein [7], Planck [6], Poincar´e [11] and
Minkowski [12] was aleady well-known at the time Langevin’s paper was written, and,
secondly, QED, yet to be discovered at that time. Essentially all of Langevin’s other
logical errors and misconceptions fall into the category (b). The evident contradiction between
the mechanical-aether model of light propagation by contact interactions, asserted
to be physically correct by Langevin, and Einstein’s second postulate of special relativity
as well as the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment [10] is not remarked upon. Unnoticed
also is Einstein’s related remark on the superfluous nature of the aether concept.
Following Einstein [7] and assuming the existence of the RS effect Langevin adduces a
logically-correct argument that derives a maximum signal speed equal to that of light from
the requirement of causality (that no observer can see an effect occur before its cause).
This conclusion is invalidated since, as explained in Section 2 above, RS does not exist
when LT equations describing correctly synchronised clocks different spatial locations are
used.
Langevin does not discuss the physical mechanism underlying TD and the differential
aging effect, but since he asserts the existence of the LC effect and that the observed
velocity of a light signal in a space-time experiment transforms according to the PVAR,
the spatial configuration in the rest frame, S’, of T, of the light signals sent from the
Earth, is that shown in Fig. 7d. If Langevin has actually drawn and inspected this figure
in 1911 (as he could well have done) he could have noted the following facts:
(I) The number of signals received by T from the Earth is different in S and S’.
50
(II) At the end of the journey, the first light signal sent from the the Earth is in spatial
coincidence with S2 in S and with S3 in S’.
(III) The frequency of the signals recorded by T in S’ (given by Eq. (3.30)) is different
to the value, as correctly calculated by Langevin for the configuration in Fig. 7c in
S, for γ = 100, on assuming the TD effect, (Eq (3.11)).
The fact (II) is in violation of the postulate (iii) stating that simultaneous events in spatiotemporal
coincidence in one inertial frame, are simultaneous in all such frames. This
postulate is a corollary of Langevin’s correct assertion that spatio-temporal coincidence
events must exist at corresponding epochs in all frames of reference.
If Langevin had noticed the contradictions apparent in Fig. 7 he might have been
lead to reflect on the physical characteristics of clocks, which, no different to the present
day, had, in 1911, a setting (epoch) completely under the control of the experimeter
using them, and which ran at a rate determined by the physics of the clock mechanism,
not controlled by the experimenter [16]. If Langevin had read carefully Einstein’s 1905
paper [7] and noted the important passage concerning the additive constants in the LT
to correctly describe synchronised clocks at different spatial locations, he might have
obtained Eqs. (2.48)-(2.50) and realised that the RS and LC effects (but not TD) are
spurious, due to a simple confusion of the offset of a desynchronised clock with a physical
time interval [16].
What the present author finds amazing is that, if, in the discussion of Fig. 7 just given,
the word ‘Langevin’ is replaced by ‘any physicist’ it remains valid and relevant today and
was so throughout the 20th Century! As shown in Table 1 above, RS and LC are indeed
the rigorous mathematical predictions derived from certain projection operations on the
generic LT (2.4)-(2.6) (see Table 1). The problem is, that these equations do not, as has
been universally assumed to be the case, describe a synchronised clock at an arbitary
spatial position. It is simply a question of using equations that correctly describe the
actual (but arbitary and completely controllable) initial conditions of the problem.
In conclusion, Langevin’s conceptual errors of the category (b) are the same ones
that are to be found in all text books and all the pedagogical literature on the theory of
special relativity (with, to his present best knowledge, the exception only of the work of
the present author since 2004) since its inception in 1905.

 

[csmyth3025]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Rather then take my word for it read up. Once sec, I remember a paper!!!!!

I would like to hear your "word" on a single claim you've made. You make a claim and then link to an abstract which - often as not - contradicts the very claim you've made. Please pick a specific subject - time dilation described by Special Relativity is fine by me - and present some sort of coherent argument for your views in your own words.

Chris

 

[yevaud]

G'day

If you think it has been proven then supply the proof.

Or we continue with the same.

I have seen this through out history.

With all due respect, Harry, that's not how the scientific method works; it's not how these forums work either. You're asking people to re-explain all of science for your benefit, because you have objections to it.

Ain't going to happen.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Then you can do your own research and reading. The information is out there, we live in the modern ERA.

Such a simple issue as the Twin Paradox.

I do not ask for people to research for my benefit.

You can search on arXiv or ADS or what ever, it is for your own benefit.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0704.2736
Twin Paradox and Causality

Authors: T. Grandou, J.L. Rubin
(Submitted on 20 Apr 2007)

Abstract: After pointing out the historical avatar at the origin of a would be twin or clock paradox, we argue that, at least on a local scale, the (re-qualified) paradox is but a necessary consequence of the sole principle of causality.

V. CONCLUSION
Since it was launched by P. Langevin in 1911 (and was indeed explicit in the Einstein’s
1905 famous article), the twin paradox proper framework was soon identified with general
relativity theory, because of accelerations to be considered along a twin worldline, at least.
This point of view was adopted by Einstein and supported by M. Planck. However, it has long
been recognized to be at fault, for both theoretical and experimental reasons (22). In particular,
accelerations can be consistently dealt with in flat spacetime manifolds, and should no way
be mistaken for gravitation (15). Moreover, the argument based on accelerations can also be
circumvented, so as to bring the paradox back to its original special relativity birthplace (23).
In this article, our intention has been to look for the principle at the origin of a so counterintuitive,
but established fact as “the non-trivial differential aging phenomenon”. And to this
end, it was certainly appropriate to look for such a principle in the simpler structure where
the phenomenon is manifest, that is, over the local scale of a Minkowski spacetime manifold.
If gravity, as described in general relativity, is responsible for another source of nontrivial
differential aging contributing on the same footing as special relativity effects in some
situations, a would be twin paradoxical case, in its conventional acceptation at least, is not a
natural issue of the general relativity framework (24). Two essential reasons may be proposed.
#NAME?
of the hybrid nature of special relativity standard formalisms, where the paradox was first
conceived, discussed and confused with the (full reciprocity of) special relativity (non-invariant)
perspective effects. As such, it has no natural expression in the general relativity formalism.
14
A flavour of this can be grasped out of the twin paradox resolution proposed, in this context,
by H. Reichenbach (25).
#NAME?
possible twin paradox content gets translated into the pseudo-Riemannian theorems mentioned
in the introduction; that is, in terms of the geometrical properties of the spacetime manifoldM.
And indeed, the same explanation is proposed here for the twin paradox, at the more
local scale of a Minkowski spacetime manifold, M.
The twin paradox, in effect, has first been re-qualified into the path-functional dependence
of proper-time lapses, while preserving the name, so as to keep in touch with the historical
terminology. The paths are continuous timelike curves which, in virtue of a famous theorem,
completely “encodes” the geometrical, differential and topological structures of M (26). This
is why the “the non-trivial differential aging phenomenon” can, likewise, be thought of as a
property of the Minkowski spacetime geometry.
In the end, causality revealed to be the principle, and the only one, from which the (requalified)
twin paradox and the somewhat correlated Thomas-Wigner rotations come from.
Ten years ago, causality was advocated to provide a global constraint on the possible twins
histories, labelled, each, by some experimental/theoretical synchronization device (2).
Now, more than an overall constraint on the twin’s histories, one can see here, how the sole
principle of causality stands at the very source of the twin paradox. That is, how preservation
of causality along continuous timelike worldlines necessarily involves a functional dependence
of proper-time lapses on the paths themselves.
That space and time should be considered as melt into a one and single spacetime entity
is, definitely, a most salient feature of relativity theories. That this necessity comes from the
need of providing causality with a sound enough support is, we think, a remarkable fact. It
would seem to point to the requirement for History to be meaningful, in a physical and thus
restricted, still crucial sense.
Beyond the twin paradox itself, one may remark that it is possible to derive the whole
special relativity theory out of a single and intuitively clear principle of causality. In this
respect, the famous paradox may be looked upon in analogy with those situations encountered
in Mathematics, where unquestionable axioms are able to generate counter-intuitive .. if not
“paradoxical” consequences (27).

 

[ramparts]

Dude, the arXiv and ADS really aren't the best places for non-experts to go learning about science. There are lots of introductory books, lectures, etc., designed for that, that most people will get a lot more out of than reading heavy duty research papers. Hell, I've been studying this stuff for years and there's still plenty in those papers I don't entirely understand.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

Read what you want.

Then you can offer some, its not a closed book.

If you prefer some others list them.

 

[ramparts]

Hmm? No, I read papers on the arXiv and ADS all the time, I'm just saying if you're not actively involved in research, a lot of what these papers say is going to be over your head. You were recommending people on these forums read those places. They're more than welcome to, but since SDC is mostly non-experts, I was simply saying there are better resources for the average SDC contributor. In the same way, if I want to learn about biology, I'm going to pick up popular articles and books, I'm not going to dig right into JAMA

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

If the papers are over peoples heads, I cannot help that.

But! if some one is interested in what ever topic , I will go out of my way.

Since I know that I know very little, I keep on reading and rereading and every time I do that I pick up another bit of information or apllication.

Sometimes I post simple links and the science critics come out and when I do post science papers I get the too much science critic.

At the same time I am dislexic and my explanations seem to some inside out and down under. But ! that does not mean I'm limited in understanding.

Ramparts, thank you for your response.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

While it was neither "Big", nor was it a "Bang", IT- whatever it was- DID happen, according to the cosmology of our time. End of Post!

Um... just kidding on that last sentence. Please continue, gentlemen and ladies. :lol:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Zen

Yes, thank you.