darkestfright wrote (much earlier):
|Yeah well, put your money where your mouth is then. Just because you disagree with something because it doesn't make sense to you as a concept, doesn't mean it's not true. The Universe is the way it is, it doesn't give a crap what you "think". |
First, similar to what helios
said: I am expressing my opinion about a theory. I am proposing a different hypothesis.
Second, to reiterate, my opinion is about special relativity, not general relativity.
Now I offer this knowing full well that it could be comprehensively shot down, but it is just an alternative idea.
Here is an analogy that was expressed as a way of explanation of Einstein's time relativity paper which goes like this:
Imagine an object travelling along the positive x axis (vector A), at the speed of light. It "fires" a highly polarised light beam parallel to the positive y axis (Vector B) . Adding the 2 vectors gives the resultant hypotenuse with a length of square root 2. Einstein says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (from the conclusion of his paper), so the time must be made relative to accommodate this.
Some people might say that the analogy is bad, but if you look at Einstein's paper it fits.
As for my reasons here goes:
What if the idea of adding the 2 vector A & B doesn't apply in this situation because vectors A & B are independent of each other? The light starts at it's origin point and continues on it's vector B independent of vector A. It is like the light creates a disturbance in the medium, at a particular point, then the light continues on it 's direction from there, independent of anything else.
One analogy might be of a satellite orbiting a planet at an altitude of 20,000 km with a speed of 4,000 m/s. The planet has no atmosphere or anything that might cause refraction, or any other effect. The satellite can fire a highly polarised laser beam directly down towards the centre of the planet. The laser is so highly polarised that it can only be detected on the planet if the position of the detecting device is within 1 metre of the position where the laser beam hits the surface of the planet. The orbit of the satellite is such that it passes directly over the position of the detecting device. If the laser is to be detected, should it be fired when it is directly overhead, or sometime before that to allow for the addition of the vectors for the speed of the satellite and the speed of the laser beam?
Another more simple analogy might involve falling dominoes. There are 2 lines of dominoes (A & B) arranged at intersecting angles to each other. Line B starts part way along line A. The falling dominoes in Line A causes the falling of dominoes in Line B to start. The direction and speed of Line A is independent of what happens in Line B.
My idea is a bit counter-intuitive (By no means as much as Einstein's), because it seems natural to add the vectors. It also goes against Einstein, because he was saying there is no need to have a medium.
However, it might help explain some things like a light moving at velocity v. One might think naively that the velocity of the light is now v + c, but it isn't - it is still c. My idea might also provide a rational explanation, as opposed to the very counter-intuitive idea of time relativity.
Some other problems I have with the special relativity paper are:
1. The paper gives equations in terms of observed time, not real time. It does not seem to account for the difference between these. I guess that is what the Lorentz transformation is for. In my mind it doesn't mean that time relativity is right.
2. Simultaneity. If 2 clocks are synchronised within their levels of accuracy, and are not affected by the physical environment or other factors such as gravity, then 1 clock is taken to another location, and events take place when the time shown on the 2 clocks is the same - then why would these events not be simultaneous? Of course it is a different matter if one is observing the clocks from a distance away, because of the time lag.
There was an experiment done where 2 atomic clocks were synchronised on earth, then one was put on a satellite for 2 years, then brought back to earth - where it was found to be 50ms different to the earthbound one. This is cited as an example of time relativity because of the high speed of the satellite is enough to alter time for that clock. In my mind it is not enough to say the time shown by the clock was different because of one Einstein's equations - there has to be a physical reason
for why it is different. Maybe the clock is affected by it's environment, or the lack of gravity.
Any way, I am waiting for the barrage / storm of argument / ridicule against what I have said. It is just an idea - if I learn something then that is great.