The Theory of Invariance

Has somebody been on the ship?

[]

Cindy,

I took a very brief look. I did not see anything that enticed me to do a deeper look. Perhaps if there is something specific you can point to ... ?

Everyone has a limited amount of time to spend learning new things, and there are a LOT of new things to learn. So it is in your interest to find reasons for us to decide to spend our limited time learning what you have rather than what one of the 42 girls next to you has.

In order for you to be able to do this, of course, you will have to spend some time on this web site learning what we think about relativity theories in general and the SR/GR theories in particular. Then you will be in a position to point out things on your website that might be of interest to us - IOW, things that support our ideas, and/or things that contradict our ideas, and/or things that suggest new ideas that we have not been considering.

If you decide to do this (it is, after all, a lot of work) then you will inevitably have questions about our thinking that need to be answered. We will do our best to help.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We will do our best to help.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thank you so much! Larry,

I understand that it takes time to read, to find out what is wrong or right. Therefore, I opened this particular thread not to ask for help, but simply introduce a view of the universe to members.

For somebody who thinks I am bothering around. I say sorry!

Cindy

Hi Cindy, I too have taken a look at your blog. Now i don't know a great deal about how blogs work. Can you not edit that table once its put up on the blog? I found it a little distracting, and at first I thought I'd gone to the wrong page.

A second point about presentation. If there's a prevalent view, and someone disagrees with it, they'll often present their counter viewpoint in a huge indigestible lump. I think the theory is, say it fast enough and it will somehow sink in. Slow down and put some "air" into your text. Of course this will make your blog a lot longer but if you present the arguments in explanatory sections then your reader is more likely to engage with the text.

There are a few of your ideas that I would like to have you elaborate on, on this board. Your ideas on doppler and on black holes. I suppose that both can be covered by the question of whether black holes "evaporate".

Hi Stoat,

You are so smart. You say exactly.

Let me say something more...

1. English is not my nature language. English is too different from my language in structure and grammar,... So it is so hard for me to write a document. Usually, the more I say the more confusing I make So I used to try to shorten them as much as I can.

2. I am not a blogger. I am not familiar with blogs. I don't know how to upload the document. I scaned whole pages then upload these pictures.

Anyway, for everyone who is interested in the theory, I am happy to email the document to. Once you have it in your pc. It looks better.
I wrote it in MS word 2010. So your PC needs Ms word 2007 or 2010 to display equations.

********************

If you don't mind, could you print out the theory? It is easier to follow what I try to explain here if you have it on your hands.

Now going back to the theory, I hope I can explain a little bit more here:

<b>Section II: Simultaneity</b>

The experiment is similar to an experiment in SR of A. Einstein.

In this experiment, Dan is standing still on Earth. Lynn is on a spaceship flying at v (= 0.5c) with respect to Dan.

At the time Lynn is above Dan, light bulbs A and B turned on.

Dan sees both light bulbs flash simultaneously.
(I agree with A. Einstein about this.)

Lynn also see both light bulbs flash simultaneously.
(A. Einstein say Lynn see bulb B flash first.)

Why do I say Lynn see both light bulbs flash simultaneously?

That is because photon from A and photon from B are at the same distance L from Lynn at the time they appear. And no matter how Lynn is moving, velocity of these photons with respect to Lynn is c (postulate 2)

From the postulate 2, velocity of photons with respect to Lynn is c.

Call Ta, the time period that photon A needs to approach Lynn:
Ta = (So - S<font size="1">f</font id="size1">)/ c
Ta = (L - 0)/c

Call Tb, the time period that photon B needs to approach Lynn:
Tb = (So - S<font size="1">f</font id="size1">) /c
Tb = (L - 0)/c

Ta = Tb.

This means Lynn sees both light bulbs flash simultaneously.

<i><b><font color="red">Two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are simultaneous in other frames moving with respect to the first frame.</font id="red">
</b></i>

Then from this statement, I say space and time are absolute. They are as same as space and time of I. Newton.

Hi Cindy,

Considering the postulates as stated in the 'Theory of Invariance', you may want to have a look at the MichelsonGalePearson experiment. You can find a description of the experiment back through Wikipedia and the original text is available as a linnk through the Bibliography section.

Light goes back and forth through a set of Mirrors going the same path but in opposite directions.

Light going from mirror A to F has a different speed from light going from mirror F to A. The difference in speed is exactly matching with the angular velocity of the Earth at the point of the measurement.

Wouldn't this experiment invalidate the postulate?

Bart