Two kinds of time

Forums: Einstein, Relativity, Hilemanian
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

So are there 2 kinds of time?

, asks Steve. Yes, Einsteinium and Hilemanian. They don't conflict, they merely two ways of looking at the same thing; hence, 'relative relativity.' In my theory the speed of light is also relative: Hence 9 a.m. here, with Mars at 5 lm, Marty's clock is now reading not 9 but 8:55-9:05 (ignoring any relative motion 'tween us). So when I shine my light at my 8:55 he receives the beam instantly even though upon seeing it his clock (which we've earlier 'synchronized') reads 9:00

The problem with 'modern' thinkin' is that it tacitly assumes it's the same instant everywhere in the Universe, where my theory refutes it. Somewhere in the a2k files I've explained this in more detail but I don't have the patience to search

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,209 • Replies: 31

No top replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

The problem with 'modern' thinkin' is that it tacitly assumes it's the same instant everywhere in the Universe.

I think you have this backwards, Dale.

If by "modern thinking" you mean special relativity, then there is no universal time. In technical terms, this is called the "relativity of simultaneity." This is a bogus concept invented by Einstein so that he could achieve his desired goals.

It is the concept of "absolute simultaneity" that assumes it's the same instant everywhere in the universe.

Theories of relative motion which is posit absolute simultaneity not only predict everything that SR does, just as accurately, but also predict much more (which SR doesn't) just as accurately.

For example, SR supposedly applies ONLY in inertial frames of reference (if there even is any such thing), whereas the other makes accurate predictions in ALL frames of reference, accelerated or inertial.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

If by "modern thinking" you mean special relativity, then there is no universal time

Yes, Lay, exactly, that's the 'thinkin.' What I maintain is, that the subconscious assumption of a 'universal time' causes all the confusion with the 'Twin Paradox'

So Einstein's isn't a 'bogus concept,' but only one that considers c to be fixed

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

What I maintain is, that the subconscious assumption of a 'universal time' causes all the confusion with the 'Twin Paradox'

Well, I disagree with this. It is the DENIAL of a universal time that causes all the confusion.

The twin paradox treats the earth as the preferred frame of reference (as it should). It is "preferred" because it is the frame which gives you the CORRECT answer.

But, according to SR, with it's bogus "relativity of simultaneity," preferred frames are prohibited.

SR creates it's own confusion by ostensibly denying the very concepts it ends up relying on to get the right answer.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

So when I shine my light at my 8:55 he receives the beam instantly

Depending on the relative positions of Earth and Mars in their orbits around the Sun, light takes a minimum of around 4 minutes and the maximum of around 24 minutes to travel between the two planets, so I'm interested to know why you say that.

Michelson and Morley in 1887, and the people who bounced radar signals off the moon in 1946, among others, have actually measured how fast light (and radio waves) travel. We can work out how far Mars is away.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

DENIAL of a universal time that causes all the confusion

Yes, that too. I had discussed Hilemanisn Relative Relativity on another site where there were presumably more 'experts' than hereabout. Some disagreed intently but no one refuted it

Quote:

....SR, with it's bogus "relativity of simultaneity," preferred frames are prohibited

My Relative Relativity resolves these 'preferences,' as well as many other puzzling aspects of SR

0 Replies

@centrox,

Quote:

so I'm interested to know why you say that.

Just to simplify things Cen I assume we're stationary w/resp to Marty and 5 lm apart

Maybe you can find one of my earlier discussions that explains my view of c in more detail. Might try searching 'dalehileman relativity,' 'relative relativity dale,' 'dale c relativity,' etc etc. Tedious

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

5 lm apart

What does 'lm' stand for there?

1 Reply

@centrox,

Forgive me Cen, a really dumb abbr. 'Light Minutes'

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Forgive me Cen, a really dumb abbr. 'Light Minutes'

Explain what a 'light minute' is. Bear with me on this.

1 Reply

@centrox,

Cen that's the distance light supposedly travels in a minute

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Cen that's the distance light supposedly travels in a minute

OK I get that. Now, if Earth and Mars are 5 light minutes apart, how come the light gets from one to the other instantly?

0 Replies

Er, Dale?

1 Reply

@centrox,

Quote:

√Er, Dale?

Er, Cen?

If Im slow, it's 'cause my BH says I spend too much time here

Quote:

how come the light gets from one to the other instantly?

Because as I've tried to explain so inadequately, my theory makes the speed of light relative as well as all other sorts of motion

Probly shouldn't call it 'c' should I

0 Replies

But we know that light doesn't travel anywhere instantly. Doesn't that shoot a fairly big, hard-to-ignore hole in your theory?

1 Reply

@centrox,

Not if your cousin shines it.

0 Replies

OK Dale, in 1946 the US Army Signal Corps ran Project Diana, where they bounced radar signals off the moon. The pulses travelled from the transmitter at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to the moon's surface and were reflected back again. The Moon is around 240,000 miles from Earth. There and back is around 480,000 miles. That's around 2.5 light seconds. The echo of each pulse was received about 2.5 seconds after it was transmitted. Can you explain the delay?

Here is a picture of an oscilloscope trace of the transmitted pulse and the received lunar reflection. The distance shown is the range measurement (238,000 miles).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/First_radar_return_from_the_Moon_-_Project_Diana_1946.jpg

1 Reply

@centrox,

Quote:

Can you explain the delay?

In effect, from our point of view, the light wavefront had spent 2.5 sec on the moon in the process of being reflected

This might sound absurd, but remember even with Einstein, given that super rocket sometimes representing the light beam for the sake of argument, our life here on earth jumps instantaneously 2.5 sec the instant its pilot hits reverse thrust. My Relative Relativity simply takes this concept one step further

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

My Relative Relativity simply takes this concept one step further

It's not a 'concept', it's crazy nonsense.

2 Replies

@layman,

Mate time is just rate of change and that is NOT universal at all.

2 Replies

Two kinds of time

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know