[Tony Stanton]

dleviwing

I responded to your theory once before; it was silly then and nothing has changed to convince me otherwise.

That’s right, you did. You made a silly statement then run away from the argument if I remember correctly.

I also find your claims to be unfounded and lacking correlation to known facts.

Here we have another silly statement without backing up your argument. What claims and known facts are you alluding to?

BTW: I don’t know what books you are reading but Relativity does indeed present time dilation as a function of accelerations.

If that is true then what equation does Einstein use for the time dilation for an object under acceleration and I don’t mean gravitational acceleration? Remember velocity is relative whereas the force you feel while under acceleration isn’t. If you understand Einstein’s Relativity as well as you claim then that should not be too difficult for you to answer.

Tony

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Tony If that is true then what equation does Einstein use for the time dilation for an object under acceleration and I don’t mean gravitational acceleration? Remember velocity is relative whereas the force you feel while under acceleration isn’t. If you understand Einstein’s Relativity as well as you claim then that should not be too difficult for you to answer. Tony

You may find this link useful: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...SR/rocket.html

Also, please refrain from insulting comments, or goading other members into arguments.

Thank you.

[Tony Stanton]

Quanta07

I have read you pdf.

And I suppose that you think you have understood it straight away.

You begin by assuming a premise to be true…..

Of course I believe the premise that matter is responsible for spacetime is true otherwise there would be no point in researching that premise, would there?

Then proceed to use math drawn from illusions and reverse engineering to state that a ‘universal second’ is equal to a spherical VOLUME of radius ‘Ct’.

Illusions and reverse engineering? What are you babbling about? The radius of the zone of spacetime generated by any object is simply the distance that light travels in one second and I only use the second because physics uses that particular convention.

Then define the ‘universal clock’ in terms of LINEAR distance multiplied by the cube root of some number. Some really bad math here.

What bad math? The cube root of 299792548 m is not bad math. I suggest you take a course on simple geometry and algebra. It might help you to understand what is a simple concept, after all.

Matter does not radiate ‘spacetime’.

You don’t know that, you just assume that everything you have been taught about physics is true. If matter does radiate spacetime then it is testable in the lab. If I had access to a lab with the right facilities then I would prove that what I am saying is true.

Just because you severely want this to be true, does not make it so.

And I could say the same thing. Just because you want to think Einstein has spacetime correct doesn’t mean he does. I admit this concept is radical but the math I have used are correct and they show it is possible to model spacetime using this concept. Instead of coming up with some tinpot excuse to put this theory down try using the math and try understanding the theory then you might find a real flaw in the concept. I have spent many years trying to disprove the concept myself but TR always seems to come up with answers as to why we see the Universe as we do.

Any and all conclusions based on this false premise ….. are False.

You don’t know for sure it is a false premise. Although Einstein was a great man and a great thinker I believe his reluctance to tackle the arrow of time is why his conclusions were based on a false premise. TR explains the arrow of time and the presence of space. No other theory of spacetime does this.

Space and time are inseparable, but each is unique, NOT the same.

That is purely yours and the mainstreams opinion because it is what you have always been taught.

I find the presentational logic invalid and the math reverse engineered and incorrect.

But you have shown your math to be lacking and what you say about ‘math reverse engineering’ is absurd to say the least.

Tony

[Tony Stanton]

Neutralino

To be honest, Tony, the thought process behind your theory is summed up in this sentence talking about the results of GPB: Quote: Originally Posted by Tony I believe the “motional” procession will give a higher value because True Relativity predicts that local spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth.

Yes I do believe the motional procession will be greater than expected. The fact that these results have been delayed time and time again point to the fact that these results don’t match what Einstein’s Relativity predicts.

It's not enough to say that "you believe" your theory will do such and such-- if you don't make quantatitive predictions, then it is useless to make such comments.

Do you realise how many physicists have worked on Einstein’s Relativity just to make the prediction? And you expect me to be able to work the math on such a complex experiment. Be serious! It is ridiculous to expect an amateur to tackle such a complex experiment but the expectation that spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth logically brings me to the conclusion that the motional procession with be greater than expected.

I agree with dleviwing and quanta07; sorry, but your theory just doesn't work for me!

They, and you have not come up with one logical reason as to why TR cannot be true. Just to dismiss it out of hand without investigating it shows that your mind is closed even to theories that are mathematically correct. If there was no way to test TR then that would be acceptable but TR is a testable theory.
Is it because you didn’t come with the idea that makes you think I can’t possibly be right?
Don’t just dismiss it, rip it apart, if you can!!!
Let’s see how good you, Dave and quanta07 really are!!!

Tony

[Tony Stanton]

Neutralino

You may find this link useful: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...SR/rocket.html

This is from the website you pointed to: The clock postulate generalises this to say that even when the moving clock accelerates, the ratio of the rate of our clocks compared to its rate is still the above quantity. That is, it only depends on v, and does not depend on any derivatives of v, such as acceleration. So this says that an accelerating clock will count out its time in such a way that at any one moment, its timing has slowed by a factor (γ) that only depends on its current speed; its acceleration has no effect at all.

As I already knew, Einstein never thought that acceleration affects clocks in the frame under acceleration. He thought only velocity causes time to dilate and he is wrong.

Also, please refrain from insulting comments, or goading other members into arguements.

I can’t see where I have used insulting comments. If someone is attacking my math then surely I have the right to defend myself against incorrect arguments.
I am not goading other members into arguments. I am trying to debate this concept with real logical arguments. This site is about trying to find TOE and I think spacetime is the clue. If there are real reasons and evidence as to why my theory cannot be right then I will listen but if the argument against TR is flawed then I will argue my corner.
Surely most members must find heated debate a little entertaining, I know I do.

If I have insulted anyone then I apologise.

Tony

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton Neutralino This is from the website you pointed to: The clock postulate generalises this to say that even when the moving clock accelerates, the ratio of the rate of our clocks compared to its rate is still the above quantity. That is, it only depends on v, and does not depend on any derivatives of v, such as acceleration. So this says that an accelerating clock will count out its time in such a way that at any one moment, its timing has slowed by a factor (γ) that only depends on its current speed; its acceleration has no effect at all. As I already knew, Einstein never thought that acceleration affects clocks in the frame under acceleration.

Well, there's a caveat under that point, but it is rather subtle.

Anyway, I think there are a few crossed wires here: David mentioned that it is possible to write time dilation as a function of acceleration and, in the relativistic rocket link, the proper time of the rocket is written as a function of the distance in the earth frame and the rocket's acceleration. I thought this was what you were talking about, but obviously not.

So, you suppose that Einstein is incorrect. What experiments do you propose to test your theory (other than the GPB, which you don't have an empirical prediction for)?

[Tony Stanton]

Neutralino

Anyway, I think there are a few crossed wires here: David mentioned that it is possible to write time dilation as a function of acceleration and, in the relativistic rocket link, the proper time of the rocket is written as a function of the distance in the earth frame and the rocket's acceleration. I thought this was what you were talking about, but obviously not.

No, what I was alluding to was Einstein never considered acceleration caused time dilation. He thought only relative velocity caused time to dilate, yet he knew any object held still inside a gravitational field would experience time dilation so logically he should have considered the equivalence principle where any form of acceleration is equivalent. If time dilates while you are held still inside a gravitational field then time will also dilate for the frame under acceleration.

So, you suppose that Einstein is incorrect.

I don’t suppose he is incorrect, I know he was wrong about spacetime.

What experiments do you propose to test your theory (other than the GPB, which you don't have an empirical prediction for)?

As I have said, I am a mere amateur and it would be far beyond my abilities to tackle the complex gravity probe ‘B’ experiment and I would imagine far beyond anyone on this forum to try and calculate the expected results, which is why all I have said is that the results for frame dragging will be higher than expected for Einstein’s relativity.
In my paper I pointed out an experiment that can be performed in a lab, given the right facilities. There is another simple experiment involving superconducting material that will show it may be possible to reshape the spacetime zone of a piece of superconductor which involves a magnet and a smoke tank.
The lack of evidence of gravitational radiation also points towards TR being correct, although that in itself is not experimental evidence.
Given the right facilities I could prove the existence of the individual spacetime zones but without the right facilities I can only argue my corner.

Tony