Cubic Time Dilation - Corrected Lorentz Factor

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

A) It is a “rigid body” thus there is no “pulling apart” (the “train” thought would have merely a single car).

There is no such thing as a perfectly rigid body. These might have a place in your fantasy physics, but if you want to do real physics, you will have to leave them behind.

B) Pulling apart requires forces in opposing directions. The only forces are in the same direction.

Pulling apart requires a difference of force in a direction. If you bother to work through any example in detail, then you will see a difference in force. In the case of the Bell’s Spaceship Scenario, there is a much greater force in one direction.

C) It is a constant force creating a gradual acceleration. The force is never any greater than when it started. If it didn’t pull it apart initially, it never will.

You are still thinking in terms of an idea of time that simply doesn’t match up with our universe. That’s fine, but if you want to criticize special relativity, please learn special relativity.

D) Although not required, you are permitted to use your light sphere to establish relative simultaneity to initiate the event. The forces are not changing, so even if you miss your timing, the difference is immediately corrected.

I have no idea what you mean here. Given your problems understanding what the relativity of simultaneity is, I suspect that you think that if something is fixed as simultaneous once it is simultaneous in all frames of reference. This is not the case.

E) The entropy established by “pulling apart” anything requires energy. Where did the extra energy come from?

Perhaps you didn’t notice those engines pushing and pulling the train or the spaceships?

F) If you look at the time issue, the front and rear have become out of sync even though always in the same reference frame.

All objects are in all (well-formed) reference frames. One cannot infer anything from a claim that an object is in a reference frame other than that the reference frame is sufficient to describe the object at some spacetime event.

G) You seem to be missing the point. There is a body either out or under accelerating the force being applied to it. This breaks two ontological principles;
a) SS+ST=SR (SameState + SameTreatment => SameResult).
– The front and rear of the car are at all times in the same state and being treated equally, yet differ in result.
b) definition of “force” requires only the amount of acceleration accomplished.
– how is an acceleration accomplished if not by the applied force? Where did the extra energy come from or go to?

You fail to see that you are not describing physical scenarios accurately. If you did, you would always find that there was the same result when the same treatment was applied. However, you describe sloppy scenarios where you leave out important factors or include contradictory ones (like claiming that some events are simultaneous in all reference frames).

So it is not entirely like Bell’s breaking string. This “string” has no means to break, and doesn’t. So how is the result explained?

The string has a reason to break: the laws of physics governing electromagnetism. You deny these laws, at least to the extent that you refuse to look at them or learn them.

[James_S_Saint]

@PhysBang

@James S Saint

A) It is a “rigid body” thus there is no “pulling apart” (the “train” thought would have merely a single car).

There is no such thing as a perfectly rigid body. These might have a place in your fantasy physics, but if you want to do real physics, you will have to leave them behind.

I won’t argue with the fact that there are no actual “rigid bodies” in reality. But realize that the physics principles were developed from such a notion. And what that means is that your proposal that the bodies are “pulled apart” doesn’t really mean anything because there are no rigid bodies to pull apart. There is no “apart”. The dimension itself is reduced, not merely the objects within.

So, no, the train car doesn’t get “pulled apart”.

@PhysBang

B) Pulling apart requires forces in opposing directions. The only forces are in the same direction.

Pulling apart requires a difference of force in a direction. If you bother to work through any example in detail, then you will see a difference in force. In the case of the Bell’s Spaceship Scenario, there is a much greater force in one direction.

As I said, this isn’t Bell’s scenario. But since you insist, go ahead and show us those forces pulling his string apart.

@PhysBang

C) It is a constant force creating a gradual acceleration. The force is never any greater than when it started. If it didn’t pull it apart initially, it never will.

You are still thinking in terms of an idea of time that simply doesn’t match up with our universe. That’s fine, but if you want to criticize special relativity, please learn special relativity.

And if you want to defend it, it might help if you learn how to express its equations and work with them, because they aren’t adding up. And your effort to merely hand wave and claim that “X principle” resolves that “and you are an idiot for not learning that”, amounts to no more than religious fanaticism.

Yes, I am well aware that you have faith in your church. But either call it faith, or learn its details so that you can defend it properly.

@PhysBang

D) Although not required, you are permitted to use your light sphere to establish relative simultaneity to initiate the event. The forces are not changing, so even if you miss your timing, the difference is immediately corrected.

I have no idea what you mean here. Given your problems understanding what the relativity of simultaneity is, I suspect that you think that if something is fixed as simultaneous once it is simultaneous in all frames of reference. This is not the case.

Given your problem understanding relativity, perhaps you should let someone else defend it for you? I tell other religious fanatics the same thing.

@PhysBang

E) The entropy established by “pulling apart” anything requires energy. Where did the extra energy come from?

Perhaps you didn’t notice those engines pushing and pulling the train or the spaceships?

And perhaps you didn’t notice that they are what is giving the acceleration, else they aren’t actually “forces”. There energy is used specifically in creating momentum. So back to the question (although irrelevant since nothing really gets pulled apart anyway), where would your proposed energy come from or go to?

@PhysBang

F) If you look at the time issue, the front and rear have become out of sync even though always in the same reference frame.

All objects are in all (well-formed) reference frames. One cannot infer anything from a claim that an object is in a reference frame other than that the reference frame is sufficient to describe the object at some spacetime event.

So you are denying that we can use the Lorentz to deduce what the moving clocks must be reading?

@PhysBang

G) You seem to be missing the point. There is a body either out or under accelerating the force being applied to it. This breaks two ontological principles;
a) SS+ST=SR (SameState + SameTreatment => SameResult).
– The front and rear of the car are at all times in the same state and being treated equally, yet differ in result.
b) definition of “force” requires only the amount of acceleration accomplished.
– how is an acceleration accomplished if not by the applied force? Where did the extra energy come from or go to?

You fail to see that you are not describing physical scenarios accurately. If you did, you would always find that there was the same result when the same treatment was applied.

I realize that is your faith. I am asking if you can defend it in anything but your religiously demeaning manner.

Throwing out vague accusations doesn’t help your case. Show us the details. The devil is always in the details. Anyone can just say, “You too dumb. I smart. You shud lern lik ME!”

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

@PhysBang

@James S Saint

A) It is a “rigid body” thus there is no “pulling apart” (the “train” thought would have merely a single car).

There is no such thing as a perfectly rigid body. These might have a place in your fantasy physics, but if you want to do real physics, you will have to leave them behind.

I won’t argue with the fact that there are no actual “rigid bodies” in reality. But realize that the physics principles were developed from such a notion. And what that means is that your proposal that the bodies are “pulled apart” doesn’t really mean anything because there are no rigid bodies to pull apart. There is no “apart”. The dimension itself is reduced, not merely the objects within.

So, no, the train car doesn’t get “pulled apart”.

Ok, fine, you don’t care about physics as practiced for the last two to four hundred years.

And your effort to merely hand wave and claim that “X principle” resolves that “and you are an idiot for not learning that”, amounts to no more than religious fanaticism.

This seems to be exactly your approach: you make claims about what happens in these scenarios, you handwave about the details, and you attack those who disagree.

And perhaps you didn’t notice that they are what is giving the acceleration, else they aren’t actually “forces”.

f=ma.

There energy is used specifically in creating momentum. So back to the question (although irrelevant since nothing really gets pulled apart anyway), where would your proposed energy come from or go to?

Perhaps the lesson here is that one cannot merely transfer momentum magically along an entire body, one has to take other things into account?

@PhysBang

F) If you look at the time issue, the front and rear have become out of sync even though always in the same reference frame.

All objects are in all (well-formed) reference frames. One cannot infer anything from a claim that an object is in a reference frame other than that the reference frame is sufficient to describe the object at some spacetime event.

So you are denying that we can use the Lorentz to deduce what the moving clocks must be reading?

No, I am denying that we learn something because something is described in a reference frame. Give some coordinates within that reference frame and we might learn something.

I realize that is your faith. I am asking if you can defend it in anything but your religiously demeaning manner.

That is a great dodge to avoid ever working through your examples in detail with actual numbers. You still have yet to demonstrate how your proposed cubic factor predicts anything in a physical application.

Throwing out vague accusations doesn’t help your case. Show us the details. The devil is always in the details. Anyone can just say, “You too dumb. I smart. You shud lern lik ME!”

That is a great dodge to avoid ever working through your examples in detail with actual numbers. You still have yet to demonstrate how your proposed cubic factor predicts anything in a physical application.

[phyllo]

A rigid body that appears to distort.

The forces will produce a resultant 2F force acting at the center of mass.

To the stationary observer, it will appear that the force on the rear is greater than 1F and the force on the front is less than 1F.

The relativity of simultaneity is irrelevant since this is acceleration from zero velocity. Initially, action at front and rear is simultaneous.

[James_S_Saint]

@phyllo

A rigid body that appears to distort.

The forces will produce a resultant 2F force acting at the center of mass.

To the stationary observer, it will appear that the force on the rear is greater than 1F and the force on the front is less than 1F.

The relativity of simultaneity is irrelevant since this is acceleration from zero velocity. Initially, action at front and rear is simultaneous.

True.

But now you have something perhaps called “relativity of force”. The ontological stipulation that the perception of the speed of light is to be constant demands that almost every other ontological element must bow to it and “bend”, such as space, length, time, simultaneity, and now force.

And then the problem with that is that the forces are between the two frames. When something is between frames, it can’t be relativised, such as the velocity. Note that velocity is determined by the action of both frames. Force is similar. It is the state of both frames that establish what a force is. So you really can’t arbitrarily define force to be relative just to justify the demand that the perception of light be constant.

The force is being monitored and kept constant and identical. But interestingly, the perception of force (due to the acceleration) would be not merely different, but reversed. To the station, the rear would be perceived to be getting too much force and the front, too little. But from the train, because the station frame is shrinking, the rear would seem to be getting too little force in that the rear wasn’t accelerating fast enough from a station’s point behind the train. And also the front (from the train’s perspective) would seem to be accelerating too quickly toward a station’s point in front of the train (I think I got that right).

So this whole length contraction bit seems to have a problem relating to how it ever got shrunk without violating the laws of physics, its own ontological definitions for behavior.

[PhysBang]

@phyllo

A rigid body that appears to distort.

Indeed. Welcome to physics, it’s been here since the 17th century.

To the stationary observer, it will appear that the force on the rear is greater than 1F and the force on the front is less than 1F.

One can always reassign forces with a change in coordinates.

The relativity of simultaneity is irrelevant since this is acceleration from zero velocity. Initially, action at front and rear is simultaneous.

The thing about physics scenarios is that they are not usually things that happen at one time and one time only. In this case, the scenario takes place over a duration. What events are simultaneous over that duration depends on the choice of reference frame. Unless, of course, one simply wants to use some other physics than special relativity.

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

The ontological stipulation that the perception of the speed of light is to be constant demands that almost every other ontological element must bow to it and “bend”, such as space, length, time, simultaneity, and now force.

The demand is that the speed of light relative to a system of coordinates is the same, individual perceptions do not matter. This is often an important difference.

And then the problem with that is that the forces are between the two frames.

Nothing is ever between frames. Everything is in every frame of reference (that is well-formed). This is basic physics that predates Einstein. Literally, one cannot do physics without this understanding.

Physical quantities like work and force have been relativized in a purely Newtonian context since Isaac Newton.

But, please, let us see an application for this cubic transformation that is not simply promoting the Time Cube.

[James_S_Saint]

@PhysBang

Nothing is ever between frames. Everything is in every frame of reference (that is well-formed). This is basic physics that predates Einstein. Literally, one cannot do physics without this understanding.

In which frame is the velocity?

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

In which frame is the velocity?

Velocity is in every frame; in principle every object in every frame has a velocity. That velocity could be zero, but it is there.

If we describe the velocity of a car relative to itself, then we get a velocity of zero. If we describe it relative to the road, then we probably get a number greater than zero. Someone in the car can figure out what their velocity is relative to the road quite easily; that’s why we have spedometers.

[James_S_Saint]

Nahh… n/m

[PhysBang]

I am not really surprised that this is news to you.

[socratus]

Where the Time come from ?
Time: can time exist without matter?
According to Newton the answer is “ Yes”
According to Einstein the answer is “ No”
Who is right, who is wrong?
=…
Newton declared that time is absolute and wrote that time
“ flows equably without relation to anything external”.
Einstein had another opinion.
He wanted to know:
“ Where does the conception of time come from?”
“ What is the essence of time?”.
To explain these questions he created two theories: SRT and GRT .
=…
According to SRT / GRT time is relative and depends on the mass and speed
It means that different moving mass-bodies can create different time.
It also means that space and time is only a result of some physical process
of moving mass / moving particles. The cause for time and space to be able
to appear is moving mass / moving particles.
============= …
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.

[James_S_Saint]

@socratus

Where the Time come from ?
Time: can time exist without matter?
According to Newton the answer is “ Yes”
According to Einstein the answer is “ No”
Who is right, who is wrong?

Newton would have been right about that one.
And Einstein would have been wrong (but I suspect that isn’t what Einstein believed).

@socratus

Newton declared that time is absolute and wrote that time
“ flows equably without relation to anything external”.

Newton would have been wrong about that one.

@socratus

Einstein had another opinion.
He wanted to know:
“ Where does the conception of time come from?”
“ What is the essence of time?”.
To explain these questions he created two theories: SRT and GRT .

Einstein would also have been wrong, merely less wrong.

@socratus

According to SRT / GRT time is relative and depends on the mass and speed
It means that different moving mass-bodies can create different time.
It also means that space and time is only a result of some physical process
of moving mass / moving particles. The cause for time and space to be able
to appear is moving mass / moving particles.

Newton was talking about reality, whether correct about it or not.
Einstein was talking about measuring it, whether correct or not.

Conflating measurements with Reality itself is the confusion, “confusing the map with the terrain”.

[socratus]

@James S Saint

@socratus

Where the Time come from ?
Time: can time exist without matter?
According to Newton the answer is “ Yes”
According to Einstein the answer is “ No”
Who is right, who is wrong?

Newton would have been right about that one.
And Einstein would have been wrong (but I suspect that isn’t what Einstein believed).

@socratus

Newton declared that time is absolute and wrote that time
“ flows equably without relation to anything external”.

Newton would have been wrong about that one.

@socratus

Einstein had another opinion.
He wanted to know:
“ Where does the conception of time come from?”
“ What is the essence of time?”.
To explain these questions he created two theories: SRT and GRT .

Einstein would also have been wrong, merely less wrong.

@socratus

According to SRT / GRT time is relative and depends on the mass and speed
It means that different moving mass-bodies can create different time.
It also means that space and time is only a result of some physical process
of moving mass / moving particles. The cause for time and space to be able
to appear is moving mass / moving particles.

Newton was talking about reality, whether correct about it or not.
Einstein was talking about measuring it, whether correct or not.

Conflating measurements with Reality itself is the confusion, “confusing the map with the terrain”.

Conflating measurements with Reality itself is the confusion,
“confusing the map with the terrain”.
/ James S Saint /
===…
We have 2 kinds of time.
One is Newtonian – independent ( time and space)
another is dependent on space (spacetime)
Where is the map and where is the territory ?

[James_S_Saint]

@socratus

We have 2 kinds of time.
One is Newtonian – independent ( time and space)
another is dependent on space (spacetime)
Where is the map and where is the territory ?

You have only two kinds. I have three.

The “map” is the mental ontology. The “terrain” is the logical necessity, “reality”.

The third reference for time is the metaspace commonly referred to as “absolute vacuum” or “absolute nothingness”.