Starship Asterisk*

Hello All


Time Dilation and Twin Paradox Debunked
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm

Nice reading

Physics Myths and Physics Facts
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

Like I always say, just because I post it does not mean I agree with it.
Read the links for your self.

========================================

Time is a word that cannot be stretched, compacted or changed in what ever way.

The communication of time may be effected by the change in the speed of the electromagnetic radiation.

I would assume once inside the event horizon there would be no form of communication since all matter is changed, stretched and compacted.

harry wrote:Hello All


Time Dilation and Twin Paradox Debunked
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm

They'd have better credibility if it weren't for the fact that time dilation has been experimentally observed.

Hello Qev

There are many experiments that show time difference.

But! no evidence.

Show me one that has evidence.

First excellent example is particle accelerators. Many particles have extremely short lifespans before they break down. When they are accelerated to nearly light speed, they last far longer. Time dilation is in fact being used to stretch their life spans to times when we can make observations, or allow them to interact before they decay. The change in their life spans exactly matches that predicted by relativity.

Second excellent example is that moving clocks run slower, and clocks in a gravity well run slower. Both effects have been measured precisely and they also exactly match the amount of change predicted by relativity. As a result, GPS satellites include a relativity correction factor. Otherwise, their accuracy would be really lousy.

This relativity correction can be turned off, and the effect measured directly. So here we can see two empirical tests that show relativity and time dilation to work.

Hello Aichip

Time dilation

Please explain what you mean.

I will come back later to it.

Darn I have to go and pick up the kids.

Hello Qev

I have read

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... lation.htm

and

The twin paradox: Is the symmetry of time dilation paradoxical?
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... aradox.htm

It seems logical what they say.

But! there is no evidence.

Time is a word that cannot be changed.

kovil wrote:for NoelC,

Thank you, kovil. That was indeed quite thought provoking.

For Qev, isn't our perspective indeed embedded in 4 dimensions? We can certainly perceive things change over time. I really have no problem imagining a 3D black hole. Of course, I am probably oversimplifying things to fit in my familiar and tiny frame of reference.

-Noel

NoelC wrote:

kovil wrote:for NoelC,

Thank you, kovil. That was indeed quite thought provoking.

For Qev, isn't our perspective indeed embedded in 4 dimensions? We can certainly perceive things change over time. I really have no problem imagining a 3D black hole. Of course, I am probably oversimplifying things to fit in my familiar and tiny frame of reference.

-Noel

Well, in terms of our perception, at least as far as I'm aware, we perceive three spatial dimensions, the fourth being time... I suppose one could call it the 'direction of change'.

I myself can't really picture a three-dimensional hole. I can imagine a three-dimensional void, or the two-dimensional surface of a tunnel... but an actual hole in three-dimensional space that extends into what would be a fourth spacial dimension is a bit beyond me.

Harry, I'm not sure how you can say 'there's no evidence' immediately after people have posted evidence for you. I'm confused!

Hello Qev

What they posted is not evidence its an opinion set out in a logical form.

On one side of the fence you have people thinking one idea and the other side another.

The time dilation

If a space ship goes off in one direction away from earth and comes back at the speed of light. The clocks should equal.

Unless the clocks physically change and thefore change the time. This is different.

Time cannot be changed regardless of your speed.

If people want more info on this .

Google for it. You need to do more research to find the truth and not an opinion. Rather than having my expalanation as an opinion.

harry wrote:Hello Qev

What they posted is not evidence its an opinion set out in a logical form.

On one side of the fence you have people thinking one idea and the other side another.

The time dilation

If a space ship goes off in one direction away from earth and comes back at the speed of light. The clocks should equal.

Unless the clocks physically change and thefore change the time. This is different.

Time cannot be changed regardless of your speed.

If people want more info on this .

Google for it. You need to do more research to find the truth and not an opinion. Rather than having my expalanation as an opinion.

Then why do GPS satellites require continuous corrections due to the observations of their onboard atomic clocks running slow in -exactly- the amount predicted by relativity?

Hello Qev.

Do you agree with it?

It sounds like you do.

The question is

Why is it different and what is the possible explanation?

Well Harry,
you present yourself as a scientist but appear to answer questions with questions, a trait opposite someone who teaches.

There does seem to be a problem of synchronization with GPS satellites, and ground stations.

Is there a problem with other communication satellites, in terms of a time lag? It probably shows up as a small time lag, but it is so small and broadcasting doesn't need the high accuracy GPS does, so it goes mostly unnoticed, or is unbothersome.

If Einstein's explanation for the GPS time difference is incorrect, we are left with the real world results. It would be interesting to explain this in another completely different way. How about, the satellites motion gives it additional momentum, and as time enters this universe through the momentum component, that higher momentum component is what is causing the seeming time differential. It matters not if something is moving. It is totally dependent on the objects momentum component. Different momentum components yield different time components. We are merely confusing motion with momentum. But they turn out to have similar component index changes and therein lies the confusion. We are simply seeing it incorrectly. The math works out the same in each case, and that is why it is so confusing; momentum index vs motion index.


Thanks Harry, I hadn't seen it this way quite so clearly before. But yes, I think this is the explanation and the reasoning behind it.

harry wrote:Hello Qev.

Do you agree with it?

It sounds like you do.

The question is

Why is it different and what is the possible explanation?

Special Relativity seems to cover it...?

What is the difference between a mini-black hole and a major one if these things are solutions to a math problem and occupy no space ( singularity ).

Hello All

There are varies phases of black holes.

It depends on the degerated matter forming it.

It could be a composite

Neutrons-------------Quarks

Quark composites

Quark------------------preon particals

Positrons-----------electrons.

Relative to the suns mass

Neutron core is about 10Kms in Dia
Quark core can be 10 m in Dia
The theoretical Preon particals 400 mm in dia
The positron--electron comapction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,God knows. It get very small, but it still occupies space. The minute is does not. It no longer exists. In my opinion this cannot happen.


This can be explained by the partical theory and also by the wave theory, being wave centers.

The main point is..............

At what compaction does light cannot escape. Forming the bases of a Black Hole. I'm not talking about the "WELL" that you see in the movies.

=========================================

Mini black holes can be 5 sun masses

and they can grow to more than 10 billion times that of our sun.

M87 Ultra dense matter (black hole) is a few billion times that of our sun.

They all occupy space, how much space is dependent on compaction.

===========================================

Singularity cannot exist. This was used to explain the Big Bang theory.

===========================================

What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp

Go to home in the link and look at Gravity

In a previous article [1], I described how the Global Positioning System (GPS) is a marvelous laboratory for testing relativity because the orbiting and ground atomic clocks have differing gravitational potentials and high relative speeds. Their precision is such that the predicted relativistic clock corrections are confirmed to within a fraction of a percent. However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that clocks in different reference frames should have different readings and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for the slight non-circularity of the orbits. The previous article concluded with a discussion of what this means for Einstein's special relativity (SR), and for the competing Lorentzian relativity (LR) theory. The comparison favors LR as the simpler theory describing the relativity of motion.

As history buffs may know, the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) [2] appeared a year before Einstein's 1905 publication of SR. Of course, LET incorporated both the relativity principle (taken from Poincare, but it was first formulated about a generation earlier) and the Lorentz transformations that bear his name. The essential new element introduced by Einstein the following year was the equivalence of all inertial frames, thereby eliminating the need for the luminiferous ether. This first postulate of SR makes the Lorentz transformations reciprocal; i.e., they work equally well from any inertial frame to any other, then back again; so it has no meaning to ask which of two identical clocks in different frames is ticking slower in any absolute sense. The second postulate of SR makes the speed of light independent of not only the speed of the source (which is also true generally for waves in any medium, including luminiferous ether), but also independent of the speed of the observer (which is a feature unique to SR).

Gravity
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gravity.asp

Hello Qev, do not go short in your expanation.

Hello Kovil,,,,,,,mate keep reading,,,,,,,,,,theres more. Always question.

Hello ta152ho

mate, I have only a short time on the net,,,,,,,,,,,,,due to the work load i have. As being a scientist,,,,,,,,,,,sometimes.

The one thing that I have learnt in the past 50 years is this.

The more I learn the more I learn that I know very little.

Harry,
how can you possibly claim different phases of black holes when one has never been observed ? You need to come out and present findings for peer review, not links to other people's work.

Hello ta152ho

You are right we have not and we will never observe whats in a black hole.

We treat it as a black box.

We study the influence it has on it s surroundings.

We look at the possibble formation from a supernova and study the different forms of compaction of matter.

We start from
Hydrogen compaction 10^5
Neutron stars 10^15 to 10^18
Quark Stars 10^18 to 10^22
Preon particals 10^22 to 10^35
Positron.electron Have to work this one out.

There are varies types of compaction,the above are just a few not to mention the varies composites.

The question is at what density does light cannot escape. Forming the definition of a black hole.

This is call lateral thinking. I have been discussing this with different Prof around the world.

ta152ho do you have a problem with the above logic.

No problem. I do read your posts and discoveries. .I just don't place great importance to some of your links. You will never see a black hole because " it ain't there " at the time

Hello ta152ho

I agree that you will never see a compact core that has an event horizon.

Most links I do not agree with and your right do not put great importance on some of them. The updated information changes everything and their logic.

soooooooooooo that means peace in my book

Hello ta152ho

Smile

An event horizon forms when the density increases to the point where the surface escape velocity reaches the speed of light. It's a pretty straightforward calculation for a single body, v(esc) = sqrt( 2GM / r ).

You can rearrange this, setting v(esc) = c, and solve instead for the radius r, which ends up giving you r(s) = 2GM / c^2. So for any mass M, that is packed within the radius r(s), you have a black hole.

Interestingly enough, this doesn't seem to correspond to any fixed density, and seems to be mass-dependent. That seems weird, and hopefully if I'm completely wrong someone'll point out where, but I think it's in agreement with everything I've read about them, at least...

<< An event horizon forms when the density increases to the point where the surface escape velocity reaches the speed of light. It's a pretty straightforward calculation for a single body, v(esc) = sqrt( 2GM / r ). >>

Could you say 'an event horizon forms when the gravitational pull increases to the point where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light'?

Thus c = sqrt[ 2GM/r ]

squaring both sides yields, c^2 = 2GM/r

or r = 2GM/c^2

I agree with you Qev.

The event horizon is very dependent on the forces involved, and that is a function of total mass for the pull, and density to achieve the compounding of forces by proximity.

<<Interestingly enough, this doesn't seem to correspond to any fixed density, and seems to be mass-dependent. That seems weird, and hopefully if I'm completely wrong someone'll point out where, but I think it's in agreement with everything I've read about them, at least...>>

I interpret this statement to show that mini-black holes do not exist, meaning that high density is not the factor to cause an event horizon, it is more a function of a critical mass. Without the sufficient mass, an event horizon will not form, regardless of virtual density.

Just as nature abhors a vacuum, nature abhors a black hole, and there are multiple factors in nature that push reality away from these two theoretical extremes.

Thanks for mathematically stating in a simple way the equation for an event horizon !

I bought S. Chandrasekhar's "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes" (Oxford Science Publications '83) back in '89 but it's a bit beyond my abilities to extract much from all the math. What the book desperately needs is a table with a detailed historical overview of all the Greek letters and the special symbols used with their meanings and implications, otherwise its merely a special language with no translation. Dare we accuse mathematicians of trying to be obscure so as to retain their bailiwick en provenance? LOL


Without mass, the concept of inertia cannot be present. Density does not increase inertia, only additional mass increases inertia. (In a static system anyway) So I also interpret the event horizon to be inertia dependent, and that is why the equation points to mass as the critical factor and not density. Inertia is the way in which gravity gets its way to grab hold of matter. Without enough inertia present, gravity cannot be strong enough in its primary essence, to form an event horizon, as there is not sufficient 'presence'(inertia) for it to grab-a-hold of to produce the force necessary for an escape velocity of c.

[does this help to visualize the why?]


To go another step further;

r = 2GM/c^2 so,

rc^2 = 2GM and,

rc^2/2G = M


Does this tell us the critical mass, with a density caveat.

Because I don't do math much, I get a little unsure of how the units are handled in the equations.

r x 299,792,458 m/sec
____________________ = M
2 x 6.6742 x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

yielding,

r x 299,792,458 x 10^11 kg s
___________________ = M
2 x 6.6742 m^2


is this correct so far??