Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Contemplation, Feb 19, 2023.
This creates a light cube with a volume
V = ( vt + ct’ )^3
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I wasn’t able to derive the dilated distance only in relation to time, because my attempts at it resulted in everything else in the equation canceling out everything else. There seems to be a deep relationship between the speed of light and the objects velocity.
d’ = sqrt(( t^2 - t’^2 ) ( c^2 - v^2 ))
In this case, the velocity is always less than the speed of light, so the amount of dilated distance an object is seen to travel is always greater than or equal to zero.
The distance a light ray is observed to travel if it is shot straight forward in the direction of motion of an object traveling at a constant velocity would be,
ct’ = t sqrt( c^2 - v^2 )
If you know the objects velocity then you can determine how far away the light ray will travel away in front of the object. This is the same distance the observer in motion measures the light ray to travel in a perpendicular direction using his own watch t’.
c > v
It is a self consistent theory and obeys the laws of cubes. The hypotenuse of a side of a light cube could be,
h = sqrt(2) ( vt + ct’ )
The slant length of the light cube would be,
s = sqrt(3) ( vt + ct’ )
The difference of squares of the speed of light and a relative velocity can take the form,
c^2 - v^2 = ( (ct’) / t )^2
It is actually the same as the distance a light ray would be observed to travel by an observer traveling at a constant relative speed divided by the amount of time which has passed quantity squared.
A common identity which can be used in Minkowski Spacetime which is self consistent with the proper time can be the distance light is seen to travel from rest.
ct = sqrt( v^2 t^2 + c^2 t’^2 )
In the same form, the distance light travels observed by an object in constant motion is,
ct’ = sqrt( c^2 t^2 - v^2 t^2 )
The distance an object is observed to travel is given by,
vt = sqrt( c^2 t^2 - c^2 t’^2 )
If you ever wondered what form the time dilation equation would take if there was no Lorentz Factor it would follow to be,
t’ = ( t/c ) * sqrt( c^2 - v^2 )
I do not believe that this is Lorentz Invariant.
One problem I faced when working on this is figuring out what it would mean to take the integral of a light triangle to find the total area and how it would relate to the side lengths. At this point, the theory seemed to break down and it began to create false solutions.
I believe that it means that there is actually no such thing as hyperspace, and objects separated by a higher dimension actually end up a real distance away from us in real space.
If you apply the Holographic Principle to a supermassive black hole, all of the events which have and will happen are all saved on the surface of the black hole. Once a closed time loop occurs which alters the eigenstates of the system, it creates a duplicate copy of that system away from there in real three dimensional space.
For example, you could find the area of a light square as an object traveled from zero to the speed of light and get c^2 t’^2 by inputting
integral_0^(c (speed of light)) f(t(v)) dt(v) = (v t(v) + c t'(v))^2
into Wolfram Alpha
c^2 t'(v)^2 = integral_0^(c (speed of light)) f(t(v)) dt(v) - 2 c v t(v) t'(v) - v^2 t(v)^2
If you use this as the total area of the light squares, it no longer works out. I am not sure why it insists that everything is a function of velocity. The program seems to develop a mind of its own when dealing with relativistic equations. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I was previously referred to use this program to do heavy calculations on this website.
It could just mean that there is a universal speed limit and the maximum amount of distance an object can travel is the distance light travels. It still seems peculiar that this value cannot be substituted after finding the integral. Light is the only object that travels the speed of light, then an object obtaining the speed of light would then have to be light.
Even though the area of a light square is c^2 t’^2, you cannot say that is then equal to the distance an object would shoot a ray of light squared.
c^2 t’^2 =/= ( vt + ct’)^2
This seems to then create erroneous solutions.
You ought to decide what you want to talk about in this thread. You started off on dark matter, but now you seem to be trying to develop an "alternative" theory of relativity. Those ought to be two separate topics. Try to concentrate on discussing one thing at a time. Otherwise, you risk introducing new problems into something that is already problematic.
The Milky Way is one galaxy. The universe is the set of all galaxies. Clearly, the Milky Way is not the universe. It's like suggesting that maybe a jelly bean is the bag of jelly beans. It makes no sense.
No. It isn't.
You just made that up, didn't you?
What made you think that an event horizon can eject matter? What made you think that ejected matter could form spiral galaxies?
It is not up to us to prove your wild ideas wrong. It's up to you to find some reasons why anybody might be convinced that they are right. So far, you've given us nothing.
The dark matter causes the gravity.
In part, I suppose.
What makes you think that things are connected through black holes?
What evidence do you have that anything is connected "through time"? What does that even mean?
Please outline the mechanism you are envisaging and the reasons why this would happen.
What do you mean by a "pseudo-force"? Why do closed systems have pseudo-forces? Can you give an example or two, to show what you mean?
More closely, compared to what? What are you talking about?
If it wasn't, it would collapse under its own gravity. (Or are we also pretending there's no gravity?)
You haven't explained why you think galaxies have a centrifugal force in the first place. What are you talking about?
What makes you think matter can be shot out of a black hole? Has that ever been observed?
Please explain why it would do that.
Do you have an actual theory that allows us to meaningfully compare your idea to what is seen? Or is this just a guess?
What's a closed singularity? What's an open singularity? Can we observe either of those things?
What makes you think that everything past the event horizon is time reversed? Got a reference for that?
Are you claiming that the galaxies are formed by cosmic jets? Got a reference for that?
Which theory? Hawking's theory of cosmic jets?
Have you got a link to where I can find out more about Hawking's theory of cosmic jets?
Oh, good. Have you got a link to a relevant paper or article that explains the work-around? I'd like to see the maths that predicts the infinite energy past the event horizon and which shows the work-around solution to the problem. I assume you've already read the paper?
This is the first time you've mentioned a Holographic Principle. What are you talking about?
How does one solve for a distance by removing distance? I don't understand.
What are the terms in this equation? I assume "d" is the "distances an object traveled at a constant velocity". What are t and t'? Is c the speed of light?
What situation(s) does this equation apply to, specifically?
Are you saying that t and t' are times measured on two clocks?
Please outline the specific scenario your equation applies to. You seem to have started in the middle of some kind of theoretical explanation, rather than at the start.
What kind of problem do you think this solves?
I don't understand. You seem to be saying that an object (which object?) has a proper time and a dilated time, and that when those two times are equal the object hasn't travelled anywhere. Can you please explain what you mean? Give a particular scenario (with the maths), please.
That sentence doesn't scan. How can a time be less than an observer? What do you mean?
Who is "they"? What scenario are you talking about?
This is the first time you've mentioned light beams. What are you talking about?
At a diagonal to what? Which light ray are you talking about? What's the scenario?
?? They use a clock to determine distance? How?
The equation is dimensionally correct, yes.
Which ship? This is the first time you've mentioned a ship.
It's a mathematical identity that \((a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + 2ab\).
If a and b are the short sides of a right-angled triangle, and c is the hypotenuse, then \(c^2=a^2 + b^2\).
In that case, your result is valid.
Where is the light ray sent from?
What are t, v, t'?
Is c the speed of light?
What scenario are you referring to? Why not start with that?
What has any of this got to do with dark matter, black holes, Einstein-Rosen bridges and all that stuff, from earlier in the thread?
What is a light cube?
What creates a light cube? (This doesn't seem to follow from anything you wrote previously.)
What are the laws of cubes?
This can wait until we learn what a light cube is, I think.
Those are a lot of questions. I think that is more than I can answer all at once. When I read about the most recent work on black holes, being able to solve for distances from only knowing the amount of time that passed by was one of the leading problems to attempt to accurately describe the situation. That is my solution to the problem. I don’t expect you guys to solve it. I know they frequent these forums, so I am dropping the information here for them to possibly find it. I could send it to them directly, but they complain a lot about people doing that. I am stuck on further developing the problem.
The problem is that they mostly only use quantum mechanics to solve for whatever happens at a black hole. That doesn’t include the time dilation equations. It makes it difficult for them to know what is actually taking place with real distances.
The light clock example has never been accurately solved in Minkowski Spacetime, so I am working on that solution to give the proper time.
One could say that the amount of dilated time an outside observer experiences on their own watch would be t’ or tau. I prefer to use t’, since tau is too cool and popular being used in other areas of science.
This is read as time prime or the amount of time a relativistic observer measures the passage of time.
What would that follow from? You haven't explained why this represents any sort of time dilation equation, yet.
"This" what? What are you referring to?
You seem to be saying the equation isn't Lorentz invariant, but that would make no sense. So what are you talking about?
This is your first introduction of the idea of a "light triangle". What are you talking about?
Also, I see that you later introduce the idea of a "light square" as well. What's that?
You seem to have started in the middle of something. Why not start at the start? Very little of this means anything to me, for instance.
What is hyperspace? This is the first time you've mentioned it. Why did you think there should be a hyperspace in the first place? What's real space?
We're back to black holes again, now? Okay, I guess.
How are the events saved? What does that even mean?
This is the first mention of closed time loops and eigenstates. I have no idea what "system" you're talking about, either.
What are you talking about?
What's a light square?
What did it work out for in the first place? You seem to have started in the middle of something, again. Start at the beginning.
What are you trying to do? What problem are you trying to solve with all this?
What is doing the insisting?
Are you talking about Wolfram Alpha?
How about we start from the start? Tell us the scenario you're trying to work out the maths for. Then explain why you're trying to get Wolfram Alpha to do that particular integration.
What could mean that? Wolfram Alpha giving you an error message on your integral? Why could it mean that?
I am saying that the light clock example can be set up differently. Distance equals velocity times time.
d = v t
The distance a ray of light would travel would be,
d = c t
This is because c is the speed of light or lights constant velocity.
The total distance an object that sends a ray of light into its forward direction of motion would be
vt + ct’
Necessary because there are so many gaps in what you wrote. I have to establish what you're talking about before we can have any meaningful conversation about it.
What distances are you talking about? Something do with with black holes and distance is all I'm getting. But what?
You say this is "one of the leading problems"? For whom? You, or somebody else? What's the problem, exactly? Can you explain what the problem arises and how it arises? My problem, here and now, is there's very little context to your posts.
Who is "they"? Who are you talking about?
Would "they" be reading this thread, then? Are "they" reticent about replying to it, despite frequenting this forum? Why would that be?
To "they" - if you're reading this: can you clarify what Contemplation is talking about? Because he's doing a terrible job of expressing what the problem is, so far. Maybe you can all do better.
Let's here from "they", I say.
Quantum mechanics doesn't include time dilation equations? Or just they's quantum mechanics? Why not?
What's a real distance? Are there unreal distances, too?
What light clock example? Got a link that outlines this unsolved problem with the light clock?
The proper time of what? What are you talking about?
Why do you think the particular variable name or symbol is important?
What do you mean by a "relativistic observer"? The passage of time of what?
I actually rediscovered this fact from trying to solve for different sides of a light cube. It actually works for any type of cube. Another common question I have read about in trying to solve for relativity in Minkowski Spacetime is what does it actually mean to square or take the square root or what form would the equations actually take when that is achieved.
If you have any cube, the hypotenuse of a side is the square root of two times the side length. Also, the distance from one opposite corner to another is the square root of three times the length of its side. This rule still applies. That is what I was stating.
Why not start with a description of your suggested setup, then? You appear to be jumping into the middle of something, rather than starting at the start.
Got a diagram or a description of your different setup, that I can take a look at?
These are generic expressions that aren't limited to light clocks. Right?
Where are you measuring this total distance from? Have you got a diagram you can show me, so I know what you're talking about?
Also, you just said that the speed of light is constant. Why would the distance light travels depend on v, in that case? (What's v, anyway?) Also, why are you using two different times in that expression: t and t'? What would the expression look like if you just used one time?
Also, whose time is t, and whose is t', in your different light clock scenario?
Just start by explaining what scenario you are considering, then we can work from there. Agreed?
Separate names with a comma.