| A. Einstein's relativity double-integrated zero-differential acceleration front-end-to-back of a lightspeed-capable train and accumulated nonzero-differential distance, but this does not work in mathematics; and even worse, his original event-interferometry-clock was trippy, acausal, paradoxic breaking continually while accelerating, modernly ignored... |
[See also ppt-videos the Einstein-Minkowski Acausality Paradox (trailer) and Correcting Einstein: The Other End Is Running Late (trailer), and, linear stellar aberration, and angular stellar aberration]
[See also, harmonic magnetism, and The Faraday-Maxwell Tease (trailer) centuries-old transformer equivalence 'extras']
►Another obvious approach to Relativity (but counter-Einsteinian) is to assume time is, motion:
►Thus tgrid = vc Lgrid/c similar-to-the-above but photon motion is, its time-at-a-distance
►(n.b. particles though perpetual-like are cycles continually affected by accelerations and fields),
►Example—a traveler sees photons from ahead at the place-and-time along their-own star’s frame
►with star and photons both advanced on the traveler-imposed time-bias and same-speed of light:
►But the photon (or near-photon-speed particle) is time-biased independently, from its source star,
►Implicating that Einstein's "time" is just a convenient-but-multivalued calculation in a given place,
►Coming from distance Dgrid ahead starlight will meet the traveler at time Deff/(c+v) = Dgrid(1−vc)/c,
►(the star at Dgrid is observed advanced tbias, dbias nearer and the rest closes converging at c+v),
►so = (Dgrid/γc)·(1−vc)γ = Dgrid(1−vc)/c by the star chasing its-own photons in the traveler’s frame,
►(the traveler’s observed contracted-distance, shortened by the star chasing it, uncontracted);
►and this has been suggested by some scholars as the real, impetus, for a special-relativity,
►and so they formulated ‘relativistic-doppler’ the same consideration, as special-relativity,
►(Einstein assumed single common velocity while Newton has linear stellar aberration),
►(maybe we’ll find an algebraic topological lift function between Einstein and Newton)
►(a sidebar observation here: cosmic expansion should be enlarging all orbitals);
►(similarly by motion of a traveling observer ‘here’ the universe ‘suddenly looks contracted’),
►(whereas by simple optical arguments objects ahead must appear as focusing farther ahead);
►a problem for stars moving ‘toward-or-away’ in far-distant galaxies, being nearer than their galaxy itself by their relative motion to the observer… not concerning cosmic space expansion nor galactic space drag, just doubly-extreme distances,
►the distance-ahead must be distance-re-biased or the cosmos has yet-another re-expansion-velocity,
►Also, if the traveler quickly-accelerates to relativistic speed, a photon is still its-distance-away in its-own photon-frame, yet its origin-star is closer by γ,
►Marking Test #2: A train shortened by relativistic speed leaves a station and at the next a painter slaps its engine with paint, but the observer on the caboose says the distance between the stations was the shorter and the painter slapped late and splashed the caboose… so, which, got painted…—
►(e.g. time-bias on a 5.76 millisecond pulsar at 510 l-yr thereby cycles ±28 years each rotation),
►(e.g. a star crossing a far galaxy at 0.4% c inline with an observer here jumps out of its galaxy),
►(to Einstein, gear time and grid time were real but bias was parallactic, or maybe none were real)
►Galileo used the term “inertia” differently from Kepler on Copernicus,
A LONGER EXAMPLE PARADOX:
For γ ≈ 360, V ≡ c (1-½γ-2), taking 1 yr ≈ 360 dy (an old-3600-day-decade year),
Let L ≈ 1 l-yr so that the fast-relative takes 1 yr + 2 min and it measures L' ≈ 1 l-dy,
So, T1' ≡ L' / (c+V) ≈ 0.5 dy, And so, L1' ≈ 0.5 l-dy, And so, Tbias ≈ 0.5 yr, And so,
Tgrid:0(T1') ≈ 0.5 yr and is halfway at L / 2 ≈ 0.5 l-yr - 1 l-min, As so it was said…
But now let's also add a beacon from the L-mirror, also sent at Tgrid = 0,
So, the lead-L1' is already just seeing the beacon at (T0'≡T0=0) + Tbias ≈ 0.5 yr,
which L0' announces at T0' ≈ 0 ('pre-dicting' as usual for its lead-L1'), continuing…
So at 0.5 yr reaching 0.5 l-yr where its lead-L1' is γ-contracted just 2 l-min ahead,
So, the L-mirror-beacon meets the lead-L1' where both, are, on the real grid—
So at this event the Tgrid is seeing the lead-L1' when, it is supposed-to…
So, the question becomes: "When, did, the mirror-beacon light up—?
The L-mirror itself must be almost there too— (Tgrid ≈ 1 min. behind)
as it was traveling only ½γ-2 shy of light-speed... so, Where, is it...really...?!
ANSWER: The L-mirror-beacon lit-up one,-year,-prior: one light-year-relative-time...!
There is no gamma-time-dilation on Time-Bias ≡ Relative-Time!
THERE ARE TWO CLASSES OF SOLUTION one-or-more to be found:
1. Set Tbias = 0 in the real frame and let the 'olde' relativistic equation be revised,
2. Minkowski, misunderstood, Einstein, and we should revise the 'olde' Minkowski,
2.b. Minkowski thought a wooden ruler, made relatives within an inertial frame...whence his arithmetic fit a long pole in a short woodshed, But, Einstein, were he thinking on his original thought, would've had the woodshed frontdoor observer measuring relativistic shortening of the pole-not-entirely-in meanwhile the reardoor observer a shorter pole but already-sticking-out...the long pole,-not,-fitting... Einstein meant shortening-per-observer, cf a concave lens shortening length for each observer viewing through one side each... Einstein meant length calculated-as 'velocity-times-time'-per-relative-observer...
2.c. (But note also, this acausality paradox also exists for Einstein's alone, but, does not involve a 'thing' in the relative frame—It is certifiable arithmetic, only.)
2.d. (Note also: If the fast-relative twin could abruptly stop within the real twin's next few subfractions of time, the certified relative future vanishes...into...the...future...!)
2.e. (Sidebar-note there's no gamma-time-dilation on Time-Bias ≡ Relative-Time; Einstein's Special-Relativity one-year-ago-real equals one-year-ago-relative! Minkowski's proper-time, spacetime-dilated-time-calculations are sometimes convenient but meanwhile time-itself still exists—in its primitive, real, form for other, times; Spacetime observation times are merely offset so that a 'caboose' is not on its 'engine' time...)
So, We remove the Minkowski assumption, and review the Einstein-experiment original: (We may also find a Minkowski-like matrix for geometry and such...)
We'll take L' = (L-Lgrid) / γ for any-and-every relativistic view of the experiment 'real' frame, for each-and-every grid-position: There is no longer contraction of the real in the relativistic frame, but per-observer... The paradox still exists because even to the relativistic single-observer, though there is no relativistic co-observer, the T1 and T1' events still occur and get reported—the photon still bounces on-time at the mirror, and the mirror-observer there still promptly sends a report of the event, as in the Minkowski depiction, of the past century, but it's only the real-observer by designation who was indeed already there in the real experiment: there is no relativistic-observer ('thing') leaping ahead of co-reality: there is no certifiable 'stooge' in the Einstein picture...just his imagination, and his arithmetic, as before...and those are measurably the same-relativistic dilations and correlativistic contractions in the single-observer's view...
But if we wish further, we can press this problem to certifiably-not,-certifiable (other meaning), by setting Tbias = 0 in the real frame, and reconsidering Co-Moving constancy that had been assumed but that's not true for electric charges (motion generating magnetic forces) and should it be so true for inertial mass...cf gravitational mass to electric charges 1042 stronger but when neutralized leave the residual gravition, so inertial-mass-motion should be weaker pinch effect by 10-42 less than charge-motion pinch-or-repulsion magnetic effects...
ADVANCED FIELDS:
As we've shown, SR is the translation-back to "what-actually-happens-now", SR is the 'advanced field' for the very-shrunken accelerated frame.
Other possible investigations include, like for gravity, that fields-ahead are shrunken and fields-behind are stretched-out...moving the center-of-field-weight ahead of a moving object pointwise-definition...this is almost redundant to the present accelerated-frame derivation but meaning rather in terms of objective, evidential, 'here-it-is' proof...(cf just for examples, trying to explain where-the-energy-is in a particle at a velocity does it increase its mass-energy or rest-mass or gravitational mass, or like trying to explain where-the-magnetic-field-is in electron-flow while moving the wire-mass itself of proton-counterflow)...
AETHER, OR:
The inline photon roundtrip time is T2-T0 = (2LC/C²-V²), and the perpendicular, assuming aberration, is T2'-T0 = (2W/√ C²-V²) ... Obviously -mathematically- not equal....
At this point in the discussion the 'Einsteinian' theory declares that as this is not what is observed, that objects in-fact remain self-synchronously intact, thus T2'=T2 ... but gives no reason for Lorentz-Fitzgerald -object- contraction: It is not Frame contraction:—
It is not, Frame, Relativity— but virtually declares an absolute-aether-causation to 'Einsteinian', relativity....
BUT LET'S ALSO TRY THIS THE 'FORMALISM' WAY:
Assume a flat space, —meaning outward-bound objects if they return come back the way they went except-for plus angular moment which is conserved,— And two rockets each in its own galaxy separated 10Glyr (The gedanken experiment is the same at 1lyr, or less impressive) and fueling-up, and— at our-same-instant both leave station and accelerate as-it-happens exactly the same direction, same acceleration, same time, same velocity, same distance...
Does, the distance between them shrink as-if they were a particle-pair, Does either jump out of its galaxy to make up the shrink loss—? despite, the fact that neither can have moved faster than the speed of light, and the fact that Einstein never suggested that the rules of acceleration should change....
Apply the Special-Relativistic formalism: There are two (2) Events, though they appear the same instant in the galaxy frame, they are nevertheless, together, two— separated by the great distance, And within each frame we allow that SR holds: the rockets shrink and time dilates -in our, observation, of them,- But we allow also that they don't jump lightyears toward each other in our galaxy observer frame... because there was no difference, to be, Albeit, SR wants there to be, simply because it imagines them to be within 'its' frame.
What happens then, is, They each observe each other at the split-instant before the launch event, and then again after they've reached lightspeed, assuming this to be fast process, and the forward rocket observes the rear to have shrunk the distance between them, having started earlier on the timeline, And likewise the rearward rocket observes the forward to have started late and so shrunk the distance between them... This is in their-view having split the launch event: We see neither rocket leave its galaxy, nor either galaxy shrink. But they, see each other shrink-with and-dilate for being observed in the galactic frame: for being another, a second, event, observed therein— else the 'lead' should observe the the 'lag' slip behind its very launch station as the cosmos shrinks forward between them: Exactly contrary to the claim of SR for what-shrinks and what-dilates and what-doesn't.
Liken this to two muons created in the high atmosphere: Each dilates time,and shrinks, but neither jumps ahead in our Earth-spacetime-frame, And each sees the other doing likewise.
A clear contradiction to SR, unless there is, no flat space, or, there is no simultaneity: Hubble observed the apparent loss of simultaneity: Objects at great distance appear to be time-disproportionately delayed to the reference time, and moving away at great speed ... (though in reality, it's just speed proportionate to its directional distance).
NOTE: [20110803-11]
The author is preparing a short booklet of a few pages and diagrams to explain the first order correction to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: The final result, when published, will make plain all the funny stuff about neutrino mass and velocity (by neutrino shaping per electron shaping and high-energy longevity), and quantum-entanglement faster-than-light, and show a most-amusing result that the Special Theory, for all its accuracy, is but an Almagest of bizarre equations, that, for all their accuracy, must imply that 'we' are probably one-level away from understanding the exact coincidence of mathematical metric theory and astrophysical spacetime theory: which hitherto was only ever an approximation, (cf the Thompson theory of the smoke-ring-atom we discovered one-level away from understanding what electrons, are).
[The following is being prepared as a powerpoint-presentation]
High Energy Astrophysics
Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry (Senior Visitor)
Extracurricular - Presentation
Nov. 6, 2011 (preliminary draft)
FIRST ORDER CORRECTION TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Special Relativity theory, published a century ago, was a lemma to a conjecture that the speed of light en vacuo was constant in all directions: Doctor-Candidate Albert Einstein assumed it so, and published his consequences; The Michelson-Morley tabletop interferometry experiment had shown the speed of light equal in a few pairs of directions, Lorentz-Fitzgerald answered it with Length-contraction, Time-dilation; Others raced to up, theory and practice: Minkowski introduced his Invariant, for computing this new space-time with mathematical, conventionality; Hilbert almost beat-out Einstein publishing his equations of General Relativity....
But—nobody so-much-as checked Einstein's arithmetic: the bounds of functions: Albert never checked that his work was complete, meanwhile decrying quantum-entanglement for bucking his concept of Locality, And earned some chiding that he must've done poorly as a boy in mathematics, But neither did Hilbert, check...
Withstanding, quantum-entanglement faster-than-light, we herein redress this mathematical grievance, and CHECK Einstein's bounds→
(A COLORING BOOK FOR HIGH ENERGY ASTROPHYSICISTS, DOCTORAL CANDIDATES, AND PROFESSORS EMERITUS)
SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE: Solved. (An open-jaws experiment).
PHOTON HELICITY FASTER-THAN-LIGHT: Solved. (An open-jaws experiment).
DARK-ENERGY ACCELERATED-EXPANSION OF THE COSMOS: Solved. (The equivalence of spherical cosmic radius and linearly expanding motion.)
THE TRUE SPEED OF LIGHT: Half. (Half the distance recorded at halftime.)
THE NEAR FUTURE DISCOVERY: (When the Almagest equals the Reality.)
Suppose an Observer Frame, far from gravitational influential effects, and, every event occurring in this Frame: This is the way science has been done thousands of years on Earth: despite Earth's solar orbit and gravity-well... But the notion is, calculable for objects and events passing in gedanken (thinkabout) experiments:
Suppose on the far side of our Frame an interstellar beacon flashes as it passes exactly-aligned-center, a marker there, the light travels 500 seconds to reach us, while the object continues-on 15000 kilometers, gliding 30km/sec. Slowish but→ Its light appears in a direction advanced 10-4 radians, forward of its new position, relative to us, due to Stellar Aberration: whether it, moved, or we moved... But→
This shows the difference between Observation, and Measurement: We know by observing-devices and estimate by calculation where the object is at the moment of its beacon flash: Physicists usually try to observe the measurements of events confirming their calculations, but astrophysicists usually try to observe the events and deduce, the measurements, But, this is not always possible or convenient...
Now: Suppose we measure a system of photons bouncing among mirrors in one frame, from a second frame moving past at high speed: Because the speed of light is constant according to spatiotemporal measurement in the second frame as well, photon motions must be correlated -convolved- with the selected frame measuring the system: Artifacts must be measurably-and-computably-real not merely measured as apparent-parallax....
Special Relativity for velocities, notices that perpendicular paths of lengths equal in the Rocket Frame were very unequal, both length and transit time, in our Observer Frame: Mensurability required that the other-Frame be time-dilated and length-contracted, and their transformation equations would advance the lag-direction time over the lead time: All might have been thought good-enough-for-government-work, but length contraction seemed to violate the speed of light and acceleration at great distances in the cosmos, and time advancement would necessarily jam the Frame edge on causality alone.
(There seemed to be a merger of measurement-and-observation where parallax would become the Special Relativity standard, measurement and calculation....)
Altogether, the only valid sense of single-event is when the object is self-connected, not frame-relative per sé though that was the special case in the original experimentation: Mirrors running parallel remained parallel but collinear mirrors needed reinforcement....
Since there is no-way, by no-means of Rockets passing, for either Earth-sync'ed clock to jump into the future before its own present, the clocks at a distance must have instead been 'late' to begin-with, and the Rocket passing revised its view of 'weird' static-time-offset: Only Present-here is Now, while all others, proportional to their distances, are late, younger, behind the present-here-and-now...! BUT→
Consider a broadside
wave-pulse from the train not-only radiates from the initial place, it should travel
backwards and suck-around the end of the train like windflow compressing over a wing
as the train moves forward: except the charge-balance in a photon keeps it intact as a
wavicle...wagging the other way on the negative-return-half-wave... or so went
the longitudinal theory of photons... yet corotating stars suggested not...
A CONCEPTUAL EXPERIMENT: [2007]
SO—REVISING SPECIAL RELATIVITY:
We start by removing Einstein's professor Minkowski's fluky-flunky arithmetic to give-back Einstein his infamously-purported "D in Math..." Einstein, perhaps interested more in realism, than in mathematic'ism, meant relative-at-one-point-only, like a baby is relative-from-birth... Minkowski, on other-handedness, thought a wooden stick, made relatives within an inertial frame...and thence Minkowski arithmetic fit a long pole in a short woodshed, But, Einstein, were he thinking his original thought, would've had the woodshed front-door observer measure relativistic shortening of the pole-not-entirely-in, meanwhile the rear-door observer the shortened pole-already-sticking-out...the long-pole-not-fitting... Einstein meant shortening-per-observer, cf a concave lens shortening length for each observer viewing through one side... Einstein meant length not as material but as 'velocity-times-time'-per-relative-observer: an arithmetic property having the same unit of length but not a 'thing', (physicists drop too many units too often, to be understood in any one statement)... Einstein was allowing for certifiable arithmetic, not certifiable observers, but Minkowski by meso-matics thought any equation could be applied to things, because 'things' were the objective thoughts of physicists who were not mathematicians by intents-and-purposes...
THE OTHER END IS RUNNING LATE: (causality, and the correction to Special Relativity so-thorough it obviates it)
So simple it's like Newton fixed for finite light-speed (had he known)—
A quick summary of the ppt-video: An object everywhere-equally accelerating-forward in the Earth frame does not change length as the double-integral of zero-differential-acceleration does not produce a change in relative position, (at least not noticeable below relativistic speeds, say 0.1 c where γ = 0.005), However, in the accelerated frame itself each component sees the other components starting and running late—proportionally to distance, observing at the speed of light—and so there is a velocity difference in this accelerated frame...and, importantly...this difference is in the coordination, and peculiar: the front appears to close-in and the rear appears to recede... But 'perhaps strangely' the change in distance is proportional to the velocity, whatever the acceleration (easiest explained if the acceleration is constant), and the distance...and...exactly compensates the time-bias acausality of Einstein's SR...so that there is, no, acausality...but importantly also there is no inertial "equivalence principle" and, this means SR must be reconsidered on this proof-by-(mathematical)-truth and, SR is still necessary to get the answer of where-the-other-components 'right now' see themselves—because the other-component observers, though seeing them mere-instants-away, are instants seen measured no longer in velocity but in portions-of-the-speed-of-light...this is simply the 'reality' of finite light speed and spacetime...and...the next important result should-be that the constancy and isotropy of the speed-of-light is also, a result of 'pure' mathematics on spacetime (but not all perfectly 'clean')...
(Its self-forward-length-contraction -v/c term exactly cancels its self-forward-time-bias +v/c , and contra-similarly its aft-length-extension and aft-time-bias, and thus proving the falsity of the supposition of an inertial "equivalence principle" yet keeping a second-order-but-not-more-SR-like-γ-correction for translating to 'what-actually-happens-now' in the unaccelerated frame... it may ultimately make-simple-or-prove-why lightspeed appears constant isotropically at all speeds)
The example (indicating its mathematical simplicity) from the ppt-video is:
Note the fine point: This numerical analysis example is a one-digit approximation to an exponentially-diminishing slope, e-0.1 ~ 1 - 0.1 + 0.005 ≈ 0.905, with an average forward-closing-velocity and-time-slip ≳95% an order-of-magnitude-larger ≈20× than SR γ which is only its ≲5% approximation-difference...
THE INTEGRAL SOLUTION:
Acceleration exhibits three main phases: (for a simple case of constant acceleration)
A premise discovery under the title,