archive-com.com » COM » T » THULASIDAS.COM

Total: 429

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Of Rotation, LT and Acceleration - Page 4 of 5 - Unreal Blog
    integrate over time is what I meant by the semantic context of time You kind of visualize that at every instant of time there is a particular velocity and a particular set of LT equations kind of ignoring the fact that time is being transformed May be you could consider a situation where there is no acceleration but the velocity is a function of x Would you still consider it okay to do the integration CCC observed that the rotation analogy is perhaps not too accurate because of the periodicity of the x dependent transformation You could consider the small angle approximation cos 1 and sin angle to take out the periodicity The warping of the transformed xy plane doesn t go away And cincirob argues that the equation for time interval may be immune to the warping of the underlying geometry But time interval is just the difference of two time coordinates in the transformed space The point really is that coordinates do not exist once the transformation is non linear Only some affine connections describing the metric tensor exist Since the time dilation equation as applied to a time interval comes from a coordinate transformation that s no longer valid the only sensible thing to do is what Einstein did discard SR when there is acceleration and go for a more general theory I wish I could explain this better but unfortunately I m pretty close to the limits of my knowledge of GR May be someone who has solved some problems in GR and has an intuitive understanding of non linear geometry can step in and say more Continued Share this Click to share on Reddit Opens in new window Click to share on Voat Opens in new window Click to share on Facebook Opens in new

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/of-rotation-lt-and-acceleration/4/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Of Rotation, LT and Acceleration - Page 5 of 5 - Unreal Blog
    time seem coupled The answer is actually too simple to spot and it is in your definition of time Space and time mix through our concept of velocity and our brain s ability to sense motion There is an even deeper connection which is that space is a cognitive representation of the photons inputs to our eyes but we will get to it later Let s assume for a second that we had a sixth sense that operated at an infinite speed That is if star explodes at a million light years from us we can sense it immediately We will see it only after a million years but we sense it instantly I know it is a violation of SR cannot happen and all that but stay with me for a second Now a little bit of thinking will convince you that the space that we sense using this hypothetical sixth sense is Newtonian Here space and time can be completely decoupled absolute time can be defined etc Starting from this space we can actually work out how we will see it using light and our eyes knowing that the speed of light is what it is It will turn out clearly that we seen events with a delay That is a first order or static effect The second order effect is the way we perceive objects in motion It turns out that we will see a time dilation and a length contraction for objects receding from us Let me illustrate it a little further using echolocation Assume that you are a blind bat You sense your space using sonar pings Can you sense a supersonic object If it is coming towards you by the time the reflected ping reaches you it has gone past you If it is going away from you your pings can never catch up In other words faster than sound travel is forbidden If you make one more assumption the speed of the pings is the same for all bats regardless of their state of motion you derive a special relativity for bats where the speed of sound is the fundamental property of space and time We have to dig a little deeper and appreciate that space is no more real than time Space is a cognitive construct created out of our sensory inputs If the sense modality light for us sound for bats has a finite speed that speed will become a fundamental property of the resultant space And space and time will be coupled through the speed of the sense modality This of course is only my own humble interpretation of SR I wanted to post this on a new thread but I get the feeling that people are a little too attached to their own views in this forum to be able to listen Share this Click to share on Reddit Opens in new window Click to share on Voat Opens in new window Click to share on Facebook Opens in

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/of-rotation-lt-and-acceleration/5/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Anti-relativity and Superluminality - Unreal Blog
    the LTT effects you get the real motion of the object This real motion is supposed to obey SR This is the current interpretation of SR My argument is that the LTT effects are so similar to SR that we should think of SR as just a formalization of LTT In fact a slightly erroneous formalization Many reasons for this argument 1 We cannot disentagle the optical illusion because many underlying configurations give rise to the same perception In other words going from what we see to what is causing our perception is a one to many problem 2 SR coordinate transformation is partially based on LTT effects 3 LTT effects are stronger than relativistic effects Probably for these reasons what SR does is to say that what we see is what it is really like It then tries to mathematically describe what we see This is what I meant by a formaliztion Later on when we figured out that LTT effects didn t quite match with SR as in the observation of apparent superluminal motion we thought we had to take out the LTT effects and then say that the underlying motion or space and time obeyed SR What I m suggesting in my book and articles is that we should just guess what the underlying space and time are like and work out what our perception of it will be because going the other way is an ill posed one to many problem My first guess naturally was Galilean space time This guess results in a rather neat and simple explantions of GRBs and DRAGNs as luminal booms and their aftermath Share this Click to share on Reddit Opens in new window Click to share on Voat Opens in new window Click to share on Facebook Opens in

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/anti-relativity-and-superluminality/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Anti-relativity and Superluminality - Page 2 of 5 - Unreal Blog
    that the brain performs Is it real In my opinion no it is just a cognitive picture the particular evolutionary process that we are part of chose to equip us with It is a mapping of our auditory signals In an exact parallel we should think of space as a cognitive mapping our brain creates out of our visual inputs True our touch and auditory senses provide some corroborating evidence to this picture Just as the pressure waves created by a falling tree are sound only if we are there to hear it the random photons floating around are space and a universe with stars and galaxies only if we are here to process them I know this argument may sound a bit abrupt After all I wrote a whole book dealing with this notion and I m not sure I convinced anybody yet Now the real interesting question is are there photons or pressure waves to begin with They are a part of the cognitive picture we have created for ourselves something Leo rightly pointed out earlier Now coming back to the question of 3 D space I believe that our binocular vision really resulted in our brain creating this particular representation of 3 D space If we had only one eye the brain probably wouldâ ve evolved a picture where the size of a predator representing the level of the corresponding danger for instance Just like the intensity of sound gives us a clue as to the distance of its source Of course this is all my speculation Leo you write simulation programs Wonder if you could figure out how bats would perceive motion using echolocation My guess is that it would be exactly like special relativity with the speed of light replaced with the speed of sound

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/anti-relativity-and-superluminality/2/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Anti-relativity and Superluminality - Page 3 of 5 - Unreal Blog
    which generates the electrical inputs at the nerve endings in your ears And just because there are pressure waves doesn t mean that there is sound if you are deaf or if you are asleep and so on So you have to agree with me that sound is an experience real or not My argument is not so much about what sound is Rather that it is not pressure waves Sound is in fact a far cry from the underlying physical cause of pressure waves Now the next step space is the experience associated with seeing Is there any logical reason why space would be any different from sound Space has to be an experience a specific neural pattern rather than the underlying reality out there True we seem to get confirming sensory signals from our other lesser senses about the reality of space But our brain has to do it that way in order to avoid sensory conflict and the consequent disorientation Which is probably why bats don t use their eyes while echolocating The next question about the reality of air pressure waves and light may be in the next post Leo wrote In the end we might discover that light travels at c only when we use it otherwise it is instantaneous Just kidding eh Though this was a bit of tongue in cheek this is quite close to what SR does SR maps the speed of light to infinity Let me explain what I mean by that Let s assume for the sake of argument that the speed of light is infinity What would that imply It would mean that nothing could go faster than the speed of light It would take an infinite energy to reach the speed of light If you add or subtract anything to the speed of light it wouldn t change IOW the speed of light would be a constant in all frames of reference If something did go at the speed of light it would reach from A to B in no time time stands still And more importantly what we see our perceived reality would be what is really out there the underlying reality Doesn t this neatly summarize SR I mean the coordinate transformation part not the covariance of Maxwell s equations part Now in order to do the mapping Einstein used a radar like round trip paradigm That s why I thought the space time in echolocation would be identical to SR In our case we don t send out the light ray to see an object we merely perceive the light emitted by the object That s why I said SR is only slightly wrong The reason Einstein had to do it the way he did was that he was seeking a linear transformation The light travel time transformations aren t linear You are right I m rewriting more and more of my book here I don t mind as long as I have time Share

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/anti-relativity-and-superluminality/3/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Anti-relativity and Superluminality - Page 4 of 5 - Unreal Blog
    also have concepts like forces and fields and fundamental particles and such But if you think about it they force and such are merely a set of self consistent concepts We think of them as real because our commonsense implicitly suscribes to the tenets of scientific realism Which is why CCC can define sound as air pressure waves because we think of air and pressure waves as real ignoring the fact that they are only a part of the extended version of our perceived reality The acceptance of scientific realism amounts to a philosophical stance vis a vis an unknowable absolute reality The stance I was proposing is to ascribe the properties of flat space time to the absolute reality Think of motion in this flat space time as opposed to the Minkowski space time of SR Figure out how this motion will be perceived That is to say work out when light rays from different points in the trajectory of the moving object will reach an observer If this predicted picture is what we do perceive then we can say that what we ascribed to the absolute reality flat space time is a good working hypothesis If not we go back and ascribe some other geometry to the absolute reality I found that the flat space time worked in the sense that I coud explain some astrophysical data The algebra of this is rather trivial that s why I referred to it as my theory within inverted quotes Note that it is not possible to go from the percieved picture to the absolute reality even with the postulate that the absolute reality is flat space time because at least two underlying motion can result in the same absolute picture In other words it is a one to many ill

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/anti-relativity-and-superluminality/4/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Anti-relativity and Superluminality - Page 5 of 5 - Unreal Blog
    v c quite a bit smaller than c 2 The question is in SR when we do coordinate transformation which speed do we use The speed as we see it or the real speed The immediate answer is that it is the real speed that SR refers to But if you look at the way the coordinate transformation is derived in SR in the 1905 paper it is similar to the receding bullet Suppose you say wrongly in my opinion that this transformation of v to the real v is independent of the direction of motion then you have to find some kind of average between the approaching and receding cases Though a set of arguments SR takes the geometric mean giving the transformation v v sqrt 1 v 2 c 2 In SR this averaging is motivated by the assumption of homogeniety of space and time and the redefinition of simulteniety There is a second reason why SR couldn t be talking about the real speed In our example if the bullet is traveling at an angle say q with respect to our line of sight then the equation for its real speed is something like v v cos q 1 v cos q c Since we don t know q we cannot disentangle the so called light travel time effect from our observation So SR couldn t be applied if we need to know the real speed of objects or franes I hope what I wrote above is what you meant by concrete I have more detailed calculations in my book as well as the articles posted in my site Now comes the unpleasant philosophical stuff Given that we cannot see the real motion of objects should we try to make theories about the real motion or the

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/anti-relativity-and-superluminality/5/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Unreal Universe - Discussion with Gibran - Unreal Blog
    elapsed time than ones that stayed on the ground Doesn t this support the ideas inherent in SR Experiments are always interpreted in the light of a theory It is always a model based interpretation I know that this is not a convincing argument for you so let me give you an example Scientists have observed superluminal motion in certain celestial objects They measure the angular speed of the celestial object and they have some estimate of its distance from us so they can estimate the speed If we didn t have SR there would be nothing remarkable about this observation of superluminality Since we do have SR one has to find an explanation for this The explanation is this when an object approaches us at a shallow angle it can appear to come in quite a bit faster than its real speed Thus the real speed is subluminal while the apparent speed may be superluminal This interpretation of the observation in my view breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer Now there are other observations of where almost symmetric ejecta are seen on opposing jets in symmetric celestial objects The angular speeds may indicate superluminality in both the jets if the distance of the object is sufficiently large Since the jets are assumed to be back to back if one jet is approaching us thereby giving us the illusion of superluminality the other jet has bet receding and can never appear superluminal unless of course the underlying motion is superluminal The interpretation of this observation is that the distance of the object is limited by the fact that real motion cannot be superluminal This is what I mean by experiments being open to theory or model based interpretations In the case of moving clocks being slower it is never a pure SR experiment because you cannot find space without gravity Besides one clock has to be accelerated or decelerated and GR applies Otherwise the age old twin paradox would apply I know there have been some experiments done to support Einstein s theories like the bending of light due to gravity but are you saying that all of them can be consistently re interpreted according to your theory If this is so it s dam surprising I mean no offense to you you re obviously a very bright individual and you know much more about this stuff than I do but I d have to question how something like this slipped right through physicists fingers for 100 years These are gravity related questions and fall under GR My theory doesn t try to reinterpret GR or gravity at all I put theory in inverted quotes because to me it is a rather obvious observation that there is a distinction between what we see and the underlying causes of our perception The algebra involved is fairly simple by physics standards Supposing you re right in that space

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/discussion-with-a-reader-gibran/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •