It's about time.

[uwot]

What changes when one vibrating “object”/field moves faster into one direction than a second, “same”/similar object?
Answer: the frequency of the faster moving object/field increases (Doppler effect)

The Doppler Effect at near light speed is the same as at speeds we are accustomed to. When a car speeds past you, you get the eeeoooww effect - higher pitch when the car is moving towards you; lower as it roars away. For the driver the pitch stays the same. With light the object heading towards you looks bluer - it just happens that we see shorter wavelengths/higher frequencies as blue - and when it passes and it moving away, it appears redder.

This provides a clue as to where we might have to look when describing why time actually seems to slow down... Or rather: why space contracts for fast moving objects.

Well again, space doesn't actually contact, it just appears to in the direction you are moving. It's utterly negligible at day to day speeds, but would be appreciable at near light speed.

I think (of course I cant prove it) that this is due to the increase in turnaround points in the energetic wave, resulting in a behaviour similar to a planing boat on water... the faster you go the less contact it has to the water (the less time - or rather: space - the moving object spends in relativistic reality (which is nothing but vibration/movement itself))
The object comes to absolute rest - outside of time/space - and pops back in further ahead in its trajectory than classical physics would expect... it kind of skips over space like the boat over water.

Einstein, myself and your son are all saying it's a lot simpler than that; it's as I said in the article.

[uwot]

Is it "a fact" that NO one knows the cause of gravity?

Not only is it a fact that no one knows the cause of gravity, it is a fact that no one can know the cause of gravity.

Okay. If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE true, forever more.

It isn't because I believe it. What happens is that some people invest a lot of time and energy in developing a philosophy that is consistent with their experience and wishes. Getting science, politics, ethics and aesthetics to fit into a single coherent story is quite an achievement. The thing is, no two people have the same experiences , education, desires and tastes, so no two stories will be the same. There is a scale of responses that people have to this fact ranging from joy at the creativity of mankind to rage at people who will not accept a particular story.
Even with a simple example like gravity, all science can tell you is how strong the force is - it cannot tell you whether it is because of warped spacetime or the exchange of 'gravitons', at least not yet, and it will never be able to prove that it is an entirely natural phenomenon, or the deliberate action of the holy ghost. Or something else entirely that nobody has yet thought of. Some people might believe what is 'true', and in that sense they can be said to 'know' the cause of gravity; but if they insist they know they know, they are either ignorant, stupid, mental or any combination of the above.

[AlexW]

Einstein, myself and your son are all saying it's a lot simpler than that; it's as I said in the article.

Well... you said in your article:
Imagine that your train is going round in a circle, in the middle of which is me with my light clock. In that case you would see my pulse of light bounce straight up and down. I on the other hand would still see your pulse of light move horizontally, so I would see your clock ticking slower than my clock
I agree with all but the last part of your sentence:
Yes, the observer in the center would see the pulse of light - or, lets maybe rather talk about a stone falling to the ground (easier to imagine) - move horizontally as well as vertically, but both stones would still hit the ground at exactly the same time - no matter if one moves diagonally and the other only vertically (while, of course, for the external/static observer the moving stone will seem to move faster as it seems to cover more distance, but it will still end is journey to the floor in the same moment as the other stone).
Thus... as far as I can tell, this is not a proof (or proper explanation) for the clock actually ticking less often when travelling at higher speeds... but maybe I am missing something?

[Paradigmer]

Even with a simple example like gravity, all science can tell you is how strong the force is - it cannot tell you whether it is because of warped spacetime or the exchange of 'gravitons', at least not yet, and it will never be able to prove that it is an entirely natural phenomenon, or the deliberate action of the holy ghost. Or something else entirely that nobody has yet thought of. Some people might believe what is 'true', and in that sense they can be said to 'know' the cause of gravity; but if they insist they know they know, they are either ignorant, stupid, mental or any combination of the above.

IMO, I believe Lord Kelvin had a legit explanation for explaining gravity with his aether hypothesis and vortex theory.

Of course, there is a limit to how deep the theory could explain the causality of gravity.

Nonetheless, be it aether, "gravitrons", or Higgs fields, which are the catchphrases for explicating an all-pervasive medium of the cosmos in their postulated worldview, the vacuum energy measured in space, is nonetheless a fact. This asserts the existence of an all-pervasive medium that could transmit electromagnetic waves.

I have a webpage that attempts to assimilate the postulated pushed-in gravity concept hypothesized by Lord Kelvin, this is by illustrating with the UVS hypersphere hypothesis. It was intended for the twelve-year-old, clumsily presented with sketches and writeups like it were done by a twelve-year-old:

The hyperspherical pushed-in gravity

I believe there were much errors that needed to be sieved out from this article, but it nonetheless is a plausible explanation for the causality, and it could qualitatively resolve the n-body problem despite it is on the classical platform.

But maybe I do have the combinations of those issues you mentioned.

[uwot]

... as far as I can tell, this is not a proof (or proper explanation) for the clock actually ticking less often when travelling at higher speeds... but maybe I am missing something?

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and in the case of the stone you are right. At normal speeds we simply add the horizontal speed to the vertical speed, so we would judge that the stone on the train is going faster overall, because it has travelled further in the same time. But the speed of light is the speed of light regardless of the distance it travels; hence the further it travels, the longer it takes.
(Note for pedants: Yup, relativity works even at low speeds, but if you can perceive the difference of a gazillionth of a second between the stones landing, you're a better man than I. Or woman.)

[uwot]

IMO, I believe Lord Kelvin had a legit explanation for explaining gravity with his aether hypothesis and vortex theory.

Yeah, I think his basic premise is probably true. All he is really saying is that the universe is made of something that has 'mechanical' properties - it is made of some sort of 'stuff'. Many people think that Special Relativity did away with the aether, but, as you note, Einstein in his lecture at Leiden pointed out that Special Relativity only did away with a static/flat aether, it doesn't rule out a relativistic aether, and as Einstein said in the same lecture, General Relativity without an aether is unthinkable.
I've linked to the lecture before, but here it is again for anyone interested: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/

But maybe I do have the combinations of those issues you mentioned.

Don't worry; we're all in there somewhere.

[AlexW]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and in the case of the stone you are right. At normal speeds we simply add the horizontal speed to the vertical speed, so we would judge that the stone on the train is going faster overall, because it has travelled further in the same time. But the speed of light is the speed of light regardless of the distance it travels; hence the further it travels, the longer it takes.
(Note for pedants: Yup, relativity works even at low speeds, but if you can perceive the difference of a gazillionth of a second between the stones landing, you're a better man than I. Or woman.)

Sure, the speed of light is the speed of light ... the speed of sound is the speed of sound... etc... "regardless of the distance it travels" - but, as I see it, the distance of travel is the same, no matter if an external observer might see something else...

But maybe there is something else at work (different to the constant speed of light) when it comes to movements actually "slowing down" (=clocks ticking slower) when clocks are moving at speed...
The idea of moving objects actually skipping tiny fractions of their path all together - and as such "contracting the distance" they travel - is one way of attempting to explain the experimentally proven effect of time dilation... maybe its utter nonsense... maybe not.

I wouldn't be surprised if things work similar to a TV screen (excuse the simplistic analogy):
The maximum speed an object can move over a TV screen in a smooth manner (covering all pixels in its trajectory) depends on the refresh rate of the screen (yes... I have mentioned this in a previous post).
Its maximum speed is apparently limited to this constant. But: To move faster - which, on a screen, it actually can do - it has to skip a few pixels and pop into existence a few pixels ahead... the object itself doesn't as such travel faster (light would still travel at the speed of light) but it actually contracted the distance it travelled ... and: it is only "alive and measuring time" when actually in existence on the screen ... while it still ends up at the same destination.

[Age]

Not only is it a fact that no one knows the cause of gravity, it is a fact that no one can know the cause of gravity.

Okay. If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE true, forever more.

It isn't because I believe it.

So what is 'it' that KNOWS what WILL happen, forever more?

You say you KNOW what WILL happen, forever more, so what EXACTLY is 'it', which you are basing this knowing on?

What happens is that some people invest a lot of time and energy in developing a philosophy that is consistent with their experience and wishes. Getting science, politics, ethics and aesthetics to fit into a single coherent story is quite an achievement. The thing is, no two people have the same experiences , education, desires and tastes, so no two stories will be the same. There is a scale of responses that people have to this fact ranging from joy at the creativity of mankind to rage at people who will not accept a particular story.

You are just expressing what is OBVIOUS, to me, here.

Even with a simple example like gravity, all science can tell you is how strong the force is - it cannot tell you whether it is because of warped spacetime or the exchange of 'gravitons', at least not yet,

Now you have changed your view.

This is a prime example of just how through the beauty of asking clarifying question people can so easily and so very simply change, without any force at all needed.

and it will never be able to prove that it is an entirely natural phenomenon,

You can claim that science cannot prove absolutely any thing else either is an entirely natural phenomenon. But why you would want to do this not yet fully known, nor understood.

By the way, science cannot prove that gravity nor any thing else in the Universe is not an entirely natural phenomenon. But, you or any one else would have some explaining to do if they want to claim that there is any thing, which is NOT an entirely natural phenomenon.

And, if you want to claim there is, then feel free to explain how this could possibly be.

or the deliberate action of the holy ghost.

OBVIOUSLY, 'the holy ghost' would be and IS an entirely natural phenomenon as well. Unless, of course, you are 'trying to' suggest that there are some things that are not entirely natural phenomenon.

Also, and by the way, WHY are you 'trying to' deflect away in this direction?

Or something else entirely that nobody has yet thought of.

And, this view that "science will never be able to prove that gravity is an entirely natural phenomenon" applies to EVERY thing else also, correct?

If no, then what does it NOT apply to.

Also, your claim that science WILL NEVER be able to do some thing is based on 'what' EXACTLY?

In this quote above you are alluding to the fact that some thing might be found that NO one has ever yet thought of. Yet you were claiming that you KNOW things that NO one can know, forever more.

These are very contradictory and very hypocritical claims.

Some people might believe what is 'true', and in that sense they can be said to 'know' the cause of gravity; but if they insist they know they know, they are either ignorant, stupid, mental or any combination of the above.

And how do you KNOW, with certainty, that the cause of gravity can NEVER be discovered or known, by ANY one, forever more, especially when even you admit that there are things that NO one has yet thought of?

[Age]

Einstein, myself and your son are all saying it's a lot simpler than that; it's as I said in the article.

Well... you said in your article:
Imagine that your train is going round in a circle, in the middle of which is me with my light clock. In that case you would see my pulse of light bounce straight up and down. I on the other hand would still see your pulse of light move horizontally, so I would see your clock ticking slower than my clock
I agree with all but the last part of your sentence:
Yes, the observer in the center would see the pulse of light - or, lets maybe rather talk about a stone falling to the ground (easier to imagine) - move horizontally as well as vertically, but both stones would still hit the ground at exactly the same time - no matter if one moves diagonally and the other only vertically (while, of course, for the external/static observer the moving stone will seem to move faster as it seems to cover more distance, but it will still end is journey to the floor in the same moment as the other stone).
Thus... as far as I can tell, this is not a proof (or proper explanation) for the clock actually ticking less often when travelling at higher speeds... but maybe I am missing something?

This has been my point from the outset of this. What is said to 'appear' to happen does NOT necessarily mean that it does actually happen. Obviously, or in actuality, the stone falls at the feet, in a straight line. Just like the pulse of light bounces off the two mirrors, in a straight line. Unless, of course, as I keep reminding people here, maybe I am missing something. If I am, then please inform me of what it is that I am missing.

I have also asked for clarity about EXACTLY HOW an observer moving at different motion and/or in a different direction could actually see and observe the ticking of clocks in different motion and/or direction. I have yet had any clarity. I have even asked for has this observation even been made. I am yet to get any clarity on this either.

Furthermore, what is said to 'appear' and only just 'seem to be', and especially just in a thought experiment, does NOT mean that 'it' has ANY actual bearing on what REALLY happens and occurs. Once this is LOOKED AT and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then what REALLY does happen and does ACTUALLY occur can be LOOKED AT, and discussed.

[AlexW]

This has been my point from the outset of this. What is said to 'appear' to happen does NOT necessarily mean that it does actually happen. Obviously, or in actuality, the stone falls at the feet, in a straight line. Just like the pulse of light bounces off the two mirrors, in a straight line. Unless, of course, as I keep reminding people here, maybe I am missing something. If I am, then please inform me of what it is that I am missing.

Yes, Age, agree.
The only issue is that there are experiments (Hafele-Keating-Experiment) that seem to prove that faster moving clocks tick less often than slower moving ones... as I see it, there is still no proper explanation as to why (and even if one is found, this wouldn't mean that it couldn't change another 10 or 100 years later...)

[Age]

... as far as I can tell, this is not a proof (or proper explanation) for the clock actually ticking less often when travelling at higher speeds... but maybe I am missing something?

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and in the case of the stone you are right. At normal speeds we simply add the horizontal speed to the vertical speed, so we would judge that the stone on the train is going faster overall, because it has travelled further in the same time. But the speed of light is the speed of light regardless of the distance it travels; hence the further it travels, the longer it takes.

The speed of any thing is traveling at the speed of whatever speed it is traveling at regardless of the distance it travels; hence the further it travels, the longer it takes. This applies to EVERY thing, correct?

(Note for pedants: Yup, relativity works even at low speeds, but if you can perceive the difference of a gazillionth of a second between the stones landing, you're a better man than I. Or woman.)

Your view of 'relativity', like absolutely EVERY thing else, is 'relative'.

The stones land in the EXACT SAME place, and in the EXACT SAME "amount of time", no matter at what speed ANY one is traveling at. The same applies to light. If light is shone at between two mirrors, then the light lands in the EXACT SAME place, and in the EXACT SAME "amount of time", no mattre at what speed ANY one is traveling at.

[uwot]

Sure, the speed of light is the speed of light ... the speed of sound is the speed of sound... etc... "regardless of the distance it travels"...

The thing with the speed of light being this magical constant c is that it's only constant in a vacuum, and as Paradigmer is alluding to, there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. The speed of sound is dependent on the medium and the density of the medium. For example in air the speed of sound at sea level is about 750mph, depending on the temperature and air pressure. In water, it's over 3000mph. If the air (or water) is moving, that changes the speed relative to the listener. If the wind is blowing in the direction of the source of sound, then speed of sound you will measure is 750mph minus however fast the wind is blowing. Conversely, if the wind is blowing from the sound source, then what you measure is 750mph plus windspeed. And then if you or the source is moving, that too has its effect. Most of that is true of light, with one crucial difference - no matter what the relative speeds are, you will always measure the speed of light as the speed appropriate to the medium and conditions it is passing through. That's down to the observed length contraction - the faster you are going, the more distance is contracted, so although the relative speed is more than c in some meaningless 'absolute' sense, the distance the oncoming photon appears to travel is much less - cancelling out the superluminal speed form your perspective. Conversely, a photon that is catching you up from the rear has a relative speed which is much less than c, but because space appears stretched out, it appears to travel much further so the miles per hour are measured as the same.

...but, as I see it, the distance of travel is the same, no matter if an external observer might see something else...

Well, if it works for you, and it's consistent with the evidence, don't mess with it. Just be willing to change your mind in the light of new evidence. That's pretty much the situation most of us find ourselves in.

[Age]

This has been my point from the outset of this. What is said to 'appear' to happen does NOT necessarily mean that it does actually happen. Obviously, or in actuality, the stone falls at the feet, in a straight line. Just like the pulse of light bounces off the two mirrors, in a straight line. Unless, of course, as I keep reminding people here, maybe I am missing something. If I am, then please inform me of what it is that I am missing.

Yes, Age, agree.
The only issue is that there are experiments (Hafele-Keating-Experiment) that seem to prove that faster moving clocks tick less often than slower moving ones... as I see it, there is still no proper explanation as to why (and even if one is found, this wouldn't mean that it couldn't change another 10 or 100 years later...)

The explanation for why why the actual results, of that experiment, are different when the clocks are brought back together is because of the direction they are traveling at AND because of what the word 'time' is in relation to, exactly. That is; what clocks are set in relation to is WHY when two clocks moving in opposite directions from each other, in a specific direction in relation to that thing clocks are set to, are brought back to that the clocks then have different results.

If any one is Truly interested in learning and understanding this further, then all of this can be explained.

[uwot]

If any one is Truly interested in learning and understanding this further, then all of this can be explained.

Age, if you are Truly interested in explaining it to anyone who cares to listen, could you do so in your own thread please?

[Age]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and in the case of the stone you are right. At normal speeds we simply add the horizontal speed to the vertical speed, so we would judge that the stone on the train is going faster overall, because it has travelled further in the same time. But the speed of light is the speed of light regardless of the distance it travels; hence the further it travels, the longer it takes.
(Note for pedants: Yup, relativity works even at low speeds, but if you can perceive the difference of a gazillionth of a second between the stones landing, you're a better man than I. Or woman.)

Sure, the speed of light is the speed of light ... the speed of sound is the speed of sound... etc... "regardless of the distance it travels" - but, as I see it, the distance of travel is the same, no matter if an external observer might see something else...

I see and observe the same phenomenon. I do NOT see and observe what is said to observed, in the 'thought experiment'.

But maybe there is something else at work (different to the constant speed of light) when it comes to movements actually "slowing down" (=clocks ticking slower) when clocks are moving at speed...

What is actually at work, which makes clock 'appear' to "slow down", is just the 'DIRECTION' clocks are traveling at, in relation to what clocks are ultimately set to, and NOT because of the speed that they are traveling at. This is what is actually PROVEN in the hafele-keating-experiment. The "conclusion" that the different readings in the clocks is because of speed is just an ASSUMPTION. Also, remember what the experiment was set up for. One reason was to see " if 'time' was affected by speed ". So, if the clocks did read differently when brought back together, then other reasons (or something else at work) was never really considered, let alone looked into and discussed.

The idea of moving objects actually skipping tiny fractions of their path all together - and as such "contracting the distance" they travel - is one way of attempting to explain the experimentally proven effect of time dilation... maybe its utter nonsense... maybe not.

It is utter nonsense. 'Contraction of distance' is, again, just an appearance, and not actuality. Just like what is wrongly called, "time dilation" is just an appearance, and not actuality. SURE, difference in clock readings in the actual results. But what this experimentally PROVES is NOT 'time dilation' at all.

What 'time', itself, IS needs to be FULLY understood FIRST, BEFORE what is actually PROVEN in that experiment is understood FULLY as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if things work similar to a TV screen (excuse the simplistic analogy):
The maximum speed an object can move over a TV screen in a smooth manner (covering all pixels in its trajectory) depends on the refresh rate of the screen (yes... I have mentioned this in a previous post).
Its maximum speed is apparently limited to this constant. But: To move faster - which, on a screen, it actually can do - it has to skip a few pixels and pop into existence a few pixels ahead... the object itself doesn't as such travel faster (light would still travel at the speed of light) but it actually contracted the distance it travelled ... and: it is only "alive and measuring time" when actually in existence on the screen ... while it still ends up at the same destination.