Time Dilation Gets a Quantum Twist

rate of clocks is different bacause of diferent density of quantum vacuum. SR effect is 7 microsecond a day clocks on the satelite of GPS run slower than on the earth. 45 microseconds is GR effect, clocks run faster on the satelite bacause density of quantum vacuum there is denser than on the earth surface. And this corrections are VALID FOR ALL OBSERVERS.Attachment #1: Relativistic_energy_and_mass_originate.pdfAttachment #2: 4_Special_theory_of_relativity_postulated_on_homogeneity_of_space_and_time_and_on_relativity_principle.pdf

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers, and that during the trapping the objects undergo compression and do not undergo compression at the same time:

"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits."

A long ladder gloriously trapped inside a short garage, thanks to Divine Albert's Divine Theory

"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

The long-object-trapped-inside-short-container result is obviously absurd, therefore Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that, in the bug-rivet scenario, the bug is both dead and alive. Einsteinians camouflage the absurdity by introducing two additional absurdities: 1. The rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length. 2. "The end of the rivet will just keep on going [at 87% the speed of light!] until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it."

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. (...) The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed. (...) The bug disagrees with this analysis and finds the time for the rivet head to hit the wall is earlier than the time for the rivet end to reach the bottom of the hole. The paradox is not resolved."

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. (...) But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. (...) Isn't physics great?"

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, entailing the above absurdities, is false.

Pentcho Valev

Did Einstein Tell Einsteinians How to Leapfrog into the Future?

Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."

Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Did Einstein tell Einsteinians how to leapfrog into the future? No he didn't. Even if his 1905 postulates were true, time travel into the future still remains an invalid conclusion. Here is the original invalidity:

ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question:

SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"

Of course, Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.

So Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.

Many Einsteinians know that time travel into the future is impossibe and sometimes hint at that, preparing themselves for times when Einstein's idiocies will no longer strangle the spirit of mankind:

"Pour la plupart des commentateurs, le jumeau voyageur B a effectivement moins vieilli que son frère sédentaire A. Pour les autres, les deux jumeaux ont conservé le même âge ou le problème est sans signification. La controverse tourne autour du fait que, du point de vue de la Relativité restreinte, les situations des jumeaux ne sont pas symétriques : A coïncide avec un seul repère galiléen (en général celui de la Terre, idéalisé comme inertiel, pour l'occasion) pendant toute la durée du voyage, tandis que B effectue un demi-tour et coïncide ainsi avec au moins deux repères galiléens successifs. Cette différence fait que la relativité restreinte s'applique différemment à l'un et à l'autre, notamment à cause de l'accélération permettant le retour de B, en provoquant un changement de repère galiléen. Si, pendant la partie du voyage à vitesse constante, B vieillit moins vite que A, il se pourrait qu'il vieillisse plus vite durant les phases d'accélération. On relève 54 points de vue sur le paradoxe, émis entre 1905 (Einstein) et 2001 (Hawking)."

(1:06:45): "Est-ce que l'avenir existe déjà dans le futur ? C'est une question fondamentale ... Les relativistes disent oui - le futur est déjà là mais nous on n'y est pas encore ... Les physiciens quantiques, les présentistes disent non - le futur est un néant ... Les voyages dans le futur sont impossibles pour les présentistes alors qu'ils sont possibles pour les relativistes."

Neil deGrasse Tyson (02:22): "I have no access to the past. I have no access to the future."

Pentcho Valev

time has only a mathemaical existence

http://link.springer.com/search?query=sorli+amrit+

Hello Amrit,happy to see you again

Best Regards

there is no such a thing as "time dilation"

only speed of changes is slowing down.....Attachment #1: 1_New_Insights_in_SR.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Special_theory_of_relativity_in_a_3D_Euclidean_space.pdf

How Einsteinians Confuse the World

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html

John Norton: "If we are to retain both of Einstein's postulates, we will have to make systematic changes throughout our physics. Let us begin investigating these changes. They will overturn our classical presumptions about space and time. The first change we will investigate has to do with time. An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest."

The conclusion

"An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. What follows is:

(A) An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest, as judged from the system at rest.

(B) An inertially moving clock runs faster than one at rest, as judged from the moving system.

The combination of (A) and (B), a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, makes the famous time travel into the future impossible and converts Einstein's special relativity into an absurdity.

Pentcho Valev

No. Each observer sees the other's clock as running slower.

You could have had a Phd in relativity by now if you were serious.

Tom,

PhD stands for Philosophiae Doctor. What do you mean with Phd in relativity if Relativity is a religion rather than a science?

In order to clarify your issue, let's assume two point-like thought atomic clocks A and B that emit periodic signals of the same frequency and

a) were just synchronized at a common location and are now moving away from each other each with the same velocity v

or

b) are moving toward each other and will confirm the synchronism of their clocks at the location where they will meet.

A will receive the same frequency as does B. However, f_a is red-shifted due to the increased time of flight of the signals, while f_b is blue-shifted due to the decreased time of flight. The Doppler-shifts depend on v, not on v^2.

Einstein's Relativity is not symmetrical. It was fabricated by means of an asymmetrical and unwarranted method of synchronization. One must avoid taking two contradictory views at a time. In that, Georgina is right.

++++

How Einsteinians Confuse the World (2)

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html

John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)."

The "observer" can be just a clock that registers the time of arrival of wavecrests. It can neither change nor measure the wavelength of the incoming light:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary observer)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving observer)

John Norton is forced to lie blatantly here because, since the motion of the observer can by no means change the wavelength of the incoming light, it is the speed of the light relative to the observer that increases and causes the frequency shift, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Once more, slowly.

Two clocks A and B, in relative uniform motion, synchronized.

One clock accelerates away from this reference frame.

Got it so far?

" ... it is the speed of the light relative to the observer ..."

Since the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, the lie is yours, not John Norton's. We know why you waste your time here. Any other forum blocked you long ago.

If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this:

The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

"If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. "

Simply, there is no c + v. You can invent terms all day long, and they still won't change the fact of the measured speed of light in all reference frames.

Scintifict exprement double slit shot test proves we live in an Computer universe and top Scientist know this and are covering it up.

Double Slit shot test proves it because two electrons never hit the same spot twice so probibilty is gone meaning it's sequenced so an program.

First off what was the Scientist thinking about double slit shot test by putting an camera next to it seeing and knowing the results would change? So he New removing himself or a brain with eye's would change the results....proof he New it was a form of mind control or tricks playing on his mind making the results wrong or different...He knows it's an computer program universe 100%.

A. He new double slit shot test was a form of mind control as in mind or brain and eye's not seeing real results knowing change it?

B. It was a fluke that the camera was on why the test was being run and he just watched it after lol?

Thank you very much and it was an afterlife Scientist that put the camera next to test because they hacked this Unevirse that's made up of wavelengths signal's and tried wiping me God or called Soul Creator out unto they realised subconscious or Conscious is spiritual and a form of uplode also.

Read my open Facebook profile if the CIA ant editing it now for what you see /ryanscott0123

So the Scientist that figured out double slit shot test was under an Form of mind control not seeing real test results, is from the Afterlife and they know wavelengths to the hidden frontal lobes sets off different mind control wavelengths like Suicidal, happy, hurt and so on, so new of Mind control wavelengths so Scientist new mind control and thought the results was changing..genius who fought of that.

So Lockheed Martin is also an afterlife company and it's why they have the only really stealth jet fighter.

For a start before Lockheed Martin got the contract they only got millions of dollars but made a huge breakthrough on jet engine by seeing jet now fly 3* the distance then old jets "huge" and Stealth where it can't be locked onto or detected before it locks on and kills enemy radar towers and jets fighters "huge" they made a powerful new radar. The F-35b seen $1.5 trillion dollars spent for no breakthrough in jet engine or radar or Stealth? Yes proven Lockheed Martin brang down the technology at once.

So Lockheed Martin an afterlife company and they are using Scientist to try crack double slit shot test down here to wipe me out..They can't detect subconscious or really conscious in the brain and it's my spiritual uplode...They only just figured that out.

Anyway they had me dignosed as mentally ill to f Me over and are using wavelength signal mind control on my Mum and family to keep Covering it up hoping they can wipe me out.

Listen to this. Google 1993 Ampol petrol station explosion because me and my sister turned back on way to grandma's house why driving past it saying it blow up. Mum driving looked back and said no it didn't. Once we got home on the News an hour or less after, it blow up. My mum confirmed that to the psychiatrist but thinks I'm delusional? Yeah that's how good wavelength signal mind control is.

The new petrol station where the old Ampol petrol station blow up is now called an caltex petrol station and has an logo of a star well God on it.

Also the new petrol tanker that goes here now is called K & S energy and that's my and my sister initials Kelly and Scott. Crazy yes I know.

I also made an premonition live on Facebook and it come true the next day.

The bribed psychiatrist keeps saying it's just an coincidence to my mum know matter how many I do...bloody mind control wavelength signal.

Anyway there trying to wipe me out but can't but still live with hope.

Aparrntly I subconsciously did the 2006/7 Iraq war winning strategies. They only just told me that i was God because they know matter what they do they can't wipe me out and ate delusional people hoping the petrol station blows up killing me and my kids/family....It was a message to them burn for an eternity if you mess with me.

Oblique weapons fb page has the live premonition if the CIA haven't edited it.

Anyway questing any of this? Then how did the Scientist know to put an camera next to double slit shot test seeing results change

Yes All truth. Lockheed Martin getting Scientist to try crack it without them knowing Lockheed Martin CEO in Afterlife is beyond mentally ill.

Guess where I live now why forgetting about my premonition? 321 Brighton Rd next to that very same petrol station what? Yes they had a bit of luck but set it up CIA with Mind control and controlling net first house ex googled this house come up first and instantly and we got it. I forgot all about my premonition in 1993 unto they started talking to me. No such thing as Psychics because it's wavelengths going to lobes solving crimes and making people psychic. They told me everything. I was just thinking I did the Iraq war strategies and got fuc$$d over and covered it up. They told me all after I moved next store to petrol station I premonitioned blowing up in 1993.

We are uploaded by the hidden wavelength receptors called the hidden frontal lobes. They frontal lobes make an chemical reaction inside them. An wavelength signal is an chemical. So proof the wavelength signal makes the chemical reaction inside them lobes. Well that's ether old uplode or it wasn't even why you uploded... cover up conscious is it yes conscious uplode.

Any questions? Fire away.