Time Contraction
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Physics Turned Upside Down to Keep the Hour Glass of Time Flowing
Next: Word soup - Re: Physics Turned Upside Down to Keep the Hour Glass of Time Flowing
From: bkh99 on 13 Jul 2010 21:18 Time Contraction Everyone is familiar with Albert Einstein's theory of 'time dilation'. What would happen if we were to hold up a mirror to the standard interpretation of the theory of relativity, and both distance and time were to 'contract' rather than simply dilate. If we have learned to live with a dilated (slower) clock, then it seems to me that we could also learn to live with a 'contracted' (or faster) clock. This phenomenon of 'time contraction' is not included in Einstein's interpretation of the principle of relativity for it turns out that if time 'contracts' as well as 'dilates' then we must do away with classical concepts of 'distance' and accept that the distance between any two points in space is also relative. Time dilation has been accepted only because it is possible to reconcile classical physics with the principle of relativity and a concept of relative clock time, but only if we allow only time dilation and do not consider the possiblity of time contraction. This 'time contraction' is dependant upon acceptance of the concept of 'the aether' (which is to say that space is an energy field). For this reason this discussion of 'time contraction' is divided into two parts. Part one is yet another attempt to justify the hypothesis that space is an energy field. The universe does not exist 'in space' as though space was an independantly existing separate entity unto itself, but rather space itself is part of the universe, which is to say that space is also a manifestation of the one energy field. Just as we accept that E equals MC squared (the equivalence of mass and energy) so we would also have to accept the equivalence of space and energy (the idea here being that it is a logical assumption to accept the postulate that 'space' is just the perceived manifestation of the 'conserved momentum field' associated with any mass. http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page3/aether.html This discussion of the 'aether field' is a continuation of a previous summation of the Unified Field Theory found here. http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/new_physics.html Part one of the discussion then goes on to justify 'time contraction' as a logical postulate resulting from the phenomenon of 'field acceleration'. http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page3/time_contract.html
From: harald on 14 Jul 2010 02:17
On Jul 14, 3:18 am, bkh99 <b...(a)sasktel.net> wrote: > Time Contraction > > Everyone is familiar with Albert Einstein's theory of 'time > dilation'. What would happen if we were to hold up a mirror to the > standard interpretation of the theory of relativity, and both distance > and time were to 'contract' rather than simply dilate. If we have > learned to live with a dilated (slower) clock, then it seems to me > that we could also learn to live with a 'contracted' (or faster) > clock. Sure. > This phenomenon of 'time contraction' is not included in Einstein's > interpretation of the principle of relativity for it turns out that if > time 'contracts' as well as 'dilates' then we must do away with > classical concepts of 'distance' and accept that the distance between > any two points in space is also relative. No, the reason was that only clock slowdown is compatible with the experimental results; and the classical concept of "absolute" observation of moving distances has already gone. > Time dilation has been > accepted only because it is possible to reconcile classical physics > with the principle of relativity and a concept of relative clock time, > but only if we allow only time dilation and do not consider the > possiblity of time contraction. > > This 'time contraction' is dependant upon acceptance of the concept of > 'the aether' (which is to say that space is an energy field). Again wrong, see for example the recent thread by Daryl, which is still "alive". In fact, the Lorentz transformations were in part derived from the stationary ether concept. So, have a look at that discussion and see if you can find an error! (Googlegroups, look for "Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR"). Harald ------------------------------- > For > this reason this discussion of 'time contraction' is divided into two > parts. > > Part one is yet another attempt to justify the hypothesis that space > is an energy field. The universe does not exist 'in space' as though > space was an independantly existing separate entity unto itself, but > rather space itself is part of the universe, which is to say that > space is also a manifestation of the one energy field. Just as we > accept that E equals MC squared (the equivalence of mass and energy) > so we would also have to accept the equivalence of space and energy > (the idea here being that it is a logical assumption to accept the > postulate that 'space' is just the perceived manifestation of the > 'conserved momentum field' associated with any mass. > > http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page3/aether.html > > This discussion of the 'aether field' is a continuation of a previous > summation of the Unified Field Theory found here. > > http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/new_physics.html > > Part one of the discussion then goes on to justify 'time contraction' > as a logical postulate resulting from the phenomenon of 'field > acceleration'. > > http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page3/time_contract.html |