Page 3 of 4

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 19th, 2017, 5:10 pm
BurtJordaan » July 19th, 2017, 2:21 pm wrote:BTW, modern LET (the one compatible with all SR's predictions) do not have an absolute 'ether'. You just choose any inertial frame and call it 'ether', as I have said a few times before. It does not help us in any way to decide which one ages less.
That kind of ether only answers the two way problems, thus useful problems, but what about the logic? If ship B goes away indefinitely, both ships cannot be aging less: one of them has to be aging less than the other. With an absolute ether, there is no such logical issue, and I thought it was the one that was compatible with SR's predictions, but you say the contrary, so can you give me an example please?

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 19th, 2017, 9:04 pm
Ok I've just answered your question in my SR defining the present thread. I don't think Jorrie will like it,

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 19th, 2017, 10:50 pm
Hi Inchworm,

Inchworm wiki ref wrote:If Ship A and Ship B both think each other's time is moving slower, who will have aged more if they decided to meet up? With a more sophisticated understanding of relative velocity time dilation, this seeming twin paradox turns out not to be a paradox at all (the resolution of the paradox involves a jump in time, as a result of the accelerated observer turning around)

That's why the Centrifuge Experiment makes things so obvious. There is no separation of clocks, no turn around, no change in velocities, no jumping through time.. just two clocks (Center Clock and Arm Clock) that can maintain constant communication with each other... all while the Arm Clock runs slower than the Center Clock.

Clocks do not measure Time.. in a manner of speaking.. they measure Velocity.

Real Time marches on simultaneously for both clocks.. it just that simple. Neither clock is getting to the future any faster or slower than the other. They can communicate with each other almost instantly, whenever they want. They never become separated in Time.

The Center Clock will see the Arm Clock is running Slower than itself.
The Arm Clock will see the Center Clock is running Faster than itself.

For as long as they both shall live.. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 1:33 am
Inchworm » 19 Jul 2017, 23:10 wrote:... but what about the logic? If ship B goes away indefinitely, both ships cannot be aging less: one of them has to be aging less than the other. With an absolute ether, there is no such logical issue, and I thought it was the one that was compatible with SR's predictions, but you say the contrary, so can you give me an example please?

Since all inertial frames are equivalent, the logic says that they must "age the same", or more technical, progress through space-propertime at the same rate. The fact that we cannot compare those rates is also logical. Being inertial, their clocks can be directly compared only once.

In the non-inertal cases, their clocks still go at the same intrinsic rate, by they take different routes through space-propertime.

Have you read the tread that I dedicated to acceleration in space-propertime?

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 1:57 am
Dave_Oblad » 20 Jul 2017, 04:50 wrote:... all while the Arm Clock runs slower than the Center Clock.

Dave, please. The arm clock is non-inertial all the time and it simply takes a longer route spatially, with a shorter route temporally. It is just a two-way twin scenario where the away-twin continually changes inertial frames.

If you ever mention the fallacy that "Clocks do not measure Time.. in a manner of speaking.. they measure Velocity.", I'll remove you from my "friends" and add you to the "foes". :^)

Jorrie :^)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 4:31 am
Being inertial, their clocks can be directly compared only once.

Can they not be directly compared when they are close? Proximity is the present and a shared present (0 relative velocity) is the instant between coming together and going apart. However, the difference between a clock pass and a frame jump is that a frame jump also incorporates a change in velocity. So without a change in velocity there is no shared present at 0 relative velocity in a clock pass. But then when Alice does a round trip and reunites with Bob by passing over him, there is no change in velocity yet it is a valid frame jump due to proximity. What is the true story for a clock pass and what makes it different than an end of path fly-over?

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 5:12 am
Only once if they remain inertial, as Inch asked about. They are close only once...

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 6:22 am
Hi Jorrie,

You can "Foe" me or "Ban" me.. makes no difference.. I'll always consider you a friend. You are very generous with your time, patience, and a real asset to this site.

I had a discussion with Don Lincoln (via site mail) on this subject and presented the Centrifuge Experiment to show the difference between Real Time (we all reach tomorrow noon simultaneously, regardless of dilated clocks) and Proper Time (dilated clocks). He pointed out that SR is for Non-Accelerating Frames and the Arm Clock is technically (due to rotation) always under acceleration (with a constant velocity). I pointed out that many (including Jorrie) have stated that advanced SR can cover accelerating Frames and just about any other state of affairs, including rotation. Don refused to continue the discussion after that.

Anyway, I've clearly demonstrated my points in a logical presentation. Truth be told.. Time will tell.. lol.

Meanwhile, I'll cease being a proverbial thorn on this thread ;)

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 7:40 am
Dave_Oblad » July 20th, 2017, 11:22 am wrote:He pointed out that SR is for Non-Accelerating Frames and the Arm Clock is technically (due to rotation) always under acceleration (with a constant velocity).

Shouldn't this be "constant speed"? The Arm Clock's velocity (speed in a given direction) is continually changing.

Given that the Arm Clock is non-inertial, will your Centrifuge Experiment still work?

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 10:32 am
BurtJordaan » July 20th, 2017, 12:33 am wrote:
Inchworm » 19 Jul 2017, 23:10 wrote:... but what about the logic? If ship B goes away indefinitely, both ships cannot be aging less: one of them has to be aging less than the other. With an absolute ether, there is no such logical issue, and I thought it was the one that was compatible with SR's predictions, but you say the contrary, so can you give me an example please?

Since all inertial frames are equivalent, the logic says that they must "age the same", or more technically, progress through space-propertime at the same rate. The fact that we cannot compare those rates is also logical. Being inertial, their clocks can be directly compared only once.

In the non-inertial cases, their clocks still go at the same intrinsic rate, but they take different routes through space-propertime.
Before analyzing the situation, can you give me an example where absolute LET is not compatible with SR's predictions please?

Have you read the tread that I dedicated to acceleration in space-propertime?
I'm not used to space-time diagrams yet, even those with no acceleration. I didn't believe in relativity when you opened that thread, so I didn't see the reason. But I'll try to understand them as soon as I will have time.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 12:25 pm
Hi Inch: absolute (historical) LET implies absolute time with physical length contraction. This means that it passed the MM test, but fails any form of time dilatation test. Modern LET includes time dilation and length contraction caused by motion relative to an undetectable ether and hence it passes all time dilation tests. Inertial motion relative to the 'ether' cancels out everywhere in LET's equations and the result is the same as SR's. The only motion that is left in the equations is the relative motion between two objects of interest.

One lecturer (of which I forgot the name) once said something like: "thinking about an unobservable aether to explain relativity is somewhat like thinking of unobservable angels pushing the planets around to move exactly like relativity predicts them to move."

So from a practical p.o.v., the difference is only philosophical, because SR ignores an 'ether' from the start.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 1:23 pm
BurtJordaan » July 20th, 2017, 11:25 am wrote:Hi Inch: absolute (historical) LET implies absolute time with physical length contraction. This means that it passed the MM test, but fails any form of time dilatation test.
Cooper's simulation of MMx shows why contraction is needed, but it also shows how light would take more time between the mirrors, a two way time which can be considered as the tics of a light clock, so it also shows how time dilation would happen, and it is done with a background ether which is absolute, so I really can't see how it could not pass the time dilation test.

Modern LET includes time dilation and length contraction caused by motion relative to an undetectable ether and hence it passes all time dilation tests.
As far as logic is concerned, it doesn't matter wether ether is detectable or not. With ether, we can imagine how things generally work, and we cannot with SR. I asked you one example where absolute LET wouldn't work, and you didn't provide it, so I suspect it is because you cannot find any.

Inertial motion relative to the 'ether' cancels out everywhere in LET's equations and the result is the same as SR's. The only motion that is left in the equations is the relative motion between two objects of interest.
That's always the kind of ether that I have in mind.

One lecturer (of which I forgot the name) once said something like: "thinking about an unobservable aether to explain relativity is somewhat like thinking of unobservable angels pushing the planets around to move exactly like relativity predicts them to move."
Relativity has its own angels producing the unobservable gravity.

So from a practical p.o.v., the difference is only philosophical, because SR ignores an 'ether' from the start.
It's only a viewpoint difference, the same as the difference between a stationary earth and a stationary sun, but who knows if we would have discovered relativity without changing viewpoints.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 1:45 pm
Hi Positor,

Yes.. (Jorrie reluctantly confirmed) the Centrifuge is a viable demonstration of the Twin Paradox. The Arm clock will run slower than the Center clock and SR can do the predictive math, even with Accelerating or Rotating Frames.

Note: I promised Jorrie to back off.. but this aspect isn't controversial.. just the explanation is at odds.

Regards,
Dave :^)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 5:12 pm
Hi Inch.

I think you are confusing the issue by referring to "historical LET", while meaning Modern LET (or perhaps some variant to it). Lorentz's original ether theory predates relativity and was an effort to explain the fact the MMx failed to detect the ether. Only a mechanical length contraction was necessary and there was no time dilation involved. This could for obvious reasons not explain things like the 'twin paradox', but that was only realized much later.

Einstein's SR did not not need an ether or any mechanical length contraction, but rather the relativity of simultaneity, which made length contraction and time dilation observational issues, not physical ones. When Minkowski showed that they implied a spacetime with an absolute property called the "spacetime interval", SR rather slowly became accepted by the majority of scientists.

Modern LET, with time dilation (as clocks that physically 'ticks slower' due to movement relative to the ether) was born in order to explain experiments that showed that the observed (one-way) speed of light is independent of its direction relative to the presumed ether. Without time dilation, that can't be, and with it, LET is observationally identical to SR.

What LET cannot explain is a mechanism for the physical length contraction and clocks that 'ticks slower'. In SR, there is no physical length contraction and no clocks 'ticking slower' - just differences in spacetime path lengths. Now for people understanding spacetime, this is the natural behavior of things. For people not understanding spacetime, it probably does not make sense and they may prefer to grapple with atoms physically contracting and with some clocks that tick slower than some other clocks.

This problem is probably compounded by sloppy writing by popular science writers and even scientists, when simplifying for the public at large. We often read that "moving clocks tick slower", without declaring what precisely the observed facts are (less time recorded under certain circumstances).

If we only deal with SR, it probably does not matter which philosophical view one uses. It does matter somewhat when you want to understand the intricacies of GR. There just about everything is about spacetime path lengths and not about "clocks ticking slower" or "space contracting".

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 20th, 2017, 7:44 pm
I wish I could see what you see but I don't see any of it and I've really tried. I still see huge logical inconsistencies that learning the basic math has even made more striking. To me relativity is missing more of the why than even quantum physics. It's just a bunch of math that just happens to work for no reason that I can see. And everything revolves around the constancy of the speed of light and the constancy of physics inside inertial frames. I'd prefer a theory that works on the grander basis of defining what is reality and what is time. I don't even see a consensus amongst real scientists let alone popular science on what relativity is. Everyone has their own wacky interpretation after 112 years. No on can even define it in plain English and the wackier parts are kept behind an impenetrable curtain and can't be discussed. This doesn't inspire confidence in me.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 21st, 2017, 12:59 am
Positor » 20 Jul 2017, 13:40 wrote:Shouldn't this be "constant speed"? The Arm Clock's velocity (speed in a given direction) is continually changing.

Given that the Arm Clock is non-inertial, will your Centrifuge Experiment still work?

Yes, the velocity vector of the arm clock relative to the hub constantly changes due to the centripetal force, but the speed ($\omega\times r)$ is needed to calculate time dilation. In spacetime the arm clock follows a helical spacetime path around the propertime axis. Since the tip clock takes the longer spatial path, it falls behind the hub clock in terms of propertime, while just ticking normally.

This is true and simple relativity, which for some reason, many around here have trouble accepting. No absolute frame required, not even the speed of light. Just read both clocks, swing the arm a good number of times, stop it and compare the clock's elapsed times.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 21st, 2017, 4:40 am
This is true and simple relativity, which for some reason, many around here have trouble accepting.

We could start a separate thread and go through each reason one by one.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 21st, 2017, 8:40 am
Dave,

According to your theory, would you expect the result of the Centrifuge Experiment (i.e. the amount of time dilation) to differ according to the speed of the whole system through the Aether? I presume you would, because, as you say, the Lorentz equation is non-linear. Have I got that right?

If so, it seems to me that SR would contradict your theory, because it holds that all cases in which the Center Clock remains inertial are equivalent.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 21st, 2017, 9:17 am
Burt wrote:What LET cannot explain is a mechanism for the physical length contraction and clocks that 'ticks slower'. In SR, there is no physical length contraction and no clocks 'ticking slower' - just differences in spacetime path lengths. Now for people understanding spacetime, this is the natural behavior of things. For people not understanding spacetime, it probably does not make sense and they may prefer to grapple with atoms physically contracting and with some clocks that tick slower than some other clocks.
Thanks for your kindness Burt, its always a pleasure to discuss with you. I hope its the same the other way around. To me, a difference in space-time path lengths is simply a difference in distance and time, and using a different wording doesn't explain why it is so. Saying that a twin has taken a shortcut into the future doesn't change the fact that it has aged less, and it doesn't explain the underlying physical mechanism either. I'm working with physical atoms and I need a real mechanism to incorporate SR in my theory. I showed one lately here for length contraction but you did not comment, it happened between two accelerated bonded atoms, and it was due to information taking time to accelerate the second one. Here it is again in case you would like to comment it:

We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. I did not account for the time dilation of particle A since it moves before particle B, but I think we should. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce some doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction.

At the end of acceleration, the two particles would be moving at the same speed to the right, but the distance between them would stay contracted, and it would still be doppler effect from one particle that would drive the motion of the other particle. If one of them would suddenly disappear for instance, the other one would lose some speed unless its components would immediately take the relay, and that's what they would do since they would not have to provide the energy to drive the other particle any more. Whatever the doppler effect though, as Cooper's simulation on MMx shows, the two way light would still take more time between the two particles once they would be in motion, so that light clock would still tick more slowly than if it was at rest in ether.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 21st, 2017, 7:39 pm
Hi Positor,

You are paying attention.. lol.

Because of the CMB.. we now have a fairly accurate idea how fast our Earth is moving through the Universe and what direction.

Obviously, we have Earth Rotation, Solar Orbiting, Galactic Orbiting, and Galaxy Cluster motion towards a distant point in the Universe. Jorrie presented an excellent thread awhile back with such info. Our Greatest Velocity is with the Galactic Cluster that is a huge Velocity.. but still well below 1% light speed.

So my answer to you would be yes.. but.. measuring it would be very difficult. Our intrinsic velocity through Space-Time is so low, that the Lorentz Function would almost be a straight line. But I would predict that if one could put the Centrifuge on-board a space-ship and got it up to Relativistic Speed, that one could not accurately predict the proper time differential between Hub and Arm Clocks without knowing the Absolute Intrinsic Velocity of the Hub relative to Light Speed. (IMHO)

That could be difficult to pull off, because you need clocks to measure speed. However, it seems reasonable that the CMB could come to the rescue once again, by knowing how extreme the CMB Doppler shift has become. From that.. one can deduce ones Intrinsic Velocity and from that.. SR would be able to accurately predict Proper Times and differentials for the Centrifuge.

Jorrie may not agree with me on this because I'm pushing absolutes again. Oh well....

Regards,
Dave :^)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 22nd, 2017, 3:26 am
Hi All,

Dave wrote:But I would predict that if one could put the Centrifuge on-board a space-ship and got it up to Relativistic Speed, that one could not accurately predict the proper time differential between Hub and Arm Clocks without knowing the Absolute Intrinsic Velocity of the Hub relative to Light Speed.

Correction:

But I would predict that if one could put the Centrifuge on-board a space-ship and got it up to Relativistic Speed, that one could not accurately predict the proper time differential between Center and Arm Clocks without knowing the Absolute Intrinsic Velocity of the Center Clock relative to Light Speed. (IMHO)

Sorry, for some reason I equated the word "Hub" as being the Center of things. As in: "This is the hub of our operations..". I could be wrong, but I believe I've heard the word HUB used to also mean the edge of something.

So I have corrected myself and changed the word "Hub" above to mean specifically: The Center Clock as opposed to the Arm Clock of the Centrifuge.

Again, sorry for any lack of clarity.

Regards,
Dave :^)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 22nd, 2017, 6:11 am
Hi Dave,

I think Hub is fine for indicating the center clock of a centrifuge experiment. The other word that you thought of is possibly "rim clock" for your arm clock.

But I would predict that if one could put the Centrifuge on-board a space-ship and got it up to Relativistic Speed, that one could not accurately predict the proper time differential between Center and Arm Clocks without knowing the Absolute Intrinsic Velocity of the Center Clock relative to Light Speed. (IMHO)

Relativity obviously disagrees with you. As soon as your spaceship is inertial again, the prediction is just as accurate as for any other inertial frame. There are binary pulsars where the orbital velocities of the spinning neutron stars are highly relativistic and they are equivalent to clocks spinning around a hub. The observations agree with relativity predictions to exquisite precision.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 22nd, 2017, 6:30 am
Inchworm » 21 Jul 2017, 15:17 wrote:I showed one lately here for length contraction but you did not comment, it happened between two accelerated bonded atoms, and it was due to information taking time to accelerate the second one. Here it is again in case you would like to comment it:

Question, if instead of 'pushing' particle A, you were 'pulling' particle B, would you then have a lingering length expansion instead of lingering contraction?

Whatever the doppler effect though, as Cooper's simulation on MMx shows, the two way light would still take more time between the two particles once they would be in motion.

During acceleration, the two-way speed of light depends on the direction relative to the accleration, but once the acceleration stops, the two way light speed returns to its normal 'c', even in LET.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: July 24th, 2017, 5:46 pm
Mod note: I have moved the previous 3 replies to the Personal section. They are too far from mainstream to remain under this sub-forum.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: August 8th, 2017, 11:39 am
BurtJordaan » July 22nd, 2017, 5:30 am wrote:
Whatever the doppler effect though, as Cooper's simulation on MMx shows, the two way light would still take more time between the two particles once they would be in motion.

During acceleration, the two-way speed of light depends on the direction relative to the acceleration, but once the acceleration stops, the two way light speed returns to its normal 'c', even in LET.
If contraction was due to one of the atoms accelerating before the other in a two atoms' molecule, and if that molecule was at rest in ether before acceleration, it would certainly take less and less time for the light from the accelerated atom to reach the other one, and less and less time for the light form the other atom to reach the accelerated one, so what would happen when acceleration would stop? Would light suddenly take more time just because there is no more acceleration, or would it take the same time as long as no other acceleration would happen? I'm actually discussing a way to simulate my model with David Cooper on NSF (with Java), so I might have a more precise answer to that kind of question later on. Here is the link for those who would like to help build the simulation, or simply to learn how to build one for their own model:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/foru ... #msg520175

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: August 9th, 2017, 2:04 am
Inchworm » 08 Aug 2017, 17:39 wrote:If contraction was due to one of the atoms accelerating before the other in a two atoms' molecule, and if that molecule was at rest in ether before acceleration, it would certainly take less and less time for the light from the accelerated atom to reach the other one, and less and less time for the light form the other atom to reach the accelerated one, ...

No, in SR and LET it does not work like that - and I suppose we are not discussing absolute frame theories here, because if that is the case, it must go to 'private'.

However, generally when we talk about "molecules", the effect of the one on the other is quantum mechanical and we cannot discuss the "speed of interaction" between them, other than in a quantum-statistical way. Unless, as the OP experiment happened to be set up, they are in different rooms - an then they would have no observable effect on each other.

I think that the conclusions that you are trying to show by simulation is physically invalid (due to the "ether mindset"), but it will be nevertheless be interesting to see. :)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: August 12th, 2017, 10:10 am
I shall report the progress of the simulation in my thread on mass regularly. For the moment, David thinks it will be impossible to use light as a carrier of information because it is too fast to simulate slow speeds, so I suggested that we use sound as in my example with cars, and I suddenly realized that at close to the speed of the wave, his simulation of MMx shows that light would take more and more time between the mirrors, what means that the cars would take more and more time to accelerate, which is equivalent to mass increase in the case of particles. I knew mass increase would happen because of the limited speed of the waves between my two particles, but I didn't realize that they would take more time to accelerate since I didn't believe in time dilation at that moment.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: August 12th, 2017, 10:37 am
Inchworm » 12 Aug 2017, 16:10 wrote:I knew mass increase would happen because of c between my two particles, but I didn't realize that they would take more time to accelerate since I didn't believe in time dilation at that moment.

OK, but avoid the term "mass increase" due to acceleration (or speed). With the term 'mass', we only refer to the rest mass of an object and that's not dependent on its speed relative to anything. We do not refer to "moving mass" (relativistic mass) any more because it is guaranteed to confuse (as it has for decades in the past), since it depends on "who is looking at the object", i.e. the relative speed between object and observer.

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: August 12th, 2017, 12:14 pm
As I usually say in this case, considering that a reference frame is at rest for a while is like considering a medium for light for a while. David's simulation of MMx shows that the two way light inevitably takes more time between the two mirrors when the apparatus is traveling than when it is at rest. At .866c, after having accounted for the contraction phenomenon, light still takes twice the time between the mirrors, so if we had to accelerate the apparatus at that moment, light would immediately take more time, which means that the whole apparatus would take more time to accelerate one more m/s in that direction than it took during the precedent acceleration. Of course the increase would be unobservable if we would travel with the apparatus since our own time would dilate at the same rate, but the data shows that the mass of particles really increases when speed increases, and I find that time dilation during acceleration explains very well that phenomenon. How about creating a forum entitled post-mainstream theories? :0)

### Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Posted: August 12th, 2017, 1:16 pm
Inch, just about every sentence in your post in physically incorrect. If you want to continue with this line of debate, let us please continue it in one of the existing private theory threads.

BTW, it might be more suited to "historical theories" ;^)