In relativity the setting of the clocks is the same as slow clock transport. This result was obtained by Herbert Ives many years ago. It means that if we have a master clock, we can slowly move it to set all of our clocks by transporting the time from place to place. Ives worked out the equations for the general case. He assumes the clock when moved runs slow according to the Lorentz theory.

In slow clock transport the clocks are all synchronized to the same date, which means they will all change the date simultaneously at 12:00AM. Every clock everywhere. Slow clock transport means that when we transport the clock from place to place it is done slowly so that the time on the master clock does not change.

If the two clocks are next to each other. Their baryons will interact at a minute level. I agree that the two clock are moved together they will maintain the same time. My problem here is when you agree that the are identical, then seperate them. When you seperate them the baryonic density changes and the clocks(both) slow in relation to the lost baryons. Now you have two independent clocks that are not identical. The second clock will only maintain the clock to the density of the baryons surrounding it. The master clock now has this same problem.

a

Where do the baryons come from, how do they do what you indicate, then where do they go?

Imagine we have several clocks in the rest frame, all known to be regulated so that they show time passing at precisely the same rate. They are each at different distances from the master clock. We pretend we have a government grant, and can afford all expenses. Thus we have obtained enough fiber optic cable, each length exactly identical, and all long enough to reach the furthest clock. We have determined the latency of all the cable to be identical also. Each cable is run from the master clock to one of the distant clocks. Subtracting this latency from the epoch of the master clock, at the instant the signal is sent to set the other clocks, should set them all to the "universal" time of the master. Would you agree?

"Slow transport" is hard to do between moving frames, I think.

(Check definition of "Epoch")

Are we moving the master clock from place to place, or the other clocks from the presence of the master clock after setting? Less risky to leave the master clock in one place. If something happens to it we're screwed. Of course if we have that government grant we can start over. Maybe we can get overtime by carrying the clocks real slow. OOh, sorry, spank me.

Lets look at those baryons. In order to be a baryon you must have 3 quarks, 3of8 gluons, a few w and z bosons and at least an electron. In order to be a clock you must have trillions of quadrillions... of baryons.

The order and interactions of these baryons are inheritantly different then the clock next to it. When the clocks are together for transport. They will act as one interaction clock density. All of the clock will be ticking as a more dense massive clock.

When one of those clock is removed as slow as you want. It will start interacting with it's enviornment. That enviornment is changing. The other clocks are moving away. So now our single clock is just interacting with it different enviornment; the table. For argument sake there are many factors of fewer of baryons on the table than in the large mass of clocks. Clock ticks will slow down.

A clock on the earth click faster than a clock in space.

a

Curt, Your idea about using a cable is an example that needs some thought. In principle the clock can be compared to the master in place with the cable attached. This means we can exactly match the clocks, then we can move the transported clock. In theory we can do this for all clocks. The result being the same as for slow clock transport, except for the practical problem of drift rate during the slow clock transport. But in the end the use of the cables is basically the same as if we just sent a radio signal, isnt it?

As a result of our conversations on the phone, I want to point out to you that the issue here is, does motion effect the rate of the clocks? There are two effects, the Doppler shift and the change in the fundamental rate of the clock. The second is sometimes called the transverse Doppler effect which is a misnomer. It is demonstrated by the Ives-Stilwell experiment. The frequency of a spectral line is redshifted when the atomic clock is in motion relative to when it is at rest in the earth frame. This is a result that comes out of the Lorentz aether theory, and was first obtained by Joseph Larmor. It is an aether theory prediction.

Einstein seems to have borrowed this idea but in a way that makes no sense since it it not clear in his confused theory if the motion causes the clock to run slow or if relative motion only makes the clock appear to run slow when it actually doesnt. If the latter case is true, then slow clock transport is not an issue. We simply move the master clocks as quickly as possible and synchronise the clocks to the master clocks and we dont worry about the effect of motion on the rate of the clocks. But since this is not what relativity asserts is possible, it seems that we must accept that motion effects the clock rate. This prediction is clearly a result of aether theory. So Einstein's theory is really an aether theory and it is a mistake on his part to claim that the aether doesnt exist, and that all inertial frames are equivalent as rest frames.

Aaron, I'm not sure about all those imaginary particles. I see waves interacting. I think a lot of the so called particles created by smashing stuff together are just soliton type standing waves that are created by the collision. I think the EMR (electromagnetic radiation) exhibits inertia like qualities when caught as a standing wave,the nature of the induced current, voltage, and magnetism causing particle like actions. None or very few of these have more that fleeting life times. What say you?

Harry: Einstein seems to have borrowed this idea but in a way that makes no sense since it it not clear in his confused theory if the motion causes the clock to run slow or if relative motion only makes the clock appear to run slow when it actually doesnt.

cinci: It is very clear that relative motion cause the clock to really run slow and experiments of various kinds confirm it. Einstein proposes a good method for synchronizing clocks in his 1905 paper and the drivation of the Lorentz transformations is based on that method.

Harry, I'm with you on the aether. Carl A. Zapffe's book, which I'm still digesting, opens the old brain kitchen to lot's of visualization on the nature of the aether.

The optic cable idea does away with the motion problem and the latency problem (when using EMR through the aether) to make the synchronization. Unless there is a change in the latency inside the cable from moving it. I don't think there would be.

The whole thought pattern is obfuscated by Einstein's reasoning. I think he had some visions of the problem, but fuzzy definitions, and such, cause reasoning to jump the track. I find that thinking in wave fronts as opposed to light particles, clarifies my logic.

Did I send you the picture of my idea of the moving object's trail of wave fronts in the rest frame? I'm not sure how to post it here.

From aarons reality. Caution idea may be imaginary. The reason I have not introduced this topic eariler is that I have not completely mapped it out.

The nature of the Boson is to transport information. This transferrence of information is done in waves. The W and Z carry; induced current, voltage, and magnetism as information instead of temp wavelength and freq that the photon carries. The electron converts the photon information into W and Z boson magnetism. One of the bosons(Z?) is responsible for writing to the gluon. The others W+ and W- are responsible for broadcasting magnetism.

I did not want to introduce this topic yet, until we explored the information that the photon carries. But you have a good mind. Thus I could not hide this until I mapped it out.

Actually, the photon, electron, W+, W-, Z and gluon are all proven particles. These have been found in all particle accellerators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

The only imaginary particles(not proven) I have used for my model is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I define these both. What the LHC is looking for is the Higg's Boson. They will not find this. This speculative particle is the Dark Matter that I discuss in my model. It is massive and has no charge or spin. It is repulsed by charge. We found this when Pioneer 11 exited the solar system. It slowed down considerably. We will never find dark matter on the earth. The magnetosphere makes that impossible.

a

Well, I am pleased that we all agree that Einstein's theory says that the moving clock actually runs slow, and not that it appears to run slow and that this effect is only possible if we define an absolute rest frame. This follows from the fact that if the rates of two atomic clocks A and B are given as frequency, then if B is moving in an absolute sense relative to the rest frame where A is a rest, then it is slow, so we have B<A. Consequently A>B. Hence from the point of view of the moving clock the A clock is running fast. Relativity says A<B so it must be a false theory. QED Of course if we attempt to assert that A<B is true, then we have the contradiction that B>A. This contradicts the assumption, since now the moving clock is fast rather than slow. Which is it? Bottom line is that relativity can't really say if the moving clock runs fast or slow. QED

OK, now stop and think: We are talking about clocks being synchronized in the rest frame, here.

The problem I see: The time transmitted in EMR is frozen there until detected, as it travels distance to distance. A clock moved at c is frozen also, from the rest frame view where all the other clocks are. Either way, the latency has to be adjusted into the synchronization, for each distance. This is no problem to do in the rest frame.

I don't think slow motion is going to get around the problem. If motion really slows time, then time will be slowed because of relative motion however incrementally. The distance latency will still have to be accommodated.

The problem I see here, then, is that if we consider several different frames going at different relative speeds and directions, each clock in each of the frames are going to have to have different regulated settings at the same time to accommodate everybody. This ain't going to work.

My visualization is that in motion, clocks appear to change regulation. The changes observed in one direction are made up in the other direction. (from frame to frame.) When they are brought back together, they are synchronized.

I still see the problem you state above, Harry. Two chunks of matter cannot occupy the same place, and one chunk cannot be in two places at once. One clock cannot run at two speeds simultaneously, and two clocks cannot be both (time wise) ahead and behind the other.

Curt,

The photon carries information about the baryon it was emitted from. That info is freq, wave length, and temp. Also it carries, I was born on this clocktime at my baryon. I have traveled this many counters. It also carries location information. I was born at this location. I was initially heading in this direction.

each photon is an independent clock.

The Photon probably is an artifact, I'll get back to you. See http://www.unquantum.net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

'It states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.'

There is more to this.
a

I was reading the first chapter of the book at the site.

'Because gamma rays are thought to be the most particle-like light.'

I don't like this statement. It suggest that some wavelengths on the spectrum are not like the others. But a Gamma ray is just a really exceited photon.

I will continue to read the paper, but I think this is a difficult hurdle to overcome.

These are great video lectures from CERN.

live lectures: 1 - 2 - 3 (by M. Mangano)

http://education.web.cern.ch/education/Chapter2/Teaching/PP.html

You now are getting the right idea. There is definitely a difference in the rate of the clocks. We have by an assumption that in the rest frame we can set clocks to all be synchronous, or that they all run at the same rate. Now lets get something clear. This word synchronize is ambigous. In my world of communications engineering, it means the clocks have the same frequency or the same rate. We dont really have to set them all to the same date for this to be true. They can indicate any date we like. The only requirement is that the different dates change at the same rate. So the difference in dates remains the same. So we dont really need to correct for the latency, all we need to do is verify the rate is the same. This we can do by simply measuring the frequency of the clocks. So a master clock can be used as long as it doesnt move. We simply lock all the frequencies to step in unison. Once you have this, it is a simple idea to see how we can synchronize the dates. You must keep these two types of synchronization in mind and separate in terms of concepts.

Now what we really are comparing is the frequency of the clocks, or the rates. This can be done. Ives and Stilwell do it for canal Rays. They do it so that the Doppler shift is removed, and the result is a shift in the frequency to a lower frequency. So the fast moving canal Rays are slow relative to the rest atom clocks.

Now for relativity. This theory has the embarassing problem that there is no theoretical criteria that can be used to say wheter the atomic clocks in the Ives -Stilwell experiment wil run slow or if they will run fast. Einstein cheated by copying the aether theory result, and simply plugged that result into his theory. There is no mathematical or physical reason for it. The justification is that it is the result of aether theory. So his theory is based on aether theory and his theory is thus an aether theory. It complies with experiments because the aether theory does.

Bottom line here is this. There is no theoretical or physcal reason which in principle leads to the result in relativity that the correct result is that moving clocks run slow. It is just as valid a deduction to deduce that moving clocks run fast. That is just as correct as that they run slow. So what can we conclude from a theory that gives two different and contradictory conclusions??? We can only conclude that either it is not a theory or that as a theory it is false.

Re: Aaron, Photon clock September 16 2008, 10:52 AM

Aaron to Curt; each photon is an independent clock.

An interesting concept Aaron, however Time is motion so the question is, how much Time passes through the diameter of the photon? If it is zero then it must be zero for each succeeding photon and therefore there would be no Time. Motion and location can not be measured at the same time ie if motion then no location, conversely, if location then no motion. Even if light is a wave there must be distance across the crest of the wave.

Clocks can not be set to absolute zero because motion/Time can not be divided to zero. Time is the absolute of ‘NOW’ not the absolute of ‘ZERO’.

bob s

Bob,

I want to say that the photon carries more information that just time counter. A photon is package by the electron so it has no charge and no mass. This way it can pass though intersteller space almost unimpeded (gravitational lensing: explained at the blog). A photon (sum of its wiggles and forward motion) moves at the speed of C. The photon only emparts its energy/memes when it hits another electron. This is where it converts information into Freq, temp and wave length. The electron converts this info into current, voltage, and magnetism and passed to the W and Z bosons where it now has mass. From the Z boson the current, voltage and magnetism are converted into color by the gluon and passed to the Quarks.

All forces have no mass and travel in waves. The package may have mass depending on the type of boson.

Its like a .txt file. the file can be read as a document or transmitted as a wave.

a

Re: Aaron, Photon wave September 16 2008, 1:52 PM

Aaron: I want to say that the photon carries more information that just time counter.

I have no problem with what you say now but your previous statement “each photon is an independent clock” is specific to Time and that is all I addressed.

As to; A photon is package by the electron so it has no charge and no mass. This way it can pass though intersteller space almost unimpeded (gravitational lensing: explained at the blog). A photon (sum of its wiggles and forward motion) moves at the speed of C. The photon only emparts its energy/memes when it hits another electron. This is where it converts information into Freq, temp and wave length. The electron converts this info into current, voltage, and magnetism and passed to the W and Z bosons where it now has mass. From the Z boson the current, voltage and magnetism are converted into color by the gluon and passed to the Quarks.

All forces have no mass and travel in waves. The package may have mass depending on the type of boson.

You have to admit that you have provided a lot of dots to connect with that passage. I am not convinced that a photon is anything more than a concept so I am not able to agree or disagree.

bob s

Bob,

Humbly I state, I have no idea how to connect the dots. I think it has something to do with Plank's Black body eqns and other eqns.

u(v,T)= ((8Pi*h*v^3)/(c^3))*(1/e^(hv/kT) - 1)

The reason this eqn is valid is because it does not reference gravity.

a

Please do not dismiss Eric Reiter's experiment just because it doesn't fit with your current understanding. I would like to know where his experiment is faulty. I am not his salesman, but I find his explanation quite understandable. Now, you seem to have a deep understanding of this stuff. Where did his experiment go wrong. He points out that up till now the detectors used were too broad banded to give meaningful results. He explains in detail how he improved them. If you claim that he has to be wrong because everybody already knows otherwise, I cannot accept such as that, as anything but BS.

P.S. I, more or less, agree that the frequency can act as a clock, and/or allow one to deduct how a clock would preform in the environment that emitted the radiation. I agree that a wave front can have a lot of information, but it sounds like fantasy and magic to impart all this to an artifact. Oops, sorry, I revealed my prejudiced view point. I meant "photon."

Harry said:
"Now what we really are comparing is the frequency of the clocks, or the rates. This can be done. Ives and Stilwell do it for canal Rays. They do it so that the Doppler shift is removed, and the result is a shift in the frequency to a lower frequency. So the fast moving canal Rays are slow relative to the rest atom clocks."

Do they do something mechanical or electrical to change or "remove" the Doppler shift? or is it a mathematical reconstruction?

I will not dismiss Eric Reiter's experiment just because it doesn't fit with my current understanding. Actually I find his experiment within my skill level and that I may be able to build on my 3m porch machine shop. I would like to reproduce his experiment and see if my model fails under data. I have a lot of reading to do before I attempt this. I hope my understanding is improved by his experiment.

I will not claim that he is wrong, I just had a problem with his wording around gamma rays. I have not had the time to fully absorb or for that matter fully read his paper. I will try to post my test on my blog so it can be follow.

I would like to reiterate that clocks and time are two different things.

I don't care if we call the radiation emitted from an electron a photon or artifact. We should at minimum agree that temp, wave length and freq are bits of information carried by the artifact.

a

Curt, In the Ives Stilwell experiment, the spectroscope is placed in line with the direction in which the Canal Rays are moving, so it looks along the beam. A mirror is placed behind the beam that reflects the radiation from the receeding beam. The Doppler shift in both directions is thus measured simultaneously. The data is reduced so that the effect of the Dopper can be subtracted. I suggest reading the paper if you want all the technical details.

This experiment does not measure the transverse Doppler effect, as is claimed in textbooks, because the textbook writers didn't understand the experiment. Before Ives and Stilwell, the measurement procedure invented by Starke was performed by placing the spectroscope perpendicular to the beam, and thus there is no Doppler shift because the motion is transverse. These measurements indicated a redshift in the spectral lines, and were incorrectly interpreted by Einstein as proof of his theory. This is not a valid claim since Einstein's theory does not predict an effect for motion of the canal ray beam transverse to the line of sight, but this is consistent with the aether theory which does not depend on the direction of the atomic clocks. Einstein's theory does.

Unfortunately, the accuracy of the transverse beam measurement method used by Starke was not very good, and this caused Ives and Stilwell to improve the method. But they do not measure the transverse effect as is claimed in textbooks. Thus when you look this up it is called the transverse Doppler effect, but that is misleading.

I am on page 8 of Eric Reiter's paper. I have just got to the loading concept. So far I understand where he is going with this. I think I had a vague understanding of this and called it emparting/emitting energy. I knew it took electron clock ticks to convert memes to Planck's black body eqn and back. I just did not even attempt to tackle this issue. I was kind of hoping a brilliant Reiter would solve it for me. I still trying to prove there is no G.

His paper is clearing up my vague view, quickly.

Yes, I want to do this experiment. I wonder if smoke detectors could be used as the emitter? Has anyone else tried this experiment?

I really like this forum. I have never found this level of intelligence. I just wish you(pl) wern't so mean to each other. We are all here because there is something wrong with our current model of physics.

I'm going back to reading.
a

Walter Babin and I discussed this already. He tried to claim that he is The Arrogant Bastard. I informed him that the laws of physics only allowed one arrogant bastard in one place at the same time, and I'm here first.

Harry et al: information beta: Please survey the new post on GSJ.

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo.pdf.

What do you think now?

No 2 arrogant bastard can occupy the same space.

a

Curt, I am not sure this post you refer to is a serious paper. It is kind of obscure. I think one would need to think about this a lot before reaching a conclusion. All this demonstrates the need to do experiments, and not just theorise.

Curt,
"Harry et al: information beta: Please survey the new post on GSJ."

I think it gives good cause to retest the speed of light. Do all light sources propagate light at the same speed?

Curt: Walter Babin and I discussed this already. He tried to claim that he is The Arrogant Bastard. I informed him that the laws of physics only allowed one arrogant bastard in one place at the same time, and I'm here first.



AAF: Actually, curt, that is not the whole truth of it! Yes, for the real ones, the Law of Identity is KING. But it is not the case for the unreal ones. For instance, all the troubles with the theory of Relativity are the result of 'two mutually exclusive bastards' occupy the same place at the same time. Textbook writers prefer to call them 'paradoxes'; but Dingle & I & probably Harry, we prefer to call them 'contradictions'; while Cincirob seems he can't see them at all.

I try to follow the logic on these type of papers. Some times they cross my prejudices, some times they are so obviously ill thought out that comments are for someone else. When some of their story fits with what I think, I ask for other opinion. Some times I encourage them with ideas I think might work. AAron, here in our discussion, has brought up some interesting ideas. He is, I think looking for honest criticism. Some of our buddies here think these forums are there just for them to show off how bright they are. These type end up proving how closed minded and foolish they really are. I still don't mind them either, some times a person's worth is simply to be the bad example, for the rest of us to avoid.

This "Gogo" article strikes me as interesting because not too many other articles make a distinction between "one way" and "two way." What experiments have measured the "Mirror turnaround" latency? What is the reason for the far field impedance? Is there a difference in the speed of light between the near field and the far field? I think these are good questions that haven't been given much thought. I am going to give this article additional "brain kitchen" time.

I thought you might be interested too. By the way, I'll be picking your mind on what you know about antenna technology, you being a Ham and all.

Does this fellow have an e-mail? I have wondered about the latency of reflection myself. I more or less conclude that it must be instantaneous, and is one reason I think the near field is superluminal. Our EDM equipment uses either a phase measurement, or the "travel time" from a burst of laser light to measure distance very accurately over 2000 feet or so. Of course, at the laser beam frequencies, the distances are in the far field of the radiation. So I have some questions for him.

I agree with Curt. This is an interesting paper. This should be tested in space. Multiple picosat in Lagrangian points with lasers and other emitters pointing at each other.

Aaron, don't talk about this too loudly, they will ban americium from smoke detectors. No one really wants to overthrow our conception of reality. In fact, I doubt you can collect old smoke detectors with out a license. You will be labeled a Knowledge Terrorist. I have some used ones available, but be warned, the black market price is bound to rise.

Curt: Walter Babin and I discussed this already. He tried to claim that he is The Arrogant Bastard. I informed him that the laws of physics only allowed one arrogant bastard in one place at the same time, and I'm here first.



AAF: Actually, curt, that is not the whole truth of it! Yes, for the real ones, the Law of Identity is the KING. But it is not the case for the unreal ones. For instance, all the troubles with the theory of Relativity are the result of 'two mutually exclusive bastards' occupy the same place at the same time. Textbook writers prefer to call them 'paradoxes'; but Dingle & I & probably Harry, we prefer to call them 'contradictions'.


Curt: Aaron, don't talk about this too loudly, they will ban americium from smoke detectors. No one really wants to overthrow our conception of reality. In fact, I doubt you can collect old smoke detectors with out a license. You will be labeled a Knowledge Terrorist. I have some used ones available, but be warned, the black market price is bound to rise.



AAF: This I suppose it is not meant to be a reply to the above comment; right, Curt?

Scary. Be careful. Intelligence is always killed by stupid people and religion.

Curt: Walter Babin and I discussed this already. He tried to claim that he is The Arrogant Bastard. I informed him that the laws of physics only allowed one arrogant bastard in one place at the same time, and I'm here first.



AAF: Actually, curt, that is not the whole truth of it! Yes, for the real ones, the Law of Identity is the KING. But it is not the case for the unreal ones. For instance, all the troubles with the theory of Relativity are the result of 'two mutually exclusive bastards' occupy the same place at the same time. Textbook writers prefer to call them 'paradoxes'; but Dingle & I & probably Harry, we prefer to call them 'contradictions'.


Curt: Aaron, don't talk about this too loudly, they will ban americium from smoke detectors. No one really wants to overthrow our conception of reality. In fact, I doubt you can collect old smoke detectors with out a license. You will be labeled a Knowledge Terrorist. I have some used ones available, but be warned, the black market price is bound to rise.


AAF: This I suppose it is not a reply to the above comment; right, Curt?


Curt: Scary Be careful. Intelligence is always killed by stupid people and religion.


AAF: Right, Aaron; and also by people who fail to call things with 'real names' when they see them!

Curt: Walter Babin and I discussed this already. He tried to claim that he is The Arrogant Bastard. I informed him that the laws of physics only allowed one arrogant bastard in one place at the same time, and I'm here first.



AAF: Actually, curt, that is not the whole truth of it! Yes, for the real ones, the Law of Identity is the KING. But it is not the case for the unreal ones. For instance, all the troubles with the theory of Relativity are the result of 'two mutually exclusive bastards' occupy the same place at the same time. Textbook writers prefer to call them 'paradoxes'; but Dingle & I & probably Harry, we prefer to call them 'contradictions'.


Curt: Aaron, don't talk about this too loudly, they will ban americium from smoke detectors. No one really wants to overthrow our conception of reality. In fact, I doubt you can collect old smoke detectors with out a license. You will be labeled a Knowledge Terrorist. I have some used ones available, but be warned, the black market price is bound to rise.

 
AAF: This I suppose it is not a reply to the above comment; right, Curt?


Aaron: Scary Be careful. Intelligence is always killed by stupid people and religion.


AAF: Right; and also by people who fail to call things with their real 'names', when they see them. Well, I guess I'm one of them; I just did put the wrong name for the wrong the post! Did you spot it in time, Aaron?

Harry: I try to follow the logic on these type of papers. Some times they cross my prejudices, some times they are so obviously ill thought out that comments are for someone else. When some of their story fits with what I think, I ask for other opinion. Some times I encourage them with ideas I think might work. Aaron, here in our discussion, has brought up some interesting ideas. He is, I think looking for honest criticism. Some of our buddies here think these forums are there just for them to show off how bright they are. These type end up proving how closed minded and foolish they really are. I still don't mind them either, some times a person's worth is simply to be the bad example, for the rest of us to avoid. This "Gogo" article strikes me as interesting because not too many other articles make a distinction between "one way" and "two way." What experiments have measured the "Mirror turnaround" latency? What is the reason for the far field impedance? Is there a difference in the speed of light between the near field and the far field? I think these are good questions that haven't been given much thought. I am going to give this article additional "brain kitchen" time. I thought you might be interested too. By the way, I'll be picking your mind on what you know about antenna technology, you being a Ham and all. Does this fellow have an e-mail? I have wondered about the latency of reflection myself. I more or less conclude that it must be instantaneous, and is one reason I think the near field is superluminal. Our EDM equipment uses either a phase measurement, or the "travel time" from a burst of laser light to measure distance very accurately over 2000 feet or so. Of course, at the laser beam frequencies, the distances are in the far field of the radiation. So I have some questions for him.



AAF: Sorry, Harry; I'm not supposed to intrude here, but this statement of yours caught my attention: “Some of our buddies here think these forums are there just for them to show off how bright they are. These type end up proving how closed minded and foolish they really are.” And since there is not many of those buddies around here, it's my duty to comment on it. First of all, it's always better and far more satisfying in the short run and the long run as well to assume the best and concentrate on the topic at hand. However, if that doesn't work, then the next best thing to do is to be frank and to tell those who argue with you directly and exactly and precisely what is annoying to you and what you don't like about them. By doing this, discussions can get more meaningful and fruitful more quickly. By contrast, and I have no doubt that you know this, indirect or unclear remarks and talking negatively to some people about some people in the one and the same settings can only ruin debates and poison relations; and nothing good or positive can come out of it. Now, Harry; what is wrong with showing off brightness genuine or otherwise? I don't think you have a good rationale for not showing it off. After all, anyone who volunteers to write anything in science is guilty in one way or another of seeking to prove how right and breathtaking his brainchildren are, and how fortunate for the human race to have someone very bright like him to discover the truth and set them on the right trajectory for advancement and progress. Am I right? Please, show me I'm way wrong; I would love it!

AAF:

I would like to say you don't have to have the same motives. 2 weeks ago I had a seizure in which I chewed my tongue so bad I cannot talk now. It may take another 2 weeks to heal somewhat.

My motive is to destroy the stories we kill over. I just don't care anymore. I am going to build my space program or die trying. I just don't care anymore. I am amazed at how much I have done.

My other major motive is to get this out before another seizure deletes my memory. I have had to learn math and physics several times, because I lost those memories.

Life sucks. So everywhere I go, may I be of benefit to all sentient beings. May I always bring a smile to people. May I benefit humankind's future. Because the universe just does not care if we survive.

a

Your comments are well taken. However, I do want to point out it was not me who said that. My view is that if we stay on topic we may learn from each other. I do not accept contradiction, as practiced by Cincirob, as it amounts to simply a little boy's argument. My view of this topic is that slow clock transport, is basically the foundation of the Lorentz transformations. This may be wrong. What it means to me is that the clock rates, and the clock dates can be transferred in theory so there is an absolute simultaneity in a given frame. The problem is if the two frames are in relative motion, the clocks may run at different rates, although they are initially snychronized to the same date, time zero, at the origin as they pass by.

My argument is that the Lorentz transforms demand a different time scale, that is a result of the equations. There is also a different distance scale. This difference is real. Now relativity tries to have its cake and eat it too, by claiming the time scales are both the same and different at the same time. This is certainty confusing. In my interpretation of the Lorentz transformations, the velocity transforms invariantly, so all velocities are measured the same. The Galilean transformation Law holds, and there are no contradictions. The key point being that the measurement scales for time and distance are different, so the clocks run at different rates. The Lorentz transforms allow you to describe a unique event in terms of the coordinates of measure in both frames in a unique manner. But you must remember this process does not use the same time or distance scales in both frames.

Fundamentally my claim is that this interpretation is clean in that it is not contradictory or obscure. I do not claim it is physcally accurate, as it is simply an interpretation of the mathematics of the Lorentz transformations. However, in my view this theory is an aether theory since the Lorentz transforms arise from the aether theory of Larmor, Poincare, and Lorentz, which Einstein modified. My claim is that Einstein's modification of the aether theory can not stand up to mathematical examination, so we are either forced to accept the aether theory or reject the Lorentz transforms as valid tools of physics.

As a final post script, I would like to point out that absolute simultaneity is required in any theory since the objective is to relate events in one physical frame of description to the same event in another physical frame of description. Since we are describing the same event in the mathematics, the implication is that it is a simultaneous event in both frames. So the relativie simultaneity argument is a contradiction. How can you physically describe the event in two different systems of coordinates if the theory claims that is an impossibility. Another absurdity of relativity theory.

As a follow up to my previous message, I want to say that the primary question in this topic is just how the clocks are adjusted. This is Curt's big question. I think the problem arises because the answer isn't exactly clear in the textbook version. I think it is imoprtant to think this way. We have two frames, and two sets of clocks. How are they to be set up? I think the problem is not an easy one. But of course we can start with the assumption of a rest frame, and set all the clocks to a standard clock rate, and a standard clock date. This is the first step, notice the two parts.

In the moving frame, we can do the same thing. In fact we can assume the clocks at rest, set them, in the two ways previously discusssed, and them place them in motion. The aether theory says the moving clocks will run slow by the prediction of the Lorentz transformation. So we really don't have to set the clocks up while moving, that can be done at rest. This is actually the same procedure as used by Einstein, but he gets things all screwed up as he proceeds past this step in the reasoning. Notice in the GPS system, the clocks at rest are set to run fast by the Lorentz transformation prediction, so that when they are in orbit they are slowed by the same factor, hence they will be in step with the earth clocks.

Harry: Your comments are well taken. However, I do want to point out it was not me who said that. My view is that if we stay on topic we may learn from each other. I do not accept contradiction, as practiced by Cincirob, as it amounts to simply a little boy's argument. My view of this topic is that slow clock transport, is basically the foundation of the Lorentz transformations.

cinci: The basis from which Lorentz created his transformations were a recognitins of length contraction from the Michelson-Morley experiment. As for my arguments being "little boy's arguements", that's all it takes. An adult approach would be to show anaylsis or derivations to support your claims, but you don't.
***********************

AAF: Sorry, Harry; I'm not supposed to intrude here:

AAF: Curt Youngs posted the part you quote.

AAF said: Now, <Harry> Curt; What is wrong with showing off brightness genuine or otherwise? I don't think you have a good rationale for not showing it off. After all, anyone who volunteers to write anything in science is guilty in one way or another of seeking to prove how right and breathtaking his brainchildren are, and how fortunate for the human race to have someone very bright like him to discover the truth and set them on the right trajectory for advancement and progress. Am I right? Please, show me I'm way wrong; I would love it!

Curt says: Yes you are right. Beat your chest. There is also the adage: Mouth open, ears and brain closed; It's a multitask proposition, some can't walk and chew gum, "simultaneously."

To All- Lets Try To define Hoe the Clocks Are Synchronized

Harry,
Are you sure the GPS clocks are regulated to run fast before launch? I missed that part. I partially agree. There must be an increase and decrease in the regulation as the orbit clocks approach and recede relative to detecting observers on the surface. I see how this can be compensated too, so both are done to get the accuracy that is accomplished. Do I have it right now? Is the pre launch regulation for motion, or reduced gravity?

The mistake in Einstein's theory is that he assumes every frame is a rest frame. The theory assumes at the start that the clocks in all frames run at the same rate, but based on this he concludes that the clocks run at different rates. In mathematics this is a contradiction and is proof that the argument is false.

The GPS clock may be the best clocks we have ever built, but... We are just learning about Mascons. We know satellites orbit at different altitudes during their orbits. This is due to the density of what is directly below the satellite.

again I refer to the paper.
Improved Gravity Field of the Moon from Lunar Prospector
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/5382/1476
A. S. Konopliv, A. B. Binder, L. L. Hood, A. B. Kucinskas, W. L. Sjogren, J. G. Williams

This is evidence of my arguement. Here is a picture of the topography (top) and gravitational field (bottom) as shown from orbital error correction.

Although I would state we are seeing an increase of gravity in this area due to the change in density of baryonic material and it's magnetic field. This magnetic field change pushes against the dark matter in this area causing the changes in orbit.

Anon: The mistake in Einstein's theory is that he assumes every frame is a rest frame.

cinci: Actually he just assumes that an observer in an inertial frame (not every frame) cannot determine by experiment that he is moving. And this is Galileo's "mistake", not Einstein's.
******************************

Anon: The theory assumes at the start that the clocks in all frames run at the same rate, but based on this he concludes that the clocks run at different rates.

cinci: He only assumes the speed of light is the same for all observeres in inertial frames. He makes no such assumption about clock rates other than the idea that you can build an honest clock. The resulting mathematics predicts that clocks in relatively moving frames will run at different rates, but it is not an assumption.
*********************************

Anon: In mathematics this is a contradiction and is proof that the argument is false.

cinci: Well it might be an argument if your earlier statements were correct but your earlier statements are not correct as I have noted above.

Don't you think it's a little grandiose of you to just flatly state that one of the most respected scientists of the 20th century is wrong?

AAF: Thanks Harry & Aaron for taking the high road; and for leaving me & Curt work it out at sea level!




Curt: Yes you are right. Beat your chest. There is also the adage: Mouth open, ears and brain closed; It's a multitask proposition, some can't walk and chew gum, "simultaneously."



AAF: But others, of course, can walk & chew & drink 'Coca Cola' all at once. Sorry, Curt; I just cannot imagine or bear losing the contest for the best 'Knowledge Terrorist'; I earned it! And no way, I desire or look forwards to or like to be labeled as 'open-minded & scientist-like & very liberal'. And that is because the idea that our buddy (Cincirob), the lonely and the only real pro-Einstein's Special Relativity we have on this forum, might succeed in converting me to Relativity is frightening to me; and it fills me with horror and trepidation! I don't want to be open-minded; it's just as simple as that.

AAF said:. . . .(T)hat is because the idea that our buddy (Cincirob), the lonely and the only real pro-Einstein's Special Relativity we have on this forum, might succeed in converting me to Relativity is frightening to me; and it fills me with horror and trepidation! I don't want to be open-minded; it's just as simple as that.

Curt says: Give credit where due, but no more than is due: The concocted story has to be helped along. Truth stands by itself. Once one has the truth, it can not be removed from him. If he is devious, he may hide it for his own gain, but he can no longer look another in the eye. If you go over to the other side, It'll have to be as a secret agent.

Curt: Give credit where due, but no more than is due: The concocted story has to be helped along. Truth stands by itself. Once one has the truth, it can not be removed from him. If he is devious, he may hide it for his own gain, but he can no longer look another in the eye. If you go over to the other side, It'll have to be as a secret agent.




AAF: Well, hold your horses; Curt; you go it right in one sense and wrong in another sense. But first, let's exclude, in this context, other types of truth and consider only the physical truth! There can be no doubt that physical truths exist out there; otherwise nature could never work. And so, you are right in this respect; absolute physical truths exist; and I have nothing more to add in this regard.

However, the main problem, here, is not the actual existence of physical truths; for they do exist by logical necessity. The main problem is how to identify and recognize them. Sure, there are many methods employed just for discovering and identifying this kind of truth. But none of these methods can recognize and identify physical truths absolutely and with complete certainty and once and for all.

As a result, every known physical truth has a degree of uncertainty attached to it. And it is this uncertainty that can turn what is believed to be a physical truth at one time to a mere illusion and simple mistake at another time. In short, in no way we can claim with justification that we have discovered the absolute physical truth regarding this phenomenon or that phenomenon and cannot be removed or taken away from us. And so it is quite possible that Cincirob will prove that we're way wrong and compel us and give us no other option but to follow him; now, what do you think, Curt?

I would agree. I would have to regress physically, and grow a tail to tuck between my legs, hang my head and follow Cinci. Do you think he would eventually become President? Would all airplanes have to comply too? Would all government grants come to an end? Why, everything would change, even if it remained the same!

Re: Slow Clock Transport
September 19 2008, 12:59 AM

AAF,
As a result, every known physical truth has a degree of uncertainty attached to it. And it is this uncertainty that can turn what is believed to be a physical truth at one time to a mere illusion and simple mistake at another time. In short, in no way we can claim with justification that we have discovered the absolute physical truth regarding this phenomenon or that phenomenon and cannot be removed or taken away from us. And so it is quite possible that Cincirob will prove that we're way wrong and compel us and give us no other option but to follow him; now, what do you think, Curt?

You are waxing philosophic AAF, which is OK, but I think you missed Curt's point. A theory can be proved false but once false it can not be proved true again unless you are conceding that the earth may, after all, be flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth. Are you willing to concede that time dilation may, in fact, be true? Are you willing to concede that curved space may, in fact, be true? Cinci may be brought to our side but I see no possibility that we can go to his side, that is, unless you doubt your sensibilities and if you do, then maybe we should resurrect Potolomy.

Harry would like us to stick to the main topic:

Harry said: So,"we really don't have to set the clocks up while moving, that can be done at rest. This is actually the same procedure as used by Einstein, but he gets things all screwed up as he proceeds past this step in the reasoning.[I agree] Notice in the GPS system, the clocks at rest are set to run fast by the Lorentz transformation prediction, so that when they are in orbit they are slowed by the same factor, hence they will be in step with the earth clocks."

Curt says: "in the GPS system, the techies can change the regulation of satellite clocks on the go, so that they dam(n)near stay in tolerance with the theory on which the system operates. I understand there are several clocks on each satellite, for redundancy and other purposes. This (the ability to adjust) can cover up any underlying misconception of reality, and yet the system works really well. For instance: the orbits vary in minor uncalculated radii and speeds, probably from the multibody planetary and Earth/Moon barycentered gravitational unknowns.

Also, Harry, I think I have a different idea of "absolute simultaneity" than you. The term absolute is pretty absolute, so to speak: The only situation I see where this can happen is where the emission and detection of the EMR is at the same place, at the same time. Where the detection is done somewhere else, there is no "absolute simultaneity." We think we can figure whether the detection would be in "absolute simultaneity," if we were actually there, and for the most part I think you are right about the figuring.

But remember AAF's point about reality: It does exactly as it wants, regardless of what we think about what it should do.

PBS recently reran its Einstein propaganda piece "Einstein's Big Idea". It gives exclusive credit to Einstein for something he really didn't do. Nothing new. It seems that Einstein's image as the greatest scientist of the 20th century is just nothing but smoke. It isn't deserved.

The paper, Derivation of Mass-Energy Relation, by Herbert Ives explains the correct story. Ives points out that Einstein didnt even derive the formula correctly. He concludes: "The relation E=mc^2 was not derived by Einstein." See the book the Einstein Myth and The Ives Papers. One has to conclude that calling Einstein the greatest scientist of the 20th century is a bit overstating the case. Investigations of hs work show he doesnt get the math correct, so his claimed discoveries don't really count. He doesn't give due credit to others and takes all the credit for himself, and this is not a gentleman's behavior.

Giants are standing on our shoulders. Like you say, the giant is made of smoke and mirrors. Time passes, and our ideas, the good ones, will be silently absorbed. We will move on, knowing the truth unto ourselves. Well, we'll have the respect of our peers, anyway. Is this satisfaction for all the writing you've done?

I have problems with this equations. It is saying that the only main variables in Energy are mass and the speed of light. No time, temp, freq, wave length...

Mass is a zero dimension point. Mass does not exist in 4 dimensions. Density exists in 4 dimensions.

And the speed of light. Where did he get this stuff? What about electromagnetism, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiation... There is a major difference between symmetry and equillibrium. Simply, equilibrium occurs at the boundries of two dispirate systems, symmetry occurs in the mind.

There are so many variables in how the universe operates. Planck's black body spectral emissions. Maxwell's...

Now I kinda refuse to get behind any eqns until we have a model that goes from matter, to organic chem and explains thought. Until I have a coarse model I will not show my eqns, because they are wrong at this time.

a

Arron, Certainly you make a good point. In his paper Ives points out there are two different definitions of mass. This equation is an example of interpreting things in hindsight. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that is due to vagueness in definition of mass. This is thought to be Einstein's greatest acheivement, but in the end his contribution was only a suggestion about interpretation. Most of the real work was done by others.

Since these are too simple to explain real phenomena, how do we get rid of them. I was thrown our my high school physics class for writing E‚mc^2, F‚ma, F‚gm1m2/r^2 on the board before class. After a while, it does not matter that it does not make sense. It was told to me, by the dean, 'Quit the class, or fail'.

How do we stop this?

This is in reply to Curt. My definition of absolute simultaneity is that the clocks all read the same date at the same moment of time. This is a bit circular, because the idea of the definition assumes the concept of absolute simultaneity exists. Relativists question this idea, but implicitely use it in their arguments, so why dont we just acknowledege this conception. It was clear to everyone before relativity questioned it. You seem to be saying that events are not preceived as simultaneous if they are simultaneous, so relativity of simultaneity exists. That follows from the finite velocity of signals used to perceive or record the event. But of course we still had the implicit notion of absolute simultaneity in mind when we reached this conclusion.

The idea of time dilation implies something about the nature of time, sui generis, or time itself. This is I think unknowable, since we required an absolute measure of time rate to compare against, and this is just a physical process. We can never know whether it was the physical process or time that changed if there is a difference detected. So time dilation is a meaningless conception. If we define time to mean that which is inferred from a physical process, then it is possible to talk about time dilation, which is how I use the word, but it doesnt refer to anything having to do with "time" dilating.

AAF: Well, hold your horses; Curt; you go it right in one sense and wrong in another sense. But first, let's exclude, in this context, other types of truth and consider only the physical truth! There can be no doubt that physical truths exist out there; otherwise nature could never work. And so, you are right in this respect; absolute physical truths exist; and I have nothing more to add in this regard. However, the main problem, here, is not the actual existence of physical truths; for they do exist by logical necessity. The main problem is how to identify and recognize them. Sure, there are many methods employed just for discovering and identifying this kind of truth. But none of these methods can recognize and identify physical truths absolutely and with complete certainty and once and for all. As a result, every known physical truth has a degree of uncertainty attached to it. And it is this uncertainty that can turn what is believed to be a physical truth at one time to a mere illusion and simple mistake at another time. In short, in no way we can claim with justification that we have discovered the absolute physical truth regarding this phenomenon or that phenomenon and cannot be removed or taken away from us. And so it is quite possible that Cincirob will prove that we're way wrong and compel us and give us no other option but to follow him; what do you think, Curt?




Curt: would agree. I would have to regress physically, and grow a tail to tuck between my legs, hang my head and follow Cinci. Do you think he would eventually become President? Would all airplanes have to comply too? Would all government grants come to an end? Why, everything would change, even if it remained the same!



AAF: I know; it's awful; that is why I don't want to go open-minded; and in case he decides to become a US President, you should vote for him just to get rid of him and to make sure he would stay away from physics!



Innominate: You are waxing philosophic AAF, which is OK, but I think you missed Curt's point. A theory can be proved false but once false it can not be proved true again unless you are conceding that the earth may, after all, be flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth. Are you willing to concede that time dilation may, in fact, be true? Are you willing to concede that curved space may, in fact, be true? Cinci may be brought to our side but I see no possibility that we can go to his side, that is, unless you doubt your sensibilities and if you do, then maybe we should resurrect Ptolemy.



AAF: Let's consider only, as an example, conceding that the earth may well be found to be flat after all! Clearly that is an impossibility at the present time. However, suppose future brain scientists have demonstrated and proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the human brain by its very own physiological structure always and without any exception perceives flat surfaces as spherical and spherical surfaces as flat. What will happen, in that case, to our current supposition that the earth is spherical? Well, Innominate; there will be nothing else to do, in such a highly unlikely scenario, except to concede graciously that the earth is flat and the old supposition is wrong.

Re: Slow Clock Transport
September 19 2008, 6:04 PM

Pentcho:
However, suppose future brain scientists have demonstrated and proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the human brain by its very own physiological structure always and without any exception perceives flat surfaces as spherical and spherical surfaces as flat. What will happen, in that case, to our current supposition that the earth is spherical? Well, Innominate; there will be nothing else to do, in such a highly unlikely scenario, except to concede graciously that the earth is flat and the old supposition is wrong.

Then Cinci would become like us and we would become him, we would say the world is flat and he would say the world is spherical; things may change but people don't, reform maybe, but not change.

Corollary to relativity theory: the relativity of perceived truth to reality. Copy and paste the above discussion. Addendum: I was tempted to turn the discussion concerning curvature vs. flatness toward the fairer sex, but decided not to go there. Instead, have you noticed the reticence of Cinci? I think we should let up picking on him, a bit, so his scabs can heal.

The theory developed in GSJ papers by Harry Ricker, see submissions list, is based on the slow clock transport and the idea that all clocks keep the same time zero reference but not the same rate. In effect this theory is an extension of the idea of relativity that the speed of light is an invariant.

In the theory, the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation is extended to remove the inherrent contradictions in the special relativity version. This version fails because it is inherrently a contradiction. In the Ricker Theory, the velocities of any type of motion transform invariently. So the velocity of light is the same in all reference frames as in relativity. However, the scales of measurement are not the same as indicated by a rigorous analysis of the Lorentz transforms.

Reviewing the Lorentz Theory which derives the Lorentz transformations, velocity transforms so that the light velocity is not the same in different frames. In relativity the velocity is the same exactly, both numerically and in the same units. It leads to contradictions and must be rejected. It is fundamentally inconsistent with Lorentz transform mathematics. In the Ricker Theory, the relativity theory is extended so that the velocity of light is numerically the same in all frames, but the scales of measure are different in all of them. Velocity transforms invariantly since distance and time transform with the same scale change factor. Notice in the Lorentz theory distance contracts and time dilates and light velocity does not transform invariantly. In relativity the light velocity is the same but the scales are the same in all frames.

A nice feature of the Ricker Theory is that the Galilean velocity law remains valid. In relativity it does not, and this is a difficulty for that theory.

What does your theory explain about the "twin contradiction?" I say "contradiction" because either twin can be taken as "stationary," hence each twin is required to be both younger and older than the other, at reunion, which is an impossibility.

Curt, In the Ricker Theory there is no twin comtradiction, because there is no confusion as to the interpretation of the theory. In special relativity, the twin contradiction arises because although there is a fundamental assumption that all clocks run at the same rate, since the rate of time is the same for all frames, the theory concludes contrary to this assumption that moving clocks run slow because the passage of time is relative to the relative motion of the frame. This is the first contradiction, which is usually ignored. The second contradiction is that the theory concludes that time is slow relative to the other frame in a symmetrical way but that the aging of the twins is not symmetrical because something effects the moving twin different from the stay at home twin. This is supposed to be acceleration but that theory doesnt work. So there is another contradiction.

In Ricker theory, the clocks run at different rates because the physical time scales are different. This is not time dilation but an effect on clocks. So in this view of it, the passage of time is the same in all cases and only the reading of the clocks is caused to change by the physical effects of motion. If you argue that this ought to affect the biological clocks of the organisms, that is outside the scope of the theory, so no conclusion is claimed regarding biological aging.

I can live with that, I guess. Ian was suggesting that biological functions are affected, so I guess his idea is different. Can you talk him into joining the forum? In the mean time I'll cogitate on your last post some more.

Regarding Eric Reiter's Photon particle:

You said: "I was reading the first chapter of the book at the site.

'Because gamma rays are thought to be the most particle-like light.'

I don't like this statement. It suggest that some wavelengths on the spectrum are not like the others. But a Gamma ray is just a really excited photon."


Curt says: I don't believe he is saying the Gamma ray is different, he is saying they are most particle like: therefore to split them is to prove all photons can be split.

Yep, I am confused. If I lose the photon, then I need to rethink the model of information.

But, If the particle splits... then I may not loose my information. just pieces of it. Then I need to think of its fundamental pieces that are accrued by the electron and how that process works.

Truthfully, I have not got much further in the Theory. I have really been thinking about his Loading theory. That really makes sense to me. I need a few days to catch up.

Still in a state of confusion.

a

I was just talking with Eric Reiter. One of his points is: Once you buy the loading idea, you'll just get confused trying to think of photons. I think you are trying to put too much info into too small an idea. With the wave front idea, there are all sorts of interfering waves making up the pattern that reaches your eyes, every femto instant. Then you have the bandwidth to carry all the information. That is really what I meant to say above: one cycle or whatever does not have the bandwidth to carry everything you attribute to the photon.

Curt, I make no claims regarding the biological time scale since I have no knowledge of this topic. I only claim that the clock time scale will be altered for physical processes that are changed by motion. I am not sure whether all physical process are changed in the same way by motion so I can not say if all possible clocks and the biological time scale are effected in the same way. Notice that I make no claim regarding the dilation of time, which addresses the change in the metaphysical concept of time. I make no assertions about any change in time as does relativity. Only that those physical process for which the Lorentz transformation applies, this may be light or electromagnetic type clocks, will be effected.

Cinci isn't the only one who believes there is an inherent truth described by special relativity.

As for the comment that what Einstein did isn't really his because he didn't do all of the math for it, just postulated the idea.

Isn't that what physics is? Posing ideas and concepts for events, using math and experiment to prove or disprove them, and continuing the chain?

When did math become reality?

Are you saying that because I'm definitely going to benefit from having more mathematically educated people assist me in fleshing out the implications I've described in Simply Relativity, that any results derived based on that concept I've developed and fleshed out to EXPLAIN AN ASPECT OF THE UNIVERSE, can't be attributed to me, because I didn't work out the exact absolute details of the equations it suggests?

Just because quantum theories use pure mathematical constructs which almost inexplicably correlate to reality, doesn't mean mathematical constructs are the only way to progress in science.

It means quantum theories are lacking a major component of all major scientific knowledge, an explanation of the events they claim to describe.

Max, If what you say is true, then it is OK to beleive in physical theories that are based on the wrong mathematics. Opps. We already have that in science, it is called the theory of relativity. It is just fine to beleive it, even though the math is false. Your approach is just not science, it is pseudo-science. The math has to be correct, or it isn't valid physics and we shouldn't beleive it. Getting the math correct is really the entire point of the exercise. Don't you see that?

Harry and Max: Getting the math right is very important, but getting the idea right is real important too. It's a mapping problem: reality has too much going on. We can only think in little bits at any one time, so we leave big parts out. Math is a language just like English language for instance. Math or logic is less ambiguous but is less transparent as to the mechanics, at least for slow people like me. Ha. But thanks for trying to carry me along too.

Curt, Einstein missed both ways. He didnt get the math right and he didn't get the physical idea right. So his claim to discovery is false. He tried to claim something about the nature of time, that is that it slows down. His statements regarding this idea are so vague, confusing, ambigous, and obscure that one can make no sense of it as an idea. The fact that the math is wrong only confirms the judgement that he didn't really have a clue what he was doing and that his idea about space and time is certainly a false physics.

Curt: Curt, Einstein missed both ways. He didnt get the math right and he didn't get the physical idea right. So his claim to discovery is false. He tried to claim something about the nature of time, that is that it slows down. His statements regarding this idea are so vague, confusing, ambigous, and obscure that one can make no sense of it as an idea. The fact that the math is wrong only confirms the judgement that he didn't really have a clue what he was doing and that his idea about space and time is certainly a false physics.


WRONG!

I'm sorry, but a big red buzzer flashed in my head when I read that.

You have mistaken what he was saying.

It is NOT time which slows down, it is YOUR PERCEPTION OF IT, and YOUR interaction with it which slows down.

Just because YOU cannot grasp the idea by focusing on the purely mathematical side of it does not mean that it is automatically wrong. Did you ever consider that perhaps you had misunderstood entirely what was being said?

Theory is not pseudo-science, it's pre-science, it is what you do to figure out what is going on, so you can test it and confirm or deny the theory.

It's hilarious, people refer to Einstein Zombie World, yet here I am, standing in a Quantum Zombie World wondering if there is anyone left alive.