The Mystery of Light Slowing and Speeding Up - www.thefinaltheory.com

[Alkatran]

I see what you're trying to do: You're trying to create an event (same time and position) and then make it so this event isn't simultaneous to all observers (all events at the same position are simultaneous).

Well here's what happens: In the stationary frame the light is emitted simultaenously and hits the detectors simulatenously.

In the moving frame the light also hits the emittors simulatenously, but is emitted at different times (the right emitter goes first).

 

[Jonopants]

Debunking closed minds

Is it possible that people who explain and debunk are merely paroting what their teachers said to them? Is this the case in debunking this "The Final Theory".

 

[Prometheus]

Just think about this one: instead of stating that lightspeed is the highest possible velocity in our universe you could as well say that lightspeed is the highest detectable speed

Just think about this one: instead of focusing on the idea that the speed of light is the highest possible speed in the universe, focus on the idea that the speed of light is the only speed in the universe. Everything always moves at the same speed, the speed of light. The speed of light is constant, in space-time. As motion through space changes, so does motion through time.

Your point about "detectable" is valid, in the context of your usage of light as motion through space only, out of the context of time. Light from parts of the universe so far distant that it has not reached us yet has a different time element, and therefore should not be expected to travel through space at the same rate as the light with whcih we are familiar, in this part of the universe.

 

[reilly]

geistkiesel -- Sorry to say, you just don't get it. Said another way, to rephrase my post #98, how can you ignore almost 100 years of history -- the score is Einstein, 100,000, opponents 0. Nobody has made even the slightest dent in SR; it is tested everyday. I fully concur with Russ Watters. If you are so convinced that you are correct, publish, speak, and, above all, convince. And note, that you will have to convince those of us who have worked with SR -- I've got almost 40 years.

The truth will out; you have a long way to go to be compelling with your SR doubts. When I taught SR, students asked questions like yours at the beginning of the course; at the end of the course they could answer their own questions and thus affirm SR in their own minds.

Your example is a trivial modification of the train experiment: the Lorentz transform ascribes different times to the emission of photons A and B in a frame moving with respect to the "emitting frame" But, all inertial observers will agree that the photons reach M, the midpoint, in the emitting frame, between A and B at the same time. If you use your mirrors, you will have photons on a parallel track; how to distinguish them is a matter of displacement of the photons by the mirrors, and or a matter of intial different polarizations states, or frequency. All you are doing is using a different detection procedure than is usually ascribed in the Train Expt.

You will have to do much better in order to convince your critics.

My motives in participating in this thread are those of a teacher -- I like to help people get to the truth. And, I believe in history, and the successful history of physics in particular.

Why do you hold on so hard to being an anti SR person? You want to be a successful physicist, then consider the rational approach which says that the odds of succeeding in your present path are virtually negative.A focus on experiments and data would greatly help your possibility of doing some good physics.

I've explained your nominal conundrum. Please explain where I've gone wrong in #98, particularly with respect to the ubiquity of SR in the physics of now, and the 20th century.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[ram1024]

Why do you hold on so hard to being an anti SR person? You want to be a successful physicist, then consider the rational approach which says that the odds of succeeding in your present path are virtually negative

Because SR is wrong? When something rubs you the wrong way, you attack it with all verve and determination you can. only when it completely makes sense to you can you ever give up and claim defeat. if you give up before then you're just lying to yourself and depriving the scientific world of your earnest efforts.

respect the cracked pot. there's always the possibility he might be right.

 

[reilly]

geistkiesel -- Sad to say, cracked pots hold a one way ticket to obscurity, speeded up by their level of compulsion. If in fact you are the one in a billion that is right, then you must convince the rest of the world that you are correct. A better mousetrap will bring people to your doorstep, along with their respect. A fantasy moustrap might have a romantic appeal to a few, but will be jive to most. Good luck.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Chronos]

All of science has been built upon observation. Once we developed the language of mathematics, the ambiguities between observation and reality have rapidly disappeared. In that sense, mathematics is the ultimate description of reality. It is a language that is unambiguous. What we have discovered, unfortunately, is that the language of mathematics is just as incomplete and mysterious as the logic of Aristotle. It does not adequately explain all observations. Even our revered mathematics break down when 0 or infinities appear in the solution. According to Planck, time breaks down at 10-43 seconds, volume breaks down at 10-99/cm^3, and mass density breaks down at 10-93 gm/cc. These are not imaginary values. All observations to date have revealed no evidence these barriers have ever been breached [or even approached]. The good Lord knows, because many have tried and failed: even Einstein, who was a pretty bright fellow.

The only escape from 'singularities', such as these, is that our version of math is incomplete. Godel made that point long ago. Assumptions cannot be validated within the system they arise. 'a priori' assumptions ultimately become identities when reduced to simplest terms. The most fundamental interpretation of GR insists that all reference frames are innately self-referential.

Where is this 'better' math to be found? Unclear. My best guess is that we need not discard current knowledge. Just fill in the gaps where current math predicts infinite [or 1/infinite] results. Don't ask me how to do that. I am too old to both write and correct the numerous mistakes I would commit before I went nova.

WARNING: If this thread forces me go to the math forum for answers, I will find a way to make the most qualified star nearest to your planet to go Ia: assuming I find the math. [more likely it will be a dud and result in yet another main sequence yawner star orbited by dirt balls populated with equally annoying sentient beings].

 

[notimeleftforyou]

radioactive decay

I'm just a computer scientist that specializes in networking so I wouldn't fathom to say I am in your league if you are working on a Phd in physics.

I was reading the debate on time dilation & found it interesting that at no time any of you mentioned radioactive decay. Someone stated time=motion.

With respect to SR & GR common sense would suggest that acceleration is the key to time dilation with respect to the two astronauts perspective. But arguments dealing with age don't make much sense. Replacing the persons with clocks doesn't either because all of these entities experience radioactive decay. It would be better to compare two atomic clocks surrounded by a vac traveling into balls of energy capable of escape velocity. With that in mind there are 3 points of reference:
1) Earth
2) Clock A
3) Clock B

From what I know about atomic clocks they are somehow affected by natural forces (G, EM, SN, WN). These forces are not constant in the universe so naturally they will vary the rate at which atomic clocks tick (figuratively speaking). That's why it's entirely possible for the following scenario:
Two energy balls carrying two atomic clocks leave at the same Earth time.
The travel the same distance, experience varied levels of acceleration, but arrive back at the same Earth time. It is possible for the clocks to differ greatly based on the natural forces they encountered in their journey.

So I don't think I would agree that time=motion. I would agree with time=decay. You could argue that motion is required for decay & I wouldn't disagree. But motion implies something multi-directional & decay implies something uni-directional. I think this is an important distinction because it pretty much addresses time-travel. If you view time as multi-directional motion then time travel is theoretically possible. But if you view it as uni-directional then it's not.

Now this is a far-reaching hypothesis but well it's good to add some fun to
the thread. The Bible says that God created the Universe & everything in it
in 6 days. God=creator, or initiator if you will. We know via decay measurements that this is impossible. But that assumes that decay has occurred at a constant rate throughout time. Why should we assume this?
Why should we expect that (G,EM,SN,WN) would remain constant throughout the passage of Earth time? Now I'm not suggesting the Bible is right. But I am suggesting that relativity as indeed provided us explanations for how something like that could be right. All you have to imagine is that during those 6 God days of creation, the rate at which atomic clocks were ticking was a great magnitude higher then they are today. Is that plausible? Who knows. But I remember reading a theory that believed that was the case. Not the whole Bible thing but rather that the Earth has varying rates of atomic clocks. The closest you travel to the center the faster the rate of the clock.

As for The Final Theory, I would not agree with the premise of that which we do not know & label as mysterious is necc flawed. Unless the author can show an example of where his theory would lead enable us to conquer space travel, food shortages, energy shortages, or something else that would be beneficial to society the Standard Theory seems adequate to me. With it we have developed virtual reality, will develop nanotechnology, & eventually cyborgs. Even with the application of Standard Theory we should arrive close to God-hood in terms of extending human life & making it more durable to travel the Universe in a century from now. I think that's significant progress.
What I believe the author completely disregards in his comments that prevailing science is predicated on ST that is well over a century old is the impact of computer science. Computer science has enabled us to attack scientific problems at light speed relatively speaking in comparison to what was possible 4 decades ago.

One day we will know exactly what the force is that makes magnets stick
to fridges. Does the author know why? Because technology born of CS & ST
will help us to observe the inner-mechanisms of that force first hand.

 

[Layne]

Hello everyone! I blundered into this forum by clicking the link from The Final Theory website. I'd like to put in my two cents.

It is my fervent hope that someday an outsider will come along and shatter our current paradigm with a more elegant, more simple, and more functional explanation. Just as some of yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions, and some of the rabble-rousing, authority-defying, status-quo-breaking people in history are now revered as fathers of (insert name of their nation, cause, religion, or branch of science here), many of the breakthroughs in science - and the scientists that offered them - were met with stiff opposition and open hostility before they became universally accepted.

With this historical perspective in mind, it makes sense to suspend our disbelief and preconceptions as much as possible and give a newcomer such as The Final Theory a fair opportunity to convince us that what we have believed up till now is incorrect.

But the knife cuts both ways. The Final Theory owes the scientific community the same consideration. He owes us a fair opportunity to put his theory to the test, to question it, and to respond to it.

So here's my problem. The Final Theory claims one simple principle is responsible for gravity, electro-magnetism, atomic structure, celestial observations, and more. But demands we pay $29.95 each for the chance to learn what this one simple principle is.

He may be absolutely correct. There may be one simple principle that explains all this stuff. There's no way any of us can know unless we know the one simple principle he uses as the basis of his book. Why doesn't he submit this theory to a science journal instead of try to make money off a generally uneducated public? If is book is as convincing as his website would have us believe, why not present it to one of the physics journals or even Scientific American?

How can we have an intelligent discussion with him of only he knows the principle we're discussing? This isn't poker. We shouldn't have to pay to see his cards.

Layne