Meberbs, I would like to “show my work” in my analysis.
2. At earth time “t prime”,
Under Relativity, where did this data come from?
4. From Sirius's reference frame, under Relativity, it could have only come from the future.
5. Here is where it gets tricky. Where is the future starting point? From Sirius's reference frame, it is 8 years in the future from the point where the ship, bearing the data, arrived.
Note, 8 years in the “future”, from Sirius's reference frame, coincides with the departure of the ship, minus the transit time, in earth's reference frame.
7. On the return to earth, everything applies the same way. The ship leaves Sirius, (with the Sirius's data transcripts) and returns to earth. It takes .7 years transit time. The ship is now perceived from earth's reference frame as returning from “the future”, coming backwards in time,
Meberbs, I went to all this detail to try to determine exactly where the “point of asymmetry” between the two viewpoints arises. Thank you for your time.
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.The answer is either a yes or a no. If you don't show that the answer is in general a "yes" then the answer is no.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.What you are saying here is that it is not consistent with general relativity, because if it was, you wouldn't need another paper to show its consistency with the listed experiments. Since you need another paper to do so, it is clear that the paper you have written does not answer the questions I asked. (Anyway, I have skimmed it, but it looked like you didn't actually answer the questions I have, which your statements here now confirm)
A paper showing that your model is consistent with basic tests of relativity is something you should want to write anyway if you actually care about your theory. The fact that I showed your explanation of a basic application of relativity (the "twin paradox") was inconsistent, means that you need to go back and update your model to account for what you learned in that discussion, and until you have done so, I don't know why I should spend time reviewing something that has known flaws.
What you're asking for is proof of consistency with the experiments of SR, but by your own assertion, if the model is consistent with GR is must be consistent with SR in the limit of applicability.
My assertion is that there is no time travel because the gravitational field gives us a baseline for the rate of clocks,
and time dilation is a physical effect caused by damping of the quantum wave functions, not geometry. Geometry is a description, not a cause.
The description that includes time travel is a stretch of the imagination, not a physical reality.
and time dilation is a physical effect caused by damping of the quantum wave functions, not geometry. Geometry is a description, not a cause.As I already said, cause is irrelevant, only the measured effect.The description that includes time travel is a stretch of the imagination, not a physical reality.Physical reality is that the space between stars is relatively flat and special relativity is completely applicable. General relativity includes more ways to time travel than special relativity, not less.
When someone measures or demonstrates time travel, I will change my mind. Until then, there is no evidence of it. If GR and SR predict it, then it needs to be demonstrated or else Relativity is wrong - Period. My model does not predict it and yet is consistent with all the measurable effects of GR and SR.
When someone measures or demonstrates time travel, I will change my mind. Until then, there is no evidence of it. If GR and SR predict it, then it needs to be demonstrated or else Relativity is wrong - Period. My model does not predict it and yet is consistent with all the measurable effects of GR and SR.You are not making any sense. Time travel in special relativity requires FTL, and special relativity does not have a way to do FTL. General relativity does have ways to do FTL, and it predicts that they result in time travel, but all of the ones we know of also require things that to our knowledge are non-existent, such as negative mass. You are saying that you want a demonstration of something that is impossible before you believe that it is impossible. This is simply a contradiction.
If your model does not predict it, then contrary to your previous claims, your model is not consistent with relativity, because the time dilation in relativity has been demonstrated multiple ways by different experiments, and FTL = time travel is an inevitable consequence of this time dilation.
Wow! I said; "When someone measures or demonstrates time travel, I will change my mind. Until then, there is no evidence of it." and somehow you interpreted that sentence to mean the exact opposite of what I said.
I do NOT believe time travel is possible. It is impossible and until someone demonstrates it, I will continue to believe it is impossible.
If GR predict time travel, it is probably wrong about that. Which means that my model, which derives time dilation without time travel, is an improvement! It is consistent with all the "measurable" classical tests of GR that have been predicted, as demonstrated by Puthoff.
Wow! I said; "When someone measures or demonstrates time travel, I will change my mind. Until then, there is no evidence of it." and somehow you interpreted that sentence to mean the exact opposite of what I said.You said that GR is wrong unless someone demonstrates time travel, while ignoring that GR only predicts time travel if you allow things that enable FTL travel. You are contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next.I do NOT believe time travel is possible. It is impossible and until someone demonstrates it, I will continue to believe it is impossible.Then you must either demonstrate that fundamental and tested parts of GR are wrong, or admit that FTL is impossible.If GR predict time travel, it is probably wrong about that. Which means that my model, which derives time dilation without time travel, is an improvement! It is consistent with all the "measurable" classical tests of GR that have been predicted, as demonstrated by Puthoff.First, if you read the paper that you linked, you will see that your statements fall flat. The paper does not discuss gravitational radiation or frame dragging and admits as much. We have been through this discussion before, so you really shouldn't be repeating these false claims.
It is simply not possible to be consistent with general relativity in the various stated situations, and not also include the conclusion that FTL means time travel. This comes from a trivial part of special relativity. The model in Puthoff's paper does not avoid this, and whatever you have done in your model to come to a different conclusion indicates an inconsistency in your model. This is certainly related to the fact that when you tried to explain what happens in the "twin paradox" with your model, you ended up with a contradiction.
The contradiction you refer to arrises because you allow reciprocity in SR. I do not, so I do not see any contradiction and FTL does not equate to time travel UNLESS you allow reciprocity.
The contradiction you refer to arrises because you allow reciprocity in SR. I do not, so I do not see any contradiction and FTL does not equate to time travel UNLESS you allow reciprocity.
The contradiction you refer to arrises because you allow reciprocity in SR. I do not, so I do not see any contradiction and FTL does not equate to time travel UNLESS you allow reciprocity.And not allowing reciprocity leads to trivial contradictions in non-FTL situations. As I already explained, you cannot explain measurements such as the time dilation of fast moving particle decay times (or really any special relativistic effect) without reciprocity. Non-reciprocity means that there must be some reference frame with a velocity that is "special," And Michelson-Morley type experiments demonstrate that there is not a special reference frame.
"Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun.
— Albert Einstein, 1916"
1. Long flight time (slow decay) of fast moving particles is determined by time dilation. My model predicts time dilation due to increased damping of the quantum wave function for the particle that is fast moving wrt the sun or the earth. The motion of fast moving particles does not demonstrate reciprocity! It only demonstrates time dilation for the particle moving fast with respect to the center of the local gravitational field.
Possibly the clearest demonstration is in the decay times of moving particles. Particles moving in opposing directions in the lab frame would be measured to have different decay times if reciprocity was not true. (If reciprocity was not true then the 2 particles would not see symmetrically the same behavior from the other particle. This would then clearly translate to non-symmetric measurements of them in the lab frame.) Instead experiments all confirm decay times to be dilated consistent with relativity.
2. The Michelson-Morley experiment is resolved by length contraction in the direction of motion. My model predicts length contraction due to increased damping...etc. for the experiment moving wrt the sun or the earth. The MM experiment does not demonstrate reciprocity, it only demonstrates length contraction in the direction of motion relative to the center of the gravitational field.
"Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the [surface of the] earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun.
— Albert Einstein, 1916"
The gravitational field of the galaxy, the sun and the earth set the relative baseline for the rate at which clocks tick and the length of a ruler. Proximity to, and motion relative to the source of this baseline gravitational field increases damping. There have been NO experiments done that are so far distant that the gravitational fields of the earth, the sun or the galaxy are irrelevant. There have been NO experiments that demonstrate reciprocity.
The rate at which clocks tick is determined by damping and cannot be independent of the local gravitational field.
If you use SR where there is no gravitational field, you get bogus concepts such as reciprocity that leads to the bogus prediction of time travel. If you treat all flat space-times as equal, without accounting for their relative damping, you get the same bogus predictions out of GR.
...
Seriously, this seems to come down to you not liking what reality says, but reality doesn't care. Experiments show that all spacetime is equivalent and not affected by what velocity you are moving relative to a gravity well. (Being in the gravity well to begin with does have an affect, but the velocity doesn't matter.)
Your comments show a severe misunderstanding on your part. You think that I'm saying there is an aether, and we can measure our speed relative to this aether and therefore, the results of the M-M experiment will change. I am NOT saying that! This is your misunderstanding.
The motion of fast moving particles does not demonstrate reciprocity! It only demonstrates time dilation for the particle moving fast with respect to the center of the local gravitational field.
...
The MM experiment does not demonstrate reciprocity, it only demonstrates length contraction in the direction of motion relative to the center of the gravitational field.
We cannot measure speed relative to the vacuum EM ZPF. This has been proven. The field is proportional to ω3, as such, a Lorentz transformation leaves the field unchanged!
No, what you are saying is that time dilation is dependent on velocity relative to local gravitational wells, that is different from aether, but equally disproven by the M-M experiment.
We cannot measure speed relative to the vacuum EM ZPF. This has been proven. The field is proportional to ω3, as such, a Lorentz transformation leaves the field unchanged!
But you are claiming that the Lorentz transformation is wrong every time that you claim that FTL can exist without allowing time travel because you think that reciprocity doesn't exist. The Lorentz transformation itself is inherently reciprocal and if you try to make it non-reciprocal, you quickly get contradictions.
No, what you are saying is that time dilation is dependent on velocity relative to local gravitational wells, that is different from aether, but equally disproven by the M-M experiment.
How so? The spectral energy density associated with the sun's gravitational field ADDS to that of the earth's gravitational field. The spectral energy density is a scalar field in this situation. There are no vector components associated with it that would cause the M-M experiment to detect it. (I'm not considering frame dragging here) The whole experiment is immersed in the SUM of all the scalar fields in the solar system, and beyond, at that location. As far as the equipment is concerned, it exists in a uniform field with a spectral energy density ρ(ω).
We cannot measure speed relative to the vacuum EM ZPF. This has been proven. The field is proportional to ω3, as such, a Lorentz transformation leaves the field unchanged!But you are claiming that the Lorentz transformation is wrong every time that you claim that FTL can exist without allowing time travel because you think that reciprocity doesn't exist. The Lorentz transformation itself is inherently reciprocal and if you try to make it non-reciprocal, you quickly get contradictions.The Lorentz transformation is a valuable mathematical tool. The logic and math is correct. What is wrong is the assumption that it is based on, which is that all vacuums in flat space-time are identical and interchangeable. They are not.
There can be an infinite number of flat space-times that have different vacuum spectral energy density ρ(ω), which results in matter (clocks and rulers) having a different conformal scale. In GR these would be different vacuum solutions of Einstein's equations for flat space-time, but most people ignore this possibility. A proper accounting of these differences in the vacuum energy density will allow us to properly determine whether a situation is reciprocal or not, and avoid time travel paradoxes when moving FTL.
No, what you are saying is that time dilation is dependent on velocity relative to local gravitational wells, that is different from aether, but equally disproven by the M-M experiment.
How so? The spectral energy density associated with the sun's gravitational field ADDS to that of the earth's gravitational field. The spectral energy density is a scalar field in this situation. There are no vector components associated with it that would cause the M-M experiment to detect it. (I'm not considering frame dragging here) The whole experiment is immersed in the SUM of all the scalar fields in the solar system, and beyond, at that location. As far as the equipment is concerned, it exists in a uniform field with a spectral energy density ρ(ω).Read the words that you wrote. You said that what matters is velocity relative to the center of the gravitational field. What you state here is correct in that it shows that your previous statements are nonsensical and wrong.
Read the words that you wrote. You said that what matters is velocity relative to the center of the gravitational field. What you state here is correct in that it shows that your previous statements are nonsensical and wrong.
How so? Explain please, how choosing a reference frame from which to measure the relative velocity makes any difference to the M-M experiment? The velocity can be measured "relative to" the center of the earth, the center of the sun, the center of the galaxy, etc... The results of the experiment will be the same. What difference does it make to the outcome of the experiment, that I choose to say relative to the center of gravity?
Thank you.
Read the words that you wrote. You said that what matters is velocity relative to the center of the gravitational field. What you state here is correct in that it shows that your previous statements are nonsensical and wrong.
How so? Explain please, how choosing a reference frame from which to measure the relative velocity makes any difference to the M-M experiment? The velocity can be measured "relative to" the center of the earth, the center of the sun, the center of the galaxy, etc... The results of the experiment will be the same. What difference does it make to the outcome of the experiment, that I choose to say relative to the center of gravity?
Thank you.You were claiming that it only shows time dilation relative to the center of gravity. If you want to say the results are valid regardless of reference frame, you are accepting reciprocity. Choice of reference frame makes no difference in the M-M experiment under special relativity, but if you reject reciprocity, choice of reference frame matters.