Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Little 10 Toes]

Thank you for the correction there Reality Check. In referring to an Earth year, I was to you on Earth.

 

[Bjarne]

From my basic understanding, in order to answer the beard length question, you need to tell us how fast the Earth is moving.

No this is not how to understand SR.
The Earth could in fact be moving 100,000 km/s seen from a absolute perspective.
But according to SR this “should” MEAN NOTHING.

Because when we would launch a rocket on Earth we give a dame if it is towards north south east or west.
We expect according to SR; time dilation to be the same in all directions.

Hence Paul should expect the same when he launch a spacecraft from planet X.

BUT a person in a different reference could never agree about how the captains beard length must grow.

Hence the idea is shot down.
The idea that there are no absolute reference frame is death, There MUST be.
Witch mean if we (the Earth) moves 100,000 km/s west seen from a absolute reference frame , and we launch a rocket with same speed in the opposite motion direction time is NOT ticking slower, because from a absolute reference frame the true speed would be ZERO.
ONLY by launching the rocked opposite will cause the clock to tick slower.

You have told us that Planet X is moving 100,000 km/s.
You have mentioned that a rocket ship is moving in the opposite direction of Planet X at 100,000 km/s.
A simple diagram is R <----- # ---> E -----> X where R is the rocket ship, E is the Earth, X is Planet X, # is the point in space when Planet X was directly overhead the Earth and launched the rocket ship, and the greater than / less than signs are used as arrows to show direction of movement.

The rocket is really moving 100,000 km/s east relative to planet X.
Paul have use all his money to rocket fuel. The motion is; REAL.
This SHOULD without any doubt according to SR mean the captains clock (me) at Paul’s spacecraft MUST have a slower ticking click clock than Paul’s clock.

But this certainly will cause RC ( in the different zero-reference-frame) to scream (so laud that it can be heard in the space craft), - that this CANNOT be true, because the captain CANNOT have shorter beard as his own (after 1 RC year.)

You need to specify whose clock is measuring the year.

RC's clock.
My beard ”SHOULD” (according to SR) ALWAYS grow slower by faster speed.
BUT this is ONLY a half truth.
WE MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE MOTION IF AN OBJECT AT THE SAME MOVES BOTH FOWARD AND IN OPPESITE DIRECTIONS.

SR ONLY make sense in an absolute reference frame.

At the end of one year according to my clock my beard reaches the floor.
But Paul will report that his beard reached the floor after more than a year by my clock.

This is irrelevant.

But from what I have seen the situation is:
I am on a planet and consider to be the reference observer.
Paul is on a planet X travelling at a speed of v (100,000 km/s) from my planet.
Bjarne is on a spaceship with travelling at a speed of 2v (200,000 km/s) relative to me in the opposite direction to Paul.

As noted before: I will measure Paul and Bjarne's clocks to tick slower because they both have relative velocities to me.

But it loks like Bjarne has sated that he is actually at rest realtive to me. This makes it even simpler: No time dilation for him.

As expected you do only accept you own reality, and this is wrong, because Paul could within few second send you a message that according to his reality you must be wrong.

So the question is simply ; who is wrong and why.

RC is not stupid, he would call the Captain (me) hanging just above his head in the spacecraft.

And I would tell RC, you are correct RC, - my bear is exactly so long as yours..

Paul would now believe this must be a conspiracy, because according to SR my beard MUST be must shorter as his.

BUT the truth is that seen from a perspective of absolute motion, the Spacecraft IS NOT MOVING, because +/- peed counteracts each other from a absolute perspective..

The idea that the laws of physics always are the same for all inertial reference frames is WRONG

The truth is; only the speed of EM-waves (any particle without mass) is the same in all direction in all reference frames.

But the speed of a mass particle cannot be the same, and can only be correct understood in an absolute reference frame.

This is the where the chain went of for A. Einstein, - and the rest of the world.
FACE IT , it is so simple.

The explanation of this is; that speed of EM waves (so called particles without mass) do not moves through space, but are properties by space itself.
These are only osculation of space. Such happens always with the speed "c" independently how fast the physical EM source is moving.

BUT motion of matter, and hence motion through space is completely different.
The cause of the difference is; speed / matter/ space / energy / mass interact with each other whereby "time deformation" also is involved.

I have come to the conclusion; that an absolute reference frame is necessary, - based on my work to solve kinematic anomalies.

Bantokfomoki have come to the same conclusions but from a different angle ( I geuss).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related
Great honor to him

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Bjarne is on a spaceship with travelling at a speed of 2v (200,000 km/s) relative to me in the opposite direction to Paul.
...

My take on it:
Speed of Paul (X) relative to RC (C) = 100,000 km/s
Speed of spaceship relative to RC (C) = 0
Speed of spaceship relative to Paul (X) = 100,000 km/s

At the spaceships's -at rest relative to RC (C)- new position, it has a speed of 100,000 km/s relative to Paul (X) (the spaceship's original position).
In Bjarne's scheme, velocity for the spaceship is decreased, not increased.

It's a pity that asking Bjarne:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7197276&postcount=3852
for clarification doesn't work.

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.science27.com/forum/abc77.jpg

We expect according to SR; time dilation to be the same in all directions.

It is. This is experimentally verified.

Hence Paul should expect the same when he launch a spacecraft from planet X.

This is also correct.

BUT a person in a different reference could never agree about how the captains beard length must grow.

The reference frame is always the original frame of the object. The rocket accelerates frem some place. The time frame of that place is the reference for the rocket.

Hence the idea is shot down.
The idea that there are no absolute reference frame is death, There MUST be.

No. You just haven't understood it. Bjarne, you have to get used to this: Things don't have to be understood by you to be real. In fact things are real, whether anybody understands them or not.

Witch mean if we (the Earth) moves 100,000 km/s west seen from a absolute reference frame , and we launch a rocket with same speed in the opposite motion direction time is NOT ticking slower, because from a absolute reference frame the true speed would be ZERO.
ONLY by launching the rocked opposite will cause the clock to tick slower.

That would be the case if there was an absolute time frame, yes. However, we can show experimentally that this is not the case.

SR ONLY make sense in an absolute reference frame.

Wrong. You just don't understand it fully. That is nothing to be ashamed of; SR is really hard to understand. In fact, I would guess there is less than one person in a thousand who fully and completely understands SR.

The truth is; only the speed of EM-waves (any particle without mass) is the same in all direction in all reference frames.

But the speed of a mass particle cannot be the same, and can only be correct understood in an absolute reference frame.

No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Time dilation can be proved experimentally, on real objects.

This is the where the chain went of for A. Einstein, - and the rest of the world.
FACE IT , it is so simple.

No, I'm sorry, but it is your chain that is off. (I suspect it was never on.)

The explanation of this is; that speed of EM waves (so called particles without mass) do not moves through space, but are properties by space itself.

No. We can observe the particle property.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

... the captains (my) beard is both reaching the floor and only 25% reaching the floor at the same time.
...

No Bjarne, there is no relative speed of 200,000 km/s in your scenario.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
We expect according to SR; time dilation to be the same in all directions.
Hans
It is. This is experimentally verified.

No this is not true.
We are talking about the fact that when there is motion towards 2 opposite direction, the idea that physic always is the same in all inertial reference frames is nothing less as a contradicting and hence WRONG.
This is what the thought-experiment above clearly demonstrates.

I know you have GPS in mind.
These only confirm that SR seems to be true in our reference frame.
But this doesn’t prove that an absolute reference frame doesn’t exist.
That would be so stupid as to claim that the sky is blue because of the oxygen is blue.

Bjarne
BUT a person in a different reference could never agree about how the captains beard length must grow.
Hans
The reference frame is always the original frame of the object. The rocket accelerates frem some place. The time frame of that place is the reference for the rocket.

Make you self clear please.
I don’t think you self have understood what you are trying to say.
There seems only one way to solve the problem mentioned.
The spacecraft (mention above) and all matter motion moving opposite our motion do not exist, or ?
How can we accept such contradiction we really are talking about ?

Bjarne
Witch mean if we (the Earth) moves 100,000 km/s west seen from a absolute reference frame , and we launch a rocket with same speed in the opposite motion direction time is NOT ticking slower, because from a absolute reference frame the true speed would be ZERO.
ONLY by launching the rocked opposite will cause the clock to tick slower.
Hans
That would be the case if there was an absolute time frame, yes. However, we can show experimentally that this is not the case.

No you have not experimentally disproven the contradiction, if you really have done that you should had explain Paul why SR (in the thought-experiment above) not apply for his reality (reference frame) but only for RC’s and the captains reality.

Hans stop being so omniscient explain to Paul why in his case SR is an exception, or explain it to RC if you believe it is his reference frame that have failed, - and explain to me (the captains) why Paul and RC do not agree about how long by beard was after 1 RC year.

You are in fact only avoiding dealing with the real problem, the sky is blue oxygen is blue and that solves the problem, - everybody seems to be happy with that so why worry´?

Before getting into details, let me ask you, do you believe the length of our meter stick is valid the whole way to the Sun?
Or do you believe the meter stick is relative longer (compared to here) the closer you get to the Sun?
If you believe our meter stick can be used everywhere in the Universe, and that there are no relative differences, - what exactly make you so certain?

Furthermore, how do you believe the distance to satellites are measured?
Just 2 simple questions.

I mean I remember you wrote we always can ask you if there was any doubt (!)

 

[Paulhoff]

I will not be getting any more emails from this thread anymore.

I don't understand why you guys are doing all his leg-work for him. The man is clueless and only wants to try to make a name for himself by using other people to do the real work.

On to other crazy theads.

Paul

 

[Daylightstar]

... why SR (in the thought-experiment above) not apply for his reality (reference frame) but only for RC’s and the captains reality.
...

And:

...
This is what the thought-experiment above clearly demonstrates.

With the above, do you mean:

... and therefore the captains (my) beard is both reaching the floor and only 25% reaching the floor at the same time.
...

?

 

[Bjarne]

PS

SR is really hard to understand. In fact, I would guess there is less than one person in a thousand who fully and completely understands SR

If no one can't answer the question above, no one understand SR

 

[Daylightstar]

Refer to my previous post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7203142&postcount=3888

Well, Bjarne??? Is that what you meant?

 

[Paul]

BBC: New method 'confirms dark energy'

 

[Paul]

No this is not true... ignorant ranty nonsense snipped

You still don't seem to understand the relative part of relativity.

Or anything else come to think of it.

 

[Bjarne]

Refer to my previous post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7203142&postcount=3888

Well, Bjarne??? Is that what you meant?

I did not got the Q

 

[Bjarne]

RC means what RC wrote: ticking slower.
The clocks always tick slower in special realtivity. No one ever sees a click ticking faster.
Time dilation

The Lorentz factor is a positive number (regardless of what an especially ignorant person thinks) that is always greater than 1.

I know that you are incapable of understanding simple math but here it is, Bjarne:
v is the relative speed between the observers. It has units of (length/time).
c is the speed of light. It has units of (length/time).
If you square v then you get v² then you get a positive number with units of (length/time)².
If you square c then you get c² then you get a positive number with units of (length/time)².
If you divide that v squared by c squared then you get a number with no units of measurement which is less than 1 because v is always less than c.
If you subtract that number from 1 then you get a positive number < 1 with no units of measurement.
If you take the square root of that number from 1 then you get a positive number < 1 with no units of measurement.
If you divide 1 by that number then you get a positive number >= 1 with no units of measurement.

I belive I know all this

Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day
Can such amateurs like us calculate that ?

1 day 86400 s

Let say speed = 3000 m/s

y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) = 1,0000000000503
t' = 86400/√(1 - v²/c²) = 86400,0000086

I geuss everybody agree
Wait I will get to the point

 

[Paul]

I belive I know all this

That is part of the problem.

Wait I will get to the point

Really?

 

[Paul]

No response to the new dark energy data Bjarne?

 

[Bjarne]

No response to the new dark energy data Bjarne?

Paul
This kind of research is waste of Money and waste of intelligence.
Dark Matter is no longer matter
It was matter (due to extreme speed) 13,7 billion years + 1 split second ago..
Today it is ONLY Memory (releasing itself as dark energy) ((a gravitational wave))
The cause of gravity, dark matter and dark energy, is all the same pipe of tobacco.
Today so "called dark" matter is only the remains of deformation of space caused by extreme gravity 13,7 billion years ago .

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Bjarne]

AN ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME IS A FACT

I believe I know all this

Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day
Can such amateurs like us calculate that?

1 day 86400 s

Let say speed = 3000 m/s

y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) = 1,0000000000503
t' = 86400/√(1 - v²/c²) = 86400,0000086

I guess everybody agree
Wait I will get to the point

I will continue.

According to what Hans wrote above, we "know" SR is confirmed, and I believe he have Satellites in mind.

Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day

So how can this part of the time dilation possible occur ?

A Satellite motion must be understood from an absolute motion perspective.
The half part of the orbit must (seen from a absolute motion perspective) be faster as the other galft part slower as the Earth's absolute motion.

Below I will calculate the consequence; when a Geostatic Satellite half of its orbit is faster and half of its orbit is slower relative to absolute speed.
The absolute Speed of the Earth is estimated to 100,000 m/s.

Time = 43200 s (½ orbit)
Min Speed is estimated to 97,000 m/s
Max speed is estimated to 103,000 m/s
Min & Max speed are +3000m/s and -3000m/s relative to the speed of the Earth (100,000 m/s).

Based on the time dilation equation we can now find the time difference based on a estimated absolute referrence frame.

Min Speed................................. = 43200/sqrt(1-97000^2/3e8^2)= 43200.00225816017
Average Speed - (the Earth).... = 43200/sqrt(1-100000^2/3e8^2) = 43200.00240000019
Max Speed ............................... = 43200/sqrt(1-103000^2/3e8^2) = 43200.00254616023


Average speed Minus Min. Speed................ = 43200.00240000019 ....... minus .. 43200.00225816017 = 1.418400133843534e-4
Max speed minus Average Speed ............. = 43200.00254616023 ....... minus .. 43200.00240000019 = 1.461600404581986e-4
Difference; ................................................ = 1.461600404581986e-4 .. minus .. 1.418400133843534e-4 = 4.320027073845213e-6

As we can see from a absolute perspective this example shows there is a lost of 4,3e-6 second per day.
The real lost is 7e-6 second, - the fact that the values do not match is not important, - only the principle is important.

Now you would say; - the speed due to the motion of the galaxy alone = 250,000 m/s , and the speed I have found is only about the half.
But this argument will not make sense, - from a absolute reference frame - because ;

1. All motion/speed in opposite direction must be deducted ( e.g; cluster of galaxies).
2. Both time and distance seen from a absolute reference frame do not correspond to our time and distance. An absolute observer must be an "outsider" and this could be a very strange place.
3. There could be multiple Universes.

Yes true, now we are long way from home, but this is necessary.

The alternative is that SR contradicts itself as so clearly discussed above.

It is a fact that the time dilation must be = 7 microsecond (due to SR).
But it is also a fact that many other calculations very well can give the same result.

Today the sky is blue, but no one have ever proved that this is because Oxygen is blue, - we all know that Oxygen (bottles) are blue (but this is not science).
So don’t believe Hans when he tells you what we KNOW.
Knowledge is what is proven .

CONCLUTION.
The fact that 7 microsecond (according to the time dilation equation) fits very well, - can only be a coincidence.
I cannot have both 1 meter beard and 10 cm the same day (without cutting it). – Science should NOT/B] accept such HUGE contradiction.
This SCREAMS to heaven for help.
An absolute reference frame is indeed necessary ....

 

[Daylightstar]

I did not got the Q

Yes you did. Right in this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7203142&postcount=3888
post.

Your purported SR anomaly was based on you plugging a (added as extra) non existent relative velocity into the time dilation formula, and then thinking that there is an anomaly.

Of course these observation cannot be the same, and therefore the captains (my) beard is both reaching the floor and only 25% reaching the floor at the same time.
This is the result you get when using the dilation formula which Reality Check provided above.
...

Basically becaus you don't understand even only relative motion.