Eckhard has read and grasped my paper [link:vixra.org/abs/1812.0424]Everything's relative...[/link] and remarked above that

"Attributing gamma to energy... might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, so my details of such may or may not be correct, nevertheless the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is significant, but time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' faith in SR.

I have become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and that it is better to focus on the root false premise - Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of his false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each time dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass causes clock's inertia to increase, and since every real clock depends on inertia this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

My best to all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    What if instead of a partially effective barrier in one arm of he apparatus there is a series of 'boxes' that reduce the beam input to the join on one side? Meaning at each 'box' half of the output is discarded. Is the effect the same or different, and if different why?. Does it matter what is discarded and what kept? Or does that make no difference? (as expected).

    Has this experiment been done? What is the result?

    Dear Edwin,

    Einstein and von Laue were both born in 1879 and Planck was already born in 1858. While I don't yet understand why Planck made Einstein famous, Laue (who inherited nobility in 1913 and was awarded the Nobel price in 1914) admitted that he spontaneously admired Einstein's 1905 SR. Why? He agreed with the (misleading) argument that the laws of physics must hold for all systems.

    I appreciate your focus on energy and gravitation/inertia. Stationary gravitation is thought as an elementary mutual and symmetrical attraction force between two bodies A and B. Let me just naively guess:

    In case of non-zero relative velocity v between A and B, gravitation may get asymmetrical resulting in a seemingly two-way sum 1/(c+v) plus 1/(c-v) dependency of mass on v (gamma).

    EB

    Dear Eckard,

    If I understand your remark, you are asking how mass depends on v through gamma.

    Either one believes that kinetic energy is "energy of motion" (whatever that might be) or one believes that energy is stored in a field. Elsewhere I've shown that the gravitomagnetic field induced by moving mass (analogous to the electromagnetic field induced by moving charge) is equivalent to kinetic energy. That leads to a gamma dependence on velocity.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    In the first set of experiments suggested the 'circuit' is either open, closed or partially open, if that is possible. In the next set of experiments the circuit is open but what passes through it is modified to see if that has any effect on the outcome.

    Dear Edwin,

    I quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity: "the speed of a gravitational wave, which, ... confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the same speed[1] as the speed of light (c)."

    Admittedly, I didn't deal with gravitoelectrics and -magnetics. I just guess that there might be a vortex-free source field analog to the stationary electrical one and a source-free vortex field that could possibly be responsible for inertia and gamma.

    I cannot imagine how inert and heavy mass depend on rotation of the bodies.

    May I your expression "energy of motion" by "energy of RELATIVE motion"? I have no idea how to define v else.

    EB

    Dear Eckard,

    If, as I propose, light propagates in the gravitational field (gravity as ether) then there is no way to avoid gravitomagnetics in attempting to understand energy-time physics vs space-time symmetry. I suggest that you may wish to review the Hafele-Keating and Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiments (pages 45-52 in 'Everything's relative...') to grasp the necessity of gravity for interpreting these experiments.

    I was made aware of a paper by Al Kelly, circa 1995, that came to the same conclusions (based on these and other experiments) that I have reached. I have a copy of the pdf, but no link to it.

    In short, gravity defines a local absolute, which finally answers the problems of energy associated with the concept of "energy of relative motion".

    I do not know how many times you have read 'Everything's relative...', but there is far too much information for anyone to absorb in only 2 or 3 readings, and impossible to transfer to FQXi comments in any meaningful fashion.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    I always find it fruitful to try to explain the universe in a completely background independent way. How to explain everything without time, space and forces and matter? I think some of the equations from loop quantum gravity may hint about something as they don't take time into account. Time, as almost everything else must somehow be emergent from a very simple ground structure. And time like everything else must be local. Such that I experience my own time, exactly like you, when reading this experience your own. Although the difference is way too small to notice.

    I think what we eventually experience as time is a result of a really simple mechanism. If we take a really broad view of what the universe is we can say it is a huge heap of lumps of information that is related to each other. When some relation changes, time ticks. Each change of relation is not completely deterministic - there is always some random element, hence time has a direction. The cause of the change can be thought of as a point of action, something that instigates a change. The total number of these points is by the way the total energy in the system.

    These ideas leeds us inevitably to ponder upon if conservation of energy is a fundamental property or if it is a result of a higher order error correction algorithm like, say spacetime. Anyhow it is indeed fortunate for the stability of the universe that we have a maximum speed limit and a swift mechanism for decoherence.

    Hi Alex, what exactly did you want to draw our attention to at the fQxi page address mentioned? I've looked at the page but don't know what it is I should be 'seeing'. Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document. I don't know you and do not know that the link can be trusted. I am interested if you have a novel way of thinking about time. I'd say time is my primary interest.

      Alex,is there nothing you can say about it? Is this the same as Max Tegmark's bird's eye view of the universe or something different? Is it looking at space-time from the outside or a different kind of time? What assumptions must be made to envision the birds eye view? How is this helpful?

      5 days later

      https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1615

      Each instant of time a new Universe

      We present an alternative view of quantum evolution in which each moment of time is viewed as a new "universe" and time evolution is given by correlations between them.

      8 days later

      In the nutshell about nature of time.

      Time per se does not exist. There is only motion. The concept of time allows you to compare motions. All clocks compare motions. Absolute time is the effect of expanding Universe. Time have 3 dimensions. In the direction from past to future active is only present. The past is no longer, but the future is not yet. The present have 2 dimensions in the cosmic scale distances. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453486_Pioneer_Anomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time

      Ilgaitis

        To Erick, Georgina and all.

        Now I read your discussion about reversibility of time. You all are right. The problem is that there are several types of motion. The time is only characteristic of motion. So there are several types of time. The time is irreversible in the irreversible motions. For example, accelerating expansion of Universe. It is absolute time, independent from other motions and irreversible. The time is reversible in the reversible motions, for example, different waves. It is local time. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331440555_About_Arrow_of_Time

        IlgaitisAttachment #1: About_Arrow_of_Time.pdfAttachment #2: Pioneer_Anomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time.pdf

        Hi all,

        Mr Prusis,I have difficulties to accept that time is reversible.It seems odd considering our irreversible entropical Arrow of time.This space time cannot be reversed about time at my humble opinion.The general relativity or our spacetime algebras consider Always this irreversibility.The fact to check time in its pure meaning seems a problem also considering the mass equivalence if we travel in time.Time can be seen like a pure duration irreversible in its generality,it is like an emergent properties of our quantum mechanics probably.Regards

        Re "There is only motion":

        Yes, but what causes this "motion"? The laws of physics are merely relationships. The laws of physics attempt to represent change of number via the delta symbol, but they don't explain why change of number should ever occur. The laws of physics assume change of number, but physics has no explanation for change of number.

        Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

        Let me guess: You are hoping for more attention to your 57 pages paper „Everything's relative, or is it?". Did you therefore refuse discussing just selected details at FQXi ? Can you please guide me to forums that are better suited?

        Being a German, I understand "or is it" in the cautiously doubting naïve sense of "oder etwa nicht". Having read decisive parts of your paper at least twice, I am sure that you definitely meant: Lorentz' local time was a step into the wrong direction. Time as to be used in technology doesn't relate on velocity.

        One has to either follow the mainstream and believe in Einstein's Relativity (I am capitalizing beliefs) including paradoxical length contraction, time dilution, and Relativistic addition of velocities or share Michelson's agnostic opinion and considering Relativity a useless monster.

        Your fictitious AE defends his Relativity of time with two apparently strong arguments:

        - Lorentz' gamma has been proven useful in HEP.

        - While length contraction and time dilution were never directly measured, in particular myon decay can be interpreted in terms of time dilution.

        I consider your counter arguments compelling:

        - Gamma belongs to energy (and frequency) i.e. time squared, not to time.

        - Apparent time dilution can be attributed to Doppler's even stronger apparent effect.

        Strictly distinguish between past and future I see time and energy a conjugated cosine transformation pair. Therefore I don't hide my skepticism concerning "space-time symmetry" and Emilia Noether.

        Being not familiar with Heaviside's analogies, I cannot imagine how gravity may act like a medium. I rather am ready to ascribe physical quantities like e.g. impedance to the fields in space.

        I prefer attributing Sagnac's effect to the existence of a reference point in case of rotation in contrast to the reference-less linear shift.

        With high respect to you as perhaps the first one who comes close to the truth,

        Sincerely Yours,

        Eckard Blumschein

        Dear Lorraine,

        The initial cause of motion is force. The laws of physics are attempts to explain laws of nature. There is no numbers in the nature. The numbers are imagination of human mind. In the nature are merely forcefields and its sources (mass, charge etc). All other arise from mutual action of forces.

        Best regards

        Ilgaitis

          Dear Eckard,

          When I began ~2 years ago I believed special relativity was simple. I no longer believe that. Over a year's effort produced 'Everything's Relative, or is it?' and I hope to soon publish another 6 months follow on effort. I often spend 2 to 3 hours face to face with quite competent physicists (all older) and know how very hard it is to "unlearn" Relativity concepts.

          Einstein embedded his false premise (multiple times) in his definition of inertial reference frame and formulated all of his principles and postulates in terms of inertial reference frames. Thus the game is lost before it begins. One accepts his false premise or one cannot discuss relativity. This leads to length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.

          I claim gamma is an inertial factor, applied to mass, NOT velocity, whether in particle physics or in inertial clocks. This causes real clocks to slow down because their increased inertia resists the restoring force (accel) common to all oscillating systems, and accounts for 'time dilation'.

          The gravitational field has energy and is physically a real 'medium' in which light can propagate. This 'ether' equivalent establishes a preferred frame, canceling Einstein's "no preferred frame" as the basis of "space-time symmetry".

          I wish that you and I could meet face-to-face. It would be enjoyable and far more efficient than these comments. My opinion is that reading the essay four or five times would be necessary to understand well the alternate theory.

          Thank you for suggesting that my theory is correct.

          My very best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman