Experiments could be done varying the barrier thickness, material and integrity to find out under what conditions the barrier effect is lost and the flow effect restored.

Edwin,

Maybe, the answer is Max, Max, Max, and once again Max. Maxwell's aether worried the community. Max Abraham firmly believed in it. Max Planck and Max von Laue supported Einstein's utterly mistakable interpretation of the principle of relativity as Relativity. Max Born built a bridge via Stern/Gerlach to the also multi-paradoxical mechanical interpretation of quantum physics.

While I admit, my suspicion concerning the Stern/Gerlach experiment might be unfounded, I maintain: The fundamental logical inconsistency of Einstein's 1905 relative two-way velocity is definitely inacceptable to me.

I realized that even prominent opponents of Relativity overlooked or swallowed it.

You are attributing gamma to energy. This might be the most reasonable way out, no matter whether or not you are correct in all other details.

EB

The experiments could also be used to answer the question 'Is there a partial barrier effect/partial flow effect (when the barrier is only partially effective) or is it always all or nothing? If the ratios of different states are altered it provides further evidence that the environment is affecting the outcomes.

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for reading and grasping my paper 'Everything's relative...' and for your last remark above, to the effect that

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

Yes. The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, and my details of such may or may not be correct, but 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 most significant, but the time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' belief in (faith in) SR.

While I appreciate your Max Max Max Max and other observations, I've become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and 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 the false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass increases the inertia, upon which every clock is based, and this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

I strongly suggest that this be understood and applied to the dozens or even hundreds of instances where relativity is applied.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

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