A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

From Lorentz's "Local Time" to Einstein's "Time"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 4th 17, 04:20 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default From Lorentz's "Local Time" to Einstein's "Time"

"However, in the case of Special Relativity, the egregious merit of Einstein was, apart from his new mathematical results and his new physical predictions (notably about the comparison of the readings of clocks which have moved with respect to each other) the conceptual breakthrough that the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Einstein's "conceptual breakthrough" was totally unjustified - Lorentz's "local time" has nothing to do with "the time as experienced by a moving observer". The former is SLOW and is measured by the stationary observer while the latter is FAST and is measured by the moving observer himself.

In other words, time SPEEDS UP for the moving observer (according to special relativity). He will discover this by checking stationary clocks he passes by against his clocks. The comparison will show that the stationary clock he checks against two of his clocks is SLOW while his two clocks are FAST:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

Actually this is an absurdity in special relativity. The only reasonable conclusion is that time dilation does not exist (moving clocks run just as fast as stationary ones) and the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Nowadays scientists wrestle with the absurdity but, since they were all born and educated in Einstein's schizophrenic world, they continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

https://www.newscientist.com/article...wards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-R.../9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...-time-problem/
"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/re...essons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. [...] The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true.."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old February 6th 17, 11:01 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default From Lorentz's "Local Time" to Einstein's "Time"

"Lorentz introduced an auxiliary time variable, his "local time," in each inertial frame of reference. To complete this approach, Einstein would have to accept that this local time was just the time, plain and simple, of the inertial frame of reference. [...] In an introductory historical preamble to a 1907 survey of relativity theory, Einstein remarked in words that to me have an autobiographical ring: "One needed only to realize that an auxiliary quantity that was introduced by H. A. Lorentz and that he called 'local time' can simply be defined as 'time'." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...over_final.pdf

So we have an inertial frame of reference, Einstein defines 'time' for it, but this 'time' is measured by whom? If the 'time' is measured by an observer in a different frame of reference, then 'time' doesn't make much sense, does it? If the 'time' is measured by an observer in the same inertial frame of reference, then things become dangerous for Divine Albert's Divine Theory. It turns out that moving clocks are FAST, not slow as Einsteinians enthusiastically teach.

David Morin is perhaps the only Einsteinian who says the truth about moving clocks. According to Einstein's relativity, MOVING CLOCKS RUN FAST:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old February 9th 17, 01:28 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default From Lorentz's "Local Time" to Einstein's "Time"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE
Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down."

Brian Greene is lying of course (Einsteinians are pathological liars). Special relativity predicts the opposite: If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SPEEDS UP. You will discover this by checking clocks in the somebody else's system against your clocks. You pass by one of the somebody else's clocks, you check it against two of your clocks, and you find that the somebody else's clock is slow while your two clocks are FAST:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

Actually this is reductio ad absurdum. The only reasonable conclusion is that time dilation does not exist (your clocks run just as fast as somebody else's clocks) and the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 gaetanomarano Policy 9 August 30th 08 12:05 AM
"VideO Madness" "Game Time!!!..." Colonel Jake TM Misc 0 August 24th 06 03:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.