Science Forums 2

[Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If influence is allowed, all bets are off! This is in stark contrast to Einstein's theory of relativity which postulates that the speed of light is c. My presentation is based entirely on the lack of influence between the two collections of information being explained.

Then c, that is the speed of light, is only a limiting speed when the objects can be considered separately, when they can’t be considered separately c is no longer a limiting factor?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

No, we are hypothesizing the structure of a specific object, ignoring how the structure of that object is maintained (essentially assuming that such an object as I describe, my clock, is a possibility). Since such objects appear to be possible in our universe, it seems reasonable that there could exist a solution to my fundamental equation which would explain such an object (most of the individual interactions would have to be approximate solutions to Schrödinger's equation, where rest mass of the elements are momentum in the tau direction). “We are totally free to make these assertions as we are defining an object and, in the absence of contradiction, such an object could certainly exist.”

So only when a object can be considered to be separate from any other object of interest can we consider the Dirac delta function to have no effect so that we can consider an expanding sphere of the probability wave for the object?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Mass is momentum in the tau direction and thus can be either positive or negative just as momentum in the x direction can be either positive or negative; however, the energy associated with that momentum can only be positive. Secondly, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that the structure of my object (my clock) is only bound by the fact that, “We are totally free to make these assertions as we are defining an object and, in the absence of contradiction, such an object could certainly exist.”

I don’t understand what the relevance of the energy associated with the momentum having to be positive is, but will the energy have to be positive due to energy being associated with the derivative to t, which due to it being defined as nothing more then a evolution parameter must be positive.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

It is interesting to note that T, the period of our standard rest clock, is identical to 1/v_? times the distance the mirror moves in the direction during one clock cycle. Although actual position in the direction is a meaningless concept (as the entire object is infinite and uniform in that direction), our standard clock appears to be measuring the implied displacement of the mirror over time in that direction: i.e., we can infer that the mirror has moved a distance 2L₀ in the direction during one complete cycle. This will turn out to be a very significant fact since the scale of the dimension is set by the form of the fundamental equation (setting the scale of any dimension sets the scale of all the others) .

Then this is due to the velocity of the expanding sphere having to be a constant so that when distance along one axis has been defined in order for the expanding sphere to expand at a constant speed in all directions the distance in all directions has to have been defined, this includes the direction. Will this define a measure along the t axis seeing as it is just an evolution parameter? Or will it define t only if we have defined the value of .

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Now consider an identical standard clock in a moving reference frame: i.e., identical to the clock just described except for the fact that I will allow the momentum of the mirror assembly to be non negligible in the y direction. I use the y direction only because it is convenient to the drawing: i.e., the movement of the massless pulse is in the same direction as the clock, an issue which makes a drawing in two dimensions easy. If anyone is concerned about the issue, I will assist in clarifying the problem later.

So then, can movement in any other direction be dealt with simply by considering the additional distance that the oscillator will have to move in the direction of movement?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Note that the length of the moving clock is shown to be L'. This has been done because we know that the symmetry discussed in the previous section must require the Lorentz contraction to be a valid on any macroscopic solution if interactions with the rest of the universe may be neglected (up to this point the model was scale invariant): i.e., when we solve the problem in the moving clocks system we want the length of the clock as seen by the observer in that moving frame to be L₀. We use the scale freedom in our model to set that length (as seen from the rest system) to be L'; then and only then can we seriously call the clocks identical. This will require (the inverse of the relativistic transformation deduced earlier: i.e., in order to get the length of the moving clock in the primed coordinate system we have to multibly by ). Note that is exactly the apparent velocity of the moving clock divided by the velocity of the elemental entities, v_?, which actually has nothing to do with time. Since all velocities are v_?, it follows directly that d₁ + d₂ = S. Please note that everything so far is being graphed as seen in the frame of the rest clock: i.e., S=v_?T_m, where T_m is the period of the moving clock as seen from the rest frame.

So is the time dilation due to space dilating while distance for the moving frame is still defined in the same way although it has been scaled for an observer not in its rest frame.

Do we have to use the inverse transform here because we are moving in the opposite direction as to what we assumed to be transforming to in the first place? If so how can we tell the inverse Lorenz transform from the Lorenz transform aren’t both just moving from a rest frame to a frame that is not at rest with respect to it? It seems that it is a question of what frame it is that the measurements are in that we are transforming.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The rest observer will totally disagree with the moving observer's measurement. The rest observer will say that the oscillator took considerably longer to get to the right mirror than it took to return to the left. From his perspective, the flash bulb on the left hand mirror should have been set to go off at the y' indicated by point #2. From the rest observer's perspective, the moving observer has first marked his ruler at point #1 and then waited a considerable fraction of time before marking the other end of the ruler. The markings are not being made simultaneously. The consequence is clearly that the distance between the two marks on the ruler (as seen by the rest observer) are exactly equal to the relativistically corrected distance between the two mirrors, L'₀.

So then this is due to both observers using the assumption that the speed of the oscillator that their clock uses has a constant speed. And while it is measured to have a constant speed in any frame the comparison of it to a moving frame (that is if we measure the speed of the oscillator inside of a moving frame from our rest frame) it will not appear to be moving at the speed V_? in comparison to the moving observer. However in the moving frame they will measure the speed of the oscillator to be unchanged due to how time and distance have been defined.

Of course we could take the stance that time and distance have been scaled and as a result the oscillators measured speed is unchanged but that doesn’t seem to bring as much attention to the fact that we have circularly defined distance and time.

When you answer this I will continue.