Quote from: RSE on 09/21/2017 08:54 PMTime as the Fourth dimension confuses me. In the three spatial dimensions, A co-ordinate (x,y,z) can be defined regardless of the inertial reference frame you are in. Yet, by the same rules, time cannot be given a particular co-ordinate point, as there is no "Universal Time", and ll time is relative to the particular inertial reference frame from which it is being measured. How can you define a co-ordinate system without any fixed co-ordinates (along the time axis)? Ask Heisenberg.

Time as the Fourth dimension confuses me. In the three spatial dimensions, A co-ordinate (x,y,z) can be defined regardless of the inertial reference frame you are in. Yet, by the same rules, time cannot be given a particular co-ordinate point, as there is no "Universal Time", and ll time is relative to the particular inertial reference frame from which it is being measured. How can you define a co-ordinate system without any fixed co-ordinates (along the time axis)?

Quote from: WarpTech on 09/21/2017 04:11 AMThe issue is about "Reciprocity" not symmetry.This page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation has a well written section on Reciprocity in SR, "velocity time dilation". Then in the next section on Gravitational time dilation it says;"Contrarily to velocity time dilation, in which both observers measure the other as aging slower (a reciprocal effect), gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal. This means that with gravitational time dilation both observers agree that the clock nearer the center of the gravitational field is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference."The Hafele and Keating experiment supports no-reciprocity. Even the Michelson-Moorley experiment does not demonstrate reciprocity. So far, I have not found any experimental evidence to support a reciprocity effect. Gravitational time dilation is the result of the Equivalence principle alone, not any particular solution of GR. Reciprocity is a requirement of the Lorentz transformation and the Lorentz group, it is assumed in its derivation. Reciprocity is what forces the paradox to happen. Reciprocity is not one of the postulates of SR. It is an assumption that reciprocity is required for "The laws of physics to remain invariant in all inertial reference frames". However, it is trivial to show that the law of physics remain unchanged, even when the flat Minkowski metric is transformed by a constant coefficient "A", in such a way that;ds^{2} = (1/A)*c^{2}dt^{2} - A*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2})Resulting in a scaled system of units where "force" is an invariant wrt the constant "A". Leaving all physical laws and experimental data, including EM fields unchanged, but the transformation from A=1 to A>1 is not reciprocal. In the latter time is slow, in the former it's not. No reciprocity, no paradox. IMO this too is the result of the Equivalence principle, when one body accelerates to velocity v=0.6c and the other does not. The end result is not reciprocal.As far as I'm concerned, until someone shows evidence of reciprocity, it is by no means proven.I guess I know Puthoff wrote this equation this way. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17157422968110203841&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26ds^{2} = (1/K)*c^{2}dt^{2} - K*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2})where A=K I am not sure why he converts c_o*t_o to c*t/K when it seems the conversion should be K*c=c_o and t*sqrt(K)=t_o so c_o*t_o=c*t*K . However, I found it a bit easier to think of it in terms of the shrunken ruller. For the distance that light traverses over a time in a polarized vacuum greater than 1 or K>1 . (c^{2}/K^{2})(t^{2}*K)=(c*t)^{2}/K . In that space a person with a ruler measures light but their ruler shrinks by Puthoff's equatons such that dx^{2}/K is the non local length of the persons modified ruler. As a result their ruler scales exactly with the distance traversed by light so that they measure the same exact local speed of light as a person with a non-contracted ruler. This of course scales the metric such that the metric near gravitational sources shrinks. The gradient in the metric forces a curvature on space and time. ...

The issue is about "Reciprocity" not symmetry.This page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation has a well written section on Reciprocity in SR, "velocity time dilation". Then in the next section on Gravitational time dilation it says;"Contrarily to velocity time dilation, in which both observers measure the other as aging slower (a reciprocal effect), gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal. This means that with gravitational time dilation both observers agree that the clock nearer the center of the gravitational field is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference."The Hafele and Keating experiment supports no-reciprocity. Even the Michelson-Moorley experiment does not demonstrate reciprocity. So far, I have not found any experimental evidence to support a reciprocity effect. Gravitational time dilation is the result of the Equivalence principle alone, not any particular solution of GR. Reciprocity is a requirement of the Lorentz transformation and the Lorentz group, it is assumed in its derivation. Reciprocity is what forces the paradox to happen. Reciprocity is not one of the postulates of SR. It is an assumption that reciprocity is required for "The laws of physics to remain invariant in all inertial reference frames". However, it is trivial to show that the law of physics remain unchanged, even when the flat Minkowski metric is transformed by a constant coefficient "A", in such a way that;ds^{2} = (1/A)*c^{2}dt^{2} - A*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2})Resulting in a scaled system of units where "force" is an invariant wrt the constant "A". Leaving all physical laws and experimental data, including EM fields unchanged, but the transformation from A=1 to A>1 is not reciprocal. In the latter time is slow, in the former it's not. No reciprocity, no paradox. IMO this too is the result of the Equivalence principle, when one body accelerates to velocity v=0.6c and the other does not. The end result is not reciprocal.As far as I'm concerned, until someone shows evidence of reciprocity, it is by no means proven.

Quote from: dustinthewind on 09/22/2017 02:05 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 09/21/2017 04:11 AMThe issue is about "Reciprocity" not symmetry.This page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation has a well written section on Reciprocity in SR, "velocity time dilation". Then in the next section on Gravitational time dilation it says;"Contrarily to velocity time dilation, in which both observers measure the other as aging slower (a reciprocal effect), gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal. This means that with gravitational time dilation both observers agree that the clock nearer the center of the gravitational field is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference."The Hafele and Keating experiment supports no-reciprocity. Even the Michelson-Moorley experiment does not demonstrate reciprocity. So far, I have not found any experimental evidence to support a reciprocity effect. Gravitational time dilation is the result of the Equivalence principle alone, not any particular solution of GR. Reciprocity is a requirement of the Lorentz transformation and the Lorentz group, it is assumed in its derivation. Reciprocity is what forces the paradox to happen. Reciprocity is not one of the postulates of SR. It is an assumption that reciprocity is required for "The laws of physics to remain invariant in all inertial reference frames". However, it is trivial to show that the law of physics remain unchanged, even when the flat Minkowski metric is transformed by a constant coefficient "A", in such a way that;ds^{2} = (1/A)*c^{2}dt^{2} - A*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2})Resulting in a scaled system of units where "force" is an invariant wrt the constant "A". Leaving all physical laws and experimental data, including EM fields unchanged, but the transformation from A=1 to A>1 is not reciprocal. In the latter time is slow, in the former it's not. No reciprocity, no paradox. IMO this too is the result of the Equivalence principle, when one body accelerates to velocity v=0.6c and the other does not. The end result is not reciprocal.As far as I'm concerned, until someone shows evidence of reciprocity, it is by no means proven.I guess I know Puthoff wrote this equation this way. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17157422968110203841&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26ds^{2} = (1/K)*c^{2}dt^{2} - K*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2})where A=K I am not sure why he converts c_o*t_o to c*t/K when it seems the conversion should be K*c=c_o and t*sqrt(K)=t_o so c_o*t_o=c*t*K . However, I found it a bit easier to think of it in terms of the shrunken ruller. For the distance that light traverses over a time in a polarized vacuum greater than 1 or K>1 . (c^{2}/K^{2})(t^{2}*K)=(c*t)^{2}/K . In that space a person with a ruler measures light but their ruler shrinks by Puthoff's equatons such that dx^{2}/K is the non local length of the persons modified ruler. As a result their ruler scales exactly with the distance traversed by light so that they measure the same exact local speed of light as a person with a non-contracted ruler. This of course scales the metric such that the metric near gravitational sources shrinks. The gradient in the metric forces a curvature on space and time. ...Hi Dustin,I used "A" to represent a constant, because "K = K(x,y,z,t)" should be reserved as a variable function of the coordinates. Some people around here don't like it when a redefine letters of the alphabet from one post to another. Look at it this way;ds^{2} = (1/K)*c^{2}dt^{2} - K*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}) = c^{2}dt_{0}^{2} - (dx_{0}^{2} + dy_{0}^{2} + dz_{0}^{2})Then you should see that space-time interval, ds^{2} does not change from flat space-time when Puthoff transforms length and time. It only affects the rulers and clocks. What I'm trying to figure out is; that when accelerations are involved to change relative velocities, the equivalence principle breaks reciprocity in SR. The object has actually changed its relative potential, just like it would in a gravitational field. It is obvious when we use a turntable to do the experiment, but when objects are moving toward or away from each other, it's not so clear. What I need most is just more time to relax and think about this stuff. It's not high on my priority list right now.

Quote from: WarpTech on 09/23/2017 12:49 AMLook at it this way;ds^{2} = (1/K)*c^{2}dt^{2} - K*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}) = c^{2}dt_{0}^{2} - (dx_{0}^{2} + dy_{0}^{2} + dz_{0}^{2})Then you should see that space-time interval, ds^{2} does not change from flat space-time when Puthoff transforms length and time. It only affects the rulers and clocks. Doesn't the speed of light c_{o}=K*c such that c^{2}_{o}t^{2}_{o} = K*c^{2}t^{2} Why not use c_{o}?...

Look at it this way;ds^{2} = (1/K)*c^{2}dt^{2} - K*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}) = c^{2}dt_{0}^{2} - (dx_{0}^{2} + dy_{0}^{2} + dz_{0}^{2})Then you should see that space-time interval, ds^{2} does not change from flat space-time when Puthoff transforms length and time. It only affects the rulers and clocks.

....c^{2}dt(K)^{2} - (x[K]^{2}+y[K]^{2}+z[K]^{2}) = c^{2}dt^{2}/K - (x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})*K

c^{2}dt^{2}/K - c(K)^{2}dt(K)^{2} = c^{2}dt^{2}/K - c^{2}dt^{2}K

Quote from: dustinthewind on 09/23/2017 01:14 AM....c^{2}dt(K)^{2} - (x[K]^{2}+y[K]^{2}+z[K]^{2}) = c^{2}dt^{2}/K - (x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})*K This is okay, but...Quote from: dustinthewind on 09/23/2017 01:14 AMc^{2}dt^{2}/K - c(K)^{2}dt(K)^{2} = c^{2}dt^{2}/K - c^{2}dt^{2}KThis makes no sense. c(K)^{2}dt(K)^{2} = (cdt)^{2}/K^{3},assuming c(K) = c/K.

Quote from: WarpTech on 09/25/2017 12:10 AMQuote from: dustinthewind on 09/23/2017 01:14 AM....c^{2}dt(K)^{2} - (x[K]^{2}+y[K]^{2}+z[K]^{2}) = c^{2}dt^{2}/K - (x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})*K This is okay, but...Quote from: dustinthewind on 09/23/2017 01:14 AMc^{2}dt^{2}/K - c(K)^{2}dt(K)^{2} = c^{2}dt^{2}/K - c^{2}dt^{2}KThis makes no sense. c(K)^{2}dt(K)^{2} = (cdt)^{2}/K^{3},assuming c(K) = c/K.Ack! your right, I had it backwards. I should have written c(K)^{2}dt(K)^{2} - c^{2}dt(K)^{2} = c^{2}dt^{2}/K - c^{2}dt^{2}Kemphases on the 2nd speed of light being not a function of K. Are you sure c(K)^{2}dt(K)^{2} = (cdt)^{2}/K^{3} ?

Hi Dustin,I used "A" to represent a constant, because "K = K(x,y,z,t)" should be reserved as a variable function of the coordinates. Some people around here don't like it when a redefine letters of the alphabet from one post to another. Look at it this way;ds^{2} = (1/K)*c^{2}dt^{2} - K*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}) = c^{2}dt_{0}^{2} - (dx_{0}^{2} + dy_{0}^{2} + dz_{0}^{2})Then you should see that space-time interval, ds^{2} does not change from flat space-time when Puthoff transforms length and time. It only affects the rulers and clocks. What I'm trying to figure out is; that when accelerations are involved to change relative velocities, the equivalence principle breaks reciprocity in SR. The object has actually changed its relative potential, just like it would in a gravitational field. It is obvious when we use a turntable to do the experiment, but when objects are moving toward or away from each other, it's not so clear. What I need most is just more time to relax and think about this stuff. It's not high on my priority list right now.

Quote from: WarpTech on 09/23/2017 12:49 AMHi Dustin,I used "A" to represent a constant, because "K = K(x,y,z,t)" should be reserved as a variable function of the coordinates. Some people around here don't like it when a redefine letters of the alphabet from one post to another. Look at it this way;ds^{2} = (1/K)*c^{2}dt^{2} - K*(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}) = c^{2}dt_{0}^{2} - (dx_{0}^{2} + dy_{0}^{2} + dz_{0}^{2})Then you should see that space-time interval, ds^{2} does not change from flat space-time when Puthoff transforms length and time. It only affects the rulers and clocks. What I'm trying to figure out is; that when accelerations are involved to change relative velocities, the equivalence principle breaks reciprocity in SR. The object has actually changed its relative potential, just like it would in a gravitational field. It is obvious when we use a turntable to do the experiment, but when objects are moving toward or away from each other, it's not so clear. What I need most is just more time to relax and think about this stuff. It's not high on my priority list right now.I get it now. The dt and other dx are a functions of K where they are being operated on to put them in the non-variant form dt_{o} and dx_{o}. Something i notice that was interesting was that distance dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 being a ruler could be substituted by the speed of light over a passage of time. When I played with the math:I may not have it quite right but it looks like we get something that almost looks like for the space term dx+dy+dz a retarded wave multiplied by an advanced wave. Or maybe a positive index wave multiplied by a negative index wave. This reminds me of Heidi Fearn's discussion a bit. ... Not sure it would really indicate a retarded wave but it seemed interesting. Also interesting reguarding ftl communications if retarded waves can really exist but I am sure nature some how excludes their actual use for that.

(I am not looking at how, or the perspective if the occupants. One set of headaches at a time, please.)

Does it arrive before it left? Absolutely not! It arrives 1.4 years after it left, (.7 going, .7 coming back), with the next 8 years of Sirius'es transmissions, in hand. Once again the ship travelled backwards in time, from the future, from Earth's reference frame. No paradox.

(The only way the ship could arrive before it left is if it took negative duration for the trip, i.e., if it arrived at Sirius before it left Earth, by Earth's own reference frame. That truly would be time travel. . .

Quote from: RSE on 11/28/2017 08:16 PM(I am not looking at how, or the perspective if the occupants. One set of headaches at a time, please.)Agreed, significant confusion comes from doing that, and it is irrelevant at the moment.Quote from: RSE on 11/28/2017 08:16 PMDoes it arrive before it left? Absolutely not! It arrives 1.4 years after it left, (.7 going, .7 coming back), with the next 8 years of Sirius'es transmissions, in hand. Once again the ship travelled backwards in time, from the future, from Earth's reference frame. No paradox.Describing a situation that doesn't involve a paradox does not mean that there are no situations that involve a paradox.Quote from: RSE on 11/28/2017 08:16 PM(The only way the ship could arrive before it left is if it took negative duration for the trip, i.e., if it arrived at Sirius before it left Earth, by Earth's own reference frame. That truly would be time travel. . .But there are many reference frames equally valid as the Earth frame that do see the trip as having a negative duration. You have provided no reason why someone in one of those equally valid frames passing by Sirius could not just use the same type of FTL drive in their frame to go to Earth carrying all of the records from the other ship. Since in that frame the Earth ship arrived at Sirius before it left, this ship can go forward in time while it travels FTL to Earth and still arrive before the Earth ship left. I did all of the relevant calculations earlier for this type of situation.

In SR, time dilation as observed by two observers moving at constant relative velocity wrt each other is "reciprocal", meaning each observer sees the other's clock running slow. In GR, time dilation as observed by two observers at rest at different gravitational potentials is not reciprocal. The observer at a lower altitude sees the clock at a higher altitude run "fast" not slow. This is also the case when one observer is circling around the other observer at a constant angular speed, while the observer at the center is at rest in an inertial frame (feels no forces). The observer feeling the force pulling him in a circular motion, is observed to have a slower clock than the observer at the center. It is not reciprocal.

To my knowledge, there have been no experiments, no tests of SR that verify/prove reciprocity. It is a prediction of the mathematics when objects are moving toward or away from each other, but there is no physical evidence which proves it. Experiments so far have only shown non-reciprocity in the results. Meberbs assumes reciprocity is real and his assertions are based on this assumption. I for one do not agree.

Quote from: WarpTech on 11/28/2017 10:29 PMTo my knowledge, there have been no experiments, no tests of SR that verify/prove reciprocity. It is a prediction of the mathematics when objects are moving toward or away from each other, but there is no physical evidence which proves it. Experiments so far have only shown non-reciprocity in the results. Meberbs assumes reciprocity is real and his assertions are based on this assumption. I for one do not agree.False. Maybe you missed the last post on this topic that you never replied to. I am not basing this on any kind of assumption without experimental support. You simply cannot explain the experimental results without reciprocity.

False. Time dilation is caused by damping of the quantum wave functions as explained in my paper, published in the proceedings from Estes Park, last year. As long as you ignore this and the references it contains, there is no point in responding to you.

Lorentz Transformations are only a description of what is observed due to the c being a local constant, they are not the cause of it.

Quote from: WarpTech on 11/29/2017 02:41 AMFalse. Time dilation is caused by damping of the quantum wave functions as explained in my paper, published in the proceedings from Estes Park, last year. As long as you ignore this and the references it contains, there is no point in responding to you.You asked for experiments that show that time dilation in relativity works the way that relativity says it does. You have been provided with those experiments and explanations of them but you continue to ignore the results. You have not demonstrated any way that your claims that special relativity is wrong can be consistent with the results of these experiments. Quote from: WarpTech on 11/29/2017 02:41 AMLorentz Transformations are only a description of what is observed due to the c being a local constant, they are not the cause of it.Cause is irrelevant for this discussion, only the resulting behavior. I don't think you ever gave a clear answer to whether your theory produces the same results as General Relativity or not (at least at macroscopic scales that are relevant to this discussion). If it is the same results, then there is no need to discuss your theory, standard GR works perfectly well for this discussion. If not, then before you insist on discussing your theory, you need to work out how it can somehow still explain the experimental results that were listed.Remember that I already demonstrated in this thread that your explanation of the "twin paradox" was inconsistent. When you did not understand a basic part of special relativity, I am not sure why you would think that your theory of quantum gravity would be consistent.

The consistency of my "model" with GR is definitively spelled out with equations and examples in my paper, in the proceedings from Estes Park. I am not going to re-write it here for your convenience!!! Until you take the 20 minutes to read it, I ask that you stop the derogatory comments about a paper you have not read.

As to demonstrating consistency with the experiments, that will require another paper. It's not something I can explain in detail on a forum. I have better things to do with my time than write papers for someone who refuses to read them.