[Kasim]

I’ve been challenging physicists on both theories of relativity on Quora.com and they replied to my challenges. For example, I contended that the usual calculation for time dilation in the twin paradox is based on the illusion created by the doppler shift due to relative motion. This means that if you’re viewing a clock on a rocket moving away from you, you’d see it running slower than yours because the clock is getting further and further away from you; hence, its images are taking longer and longer to get to you. Since this is an illusion, it can’t be used to calculate time dilation.

They countered that tests have shown that on short-haul and long-haul flights, there was a residual time dilation which was cumulative i.e. the longer the flight, the greater was the discrepancy which was still there even after taking out the effects of illusions and gravitational time dilation. I had to accept the findings as I couldn’t come up with an alternative explanation.

But I concentrated on the word ‘discrepancy’ which I was glad they were using. You see, the moving clocks and the stationary ones were being pesented at the same time which means that the passage of time is invariant i.e. it didn’t change as claimed by SR. I interpreted it as the fact that the moving clock had somehow ran slower than the stationary one; and it was the act of movement that did it; and that’s why I call it clock dilation.

In order to move the clock, you have to accelerate it by applying a force vis-a-vis the thrust of the planes i.e. the clock dilation is caused by a mechanical force. Relativists call SR time dilation velocity time dilation; but it isn’t velocity that does it. Velocity is a consequence of acceleration which is a consequence of an applied force. Therefore, it’s the applied force that causes clock dilation. They claimed that SR doesn’t deal with acceleration; so they have to use GR which is too complicated – but they insisted that it’s velocity that did it because when they calculate time dilation, they use the Lorentz factor which is a function of velocity; and that’s their reasoning.

In another QA session, I described the clock dilation of GPS clocks when in high-altitude orbits as being due to the lower gravity there than the higher gravity on the ground; thus they run faster because of the lower hindrance that lower gravity causes. All they could do is call me a crackpot and even anti-science. Personally, I believe that gravitational clock dilation is also caused by a force – the force of gravity. Thus I’ve unified SR and GR clock dilation i.e. they’re both caused by forces. I’ve read an article by Ken Moore who unified SR and GR by stating that signal response time dilation can be explained by using queuing theory method of Operations Research. Who am I to argue?

I’m currently studying Length Contraction which is another illusion. More on this in a later post. But the implication of my findings so far is that if the current explanation of SR time dilation is using illusions; and the residual ‘time’ dilation is actually ‘clock’ dilation, which means that time itself is invariant; which also means that the speed of light is NOT the same for all observers.

As another poster here said: we need to go back to the first mistake that was made in relativity. From my research, the first mistake was by Fitzgerald and Lorentz who introduced Length Contraction which I suspect is an illusion and Glenn Borchardt reckons it’s a measurement problem i.e. it’s not real. This was followed by Joseph Larmor who introduced time dilation; and finally by Einstein who used both of them to give us the constancy of the speed of light. So, sorting out the first mistake would really unravel the relativity mystery.

Notice that in order for the speed of light to be the same for all observers irrespective of their state of motion, you have to dilate time and contract lengths and space. I wonder what would happen if you keep time, length, and space invariant? The speed of light would be variable – which it is because it travels more slowly in a more dense medium than it does in a less dense one.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Kasim.

[Kasim]

I’m not surprised you’re not familiar with my hypothesis because I haven’t published it as a paper to be peer reviewed. However, I do publish it as an answer to Quora questions and comments. My theory is difficult to test but its advantages are that it does away with the impossible matter-antimatter asymmetry mechanism; and it easily explains electron and positron emission decays i.e. they’re due to mutual electrostatic repulsion which does away with the weak nuclear force which borrows 80 times the mass-energy of the proton, energy that doesn’t exist. Also, once the protons are formed, they can create higher composite matter by nuclear bonding in a similar way to molecular bonding. This means that the strong nuclear force is superfluous as the bonding is electromagnetic.

Because I’m unqualified in science and not an experimentalist but have an aptitude for science, I can’t produce testable theories because there have to be testable predictions to be verified. Now, I only provide qualitative descriptions which I believe are already proven via stellar evolution; electron and positron emission decays; and electron capture. What I’m saying is that my hypothesis explains these phenomena better than the mainstream theories.

As an aside, I think I’ve solved the production of interference patterns in the double-slit experiment (DSX). If we start with the dark and bright bands, and ask what makes a dark band dark? The answer leads to the actual solution. Darkness is the absence of light; so, what happened to the photons that were destined for the dark band? My suggestion is that they were diverted to the bright band. Now we have more photons in the bright band than we should have.

The mainstream answer is that the DSX interference pattern is caused by constructive and destructive interference to form bright and dark patterns respectively. My question is what gets constructed and what gets detroyed? Answer: nothing; photons are simply diverted from what became dark bands to what became bright bands.

The question now is what diverted those photons? I’m now working on a version of the Pilot Wave Theory. Watch this space.

[Kasim]

I was trying to come up with an hypothesis to circumvent the unknown and virtually impossible Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Mechanism which ensured that matter dominates the universe. If energy splits into equal numbers of alleged matter and antimatter particles, then this mechanism is impossible to work.

So, I developed my hypothesis around the primordial energy splitting into electron-positron pairs, to form a plasma, but no quarks nor gluons. In my hypothesis, positive and negative charges do annihilate; so, a mechanism still needs to be developed to break the stalemate.

So my hypothesis treats electrons and positrons as oppositely charged matter particles i.e. no antimatter. That way, whatever happens we’ll end up with pure featureless energy or a matter-domiated universe as we see today. So, I suggested that the positrons somehow clumped together as composite particle that got orbited by electrons and formed the nucleons and structured like atoms.

My guess is that only protons were formed as they’re the epitome of stability. The protons will have 1 more positron in its centre and its partner electron remains in the plasma. As more and more electrons and positrons got removed from the plasma, there were fewer and fewer of them to annihilate. Hence, the annihilation process gradually came to a halt.

Then the protons collided with each other to form diprotium which sometimes captured an electron from the plasma so that one of the protons became a neutron; or one of the protons loses a positron to become a neutron. These events are still taking place today as per stellar evolution. Interestingly, so is electron capture and positron emission in radioactive isotopes.

Now, it’s understandable that the neutron formed out of electron capture would have the atomic mass unit published for it; but what about the neutron formed out of positron emission? Surely, it’ll have a lower mass than the proton. So, I agree with Jerry about the uniformity of masses of particles.

[Kasim]

I don’t think that anybody knows what gravity is but it does exist as we can feel its effects. I also think that it does travel thus it takes time for us to feel the gravity of a distant object. I also believe that gravity travels with the same speed as that of light so that e.g. the gravity of the sun arrives at the same time as its image. Otherwise, we would feel the gravity coming from a different place than from where we ‘see’ the sun.

Some people have put words in Newton’s mouth that he said that the speed of gravity is instantaneous. This implies that the speed of light (SOL) is also instantaneous which flies in the face of what Newton said about light i.e. that it’s a stream of corpuscles (particles). Now, particles have a finite speed; hence, they cannot be instantaneous. The fact that we feel the sun’s gravity at the same time as we see its image, implies that gravity travels at the SOL. Perhaps that’s what fooled most people into thinking that it’s instantaneous.

As to what gravity is, I follow the Electric Universe’s (EU’s) model of dipole gravity i.e. that it’s of an electric nature. I have my own theory regarding the Standard Model: there are only 2 fermions (electron and positron) which form all matter; only one force of nature (EM force); and only one boson (photon) which mediates the EM force as well as carrying momentum and energy.

Then these electrons and positrons form nucleons that interact electromagnetically with each other to form nuclei and eventually atoms and molecules. Because electrons and positrons already exist in the nucleus, there’s no need for the weak nuclear force. Because nucleons interact electromagnetically, there’s no need for the strong nuclear force. Now that the EU are explaining gravity in terms of electricity, it means that the EM force is the only fundamental force of nature. Besides, did you know that Michael Faraday said that he suspects that gravity is due to electricity? This was after he experimentally proved that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon.

[Kasim]

I’m interested in reading your book as I too am interested in an alternative to the mainstream theories to such a point that I’ve written my own version I call the Alternative Theory of Everything.

[Kasim]

Although I have qualms with GR, I actually support the fact that the influence of gravity travels at the speed of light (SOL) – that’s what gravitational waves are: changes in the gravitational field intensity and not the ludicrous ripples of spacetime. This means that the influence of the Sun’s gravity and its light will arrive everywhere at the same time. This gives the illusion that both the SOL and gravity are instantaneous.

To say that the SOL is finite and gravity is instantaneous is proposetrous because we’ll feel the Sun’s gravity from a position where the Sun will be 8 minutes later. But that’s not what we feel; hence, the SOL and that of gravity are the same. To me, nothing is instantaneous; hence, light and gravity travel at the same finite speed.

[Kasim]

I looked at the alleged 4 force of nature in the Standard Model (SM) and found that the EM force to be the most studied and well understood field theory of all. So, I proposed it as the field theory of everything, so to speak. This meant that I have to explain the other 3 forces in terms of the EM force.

I regard the strong force as the strength of the nuclear bonds which are electromagnetic; and its short length is due to the fact that the nucleons have to be close enough for bonding to take place. I also concluded that the strength of a bond is inversely proportional to the length of the bond i.e. the shorter the length, the stronger the bond. Because the nucleus is 100,000 times smaller than the atom, the length of a nuclear would be 100,000 times shorter than chemical bonds; hence the enormous strength of the nuclear bond.

To understand this process and explain the weak force, I’d like to give you my hypothesis of nucleon structure. I proposed that nucleons are made of a positronic centre orbited by electrons i.e. structured like atoms. When nucleons bond together, they do so by merging their orbitals to form nuclear orbitals and nuclear bonds just like atoms combine to form molecular orbitals and molecular bonds.

Electron emission decay occurs when there are too many neutrons in the nucleus; so 1 or more electrons are ejected from the nucleus by sheer electric repulsive forces. Positron emission decay occurs when there are too many protons in the nucleus; so 1 or more positrons are ejected from the nucleus by sheer electric repulsive forces. This means that the weak force is a manifestation of the EM force.

To understand this fully, consider the following: the proton has 1 less electron than the neutron; yet it’s the epitome of stability. This implies that the extra electron on the neutron destabilises it. However, in the combined state, the destabilising is roaming freely within the nuclear orbital leaving the neutron looking like a proton and just as stable.

This means that when there are too many neutrons, it’s akin to too many electrons; and 1 or more of them are expelled by the sheer repulsive forces between them. However, it’s harder to explain positron emission decays; but the presence of too many protons in the nucleus is akin to too many positrons where 1 or more of them is expelled from the nucleus by sheer repulsive forces.

This brings us to gravity. I know this sounds scrappy, but if the 3 forces are electromagnetic, there’s a good chance that gravity is electric – Nature is simplicity itself. My hypothesis in this case is that the force due to the nucleus can be felt outside the atom. Hence, the nucleus of one atom can still attract the electrons of other atoms albit very weakly. By the same token, electrons of one atom can repel those of other atoms; and the nucleus of one atom can repel those of other atoms. But because of polarisation, an attractive effect results.

I use this to explain the Casimir effect rather than he impossible quantum fluctuations of QM which borrows energy that doesn’t exist. Repulsive Casimir effect has been detected; this is catered for in my hypothesis; but it can’t be explained by QM. I also use it to explain Van der Waal’s or London forces i.e. they’re electromagnetic; which means that the Universe is truly Electric.

This brings us nicely to our friends at the Electric Universe who are investigating dipole gravity to explain it in terms of electricity. They have a patron saint in the name of Michael Faraday who thought that gravity can be exlained in terms of electricity. Ironically, Faraday is the father of EM field theory.

So, once gravity is explained in terms of electricity, we’ll have a Unified Field Theory f Everything using Mawell’s EM field theory, the most acceptable theory in physics. This means that unification was the wrong method of solution.

Incidentally, I read one of Rupert Sheldrake’s articles about morphogenetic fields that act as scaffolding during the healing process – Sheldrake is a biologist. I though that if you go down to the molecular level, you’ll find that the molecular orbitals are populated by electrons. Hence the morphogenetic field is an EM field. The Universe is truly Electric i.e. everything can be explained in terms of electricity including gravity.

[Kasim]

Free space has electrical properties in the form of permittivity and permeability which are electric and magnetic susceptibility constants. Hence, there’s some kind of material in space that seems to be resisting motion, which is why I believe in the universal speed limit. Although I believe that light doesn’t need a medium to propagate in, I keep an open mind on the existence of an EM aether for the above reason. This speed limit is akin to the terminal velocity of a fluid.

So, space has EM properties which will allow electricity to travel in space – unless Maxwell is wrong. Who could believe it? Maxwell is giving credibility to the aether theory. Actually, Maxwell did base his EM field theory on the aether, anyway.

[Kasim]

Space density gradient sounds like the variability of the force of gravity i.e. it mimics it. This is like the curvature of the non-existent spacetime mimics the effects of gravitational acceleration on the trajectories of bodies in a gravitational field that emanates from matter.

So, I’d rather continue with the force of gravity as it imparts an acceleration on other bodies which also affects other physical processes such as the rate at which clocks run.

[Kasim]

In order for the wave front to be compressed, a force is required to compress it. Using sleight of hand doesn’t let you get away with it. My foundational belief is that Nature is blind and it interacts with its environment via forces – those it receives and those it gives. The absence of forces in SRT makes its phenomena sets of illusions; which is what I’ve been saying all along.

I gave an example of 3 rods of different materials. Are you saying that they all have the same wave fronts? What makes them different in reality? To me, it looks like smoke and mirrors and not science. Using mathematics doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, a lot of people call it mathemagics for obvious reasons.

In the final analysis, SRT should be based on forces and not on illusions.

[Kasim]

I’m glad that we agree on most points. However, it’s possible that whatever is slowing the rate at which clocks run, may also slow down the rate of decay of muons and the aging rate. But this needs to be verified imperically not by mathematics let alone by thought experiment. I’m just assuming that the Lorentz factor applies to all processes.

But you maybe right because I asked scientists if you had 3 rods of the same length and travelling at the same speed but of different materials say iron, wood, and concrete. Will they contract by the same or different proportions i.e. is Young’s Modulus taken into account? The surprising answer was yes they contract by the same proportions and no, relativity doesn’t take Young’s Modulus into account. At which point I immediately concluded that length contraction is an illusion.

What do you think? Do we need forces to compress rods to shorter lengths.

[Kasim]

I don’t know what you’re trying to get at. All I’m doing is accepting that there’s a universal speed limit and that the Lorentz factor explains the residual dilation that I was presented with. I accept these findings on the basis that they’re correct and that I can’t provide an alternative. What I think doesn’t really matter, I’m just humouring the mainstream scientists.

However, they say it’s the rate at which time passes that’s affected by motion; and I say that it’s the rate at which clocks run that’s affected by motion because all clocks, moving and stationary, are presented at the same time. This implies that time hasn’t changed; they’re at the same time coordinates.

So, my explanation is based on the correctness of the Lorentz factor and the fact that there’s a residual dilation. If these are not true, then there is a conspiracy to defraud the world; and I’m just another victim. But I’ll tell you what I think is science fiction: the allegation that the speed of light is the same for all observers irrespective of their state of motion. If it were true, then the qualifier ‘in a vacuum’ is not necessary because it implies that the speed of light is variable everywhere else, which it is.

If you think my reasoning is faulty, please set me straight bearing in mind that I’m a novice.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Kasim.

[Kasim]

I’m glad we’re in agreement about when dilation happens. But is it the rate at which time passes, or is it the rate at which a clock runs?

I feel that it’s the latter because it’s impossible for time to be manipulated especially for one thing and not others which is what’s implied by SRT.

[Kasim]

I haven’t got a model for SRT but have an alternative explanation for it. However, I have accepted that there’s a unversal speed limit i.e. I’m not a conspiracy theorist; and I accept that the Lorentz factor works mainly because it’s essential for my alternative explanation of relativistic effects.

I use one of the implications of Newton’s first law of motion that changes require external forces to cause them. The current explanation of how time dilation is caused is the visual illusion of you seeing a clock moving away from you running slower than yours. Since, there’s no force, there’s no causation.

Besides, if you view a clock that’s approaching you, you’ll see it running faster than yours. In this case this model goes out of the window as it becomes a self-deprecating theory. However, I put that to some scientists and they agreed that what’s decsribed are visual illusions. But when you take these illusions away, and correct the data for gravitational time dilation, there’s still residual dilation.

Hence, we have to explain this residual dilation separately through some other means. I borrowed one concept from the solution to the twins paradox i.e. that acceleration breaks the symmetry. However, I’m not using acceleration to break any symmetry, but as the basis of the cause of this residual dilation.

Remember ‘velocity’ time dilation? They think that velocity causes time dilation. How do you get to uniform velocity? By acceleration. But acceleration is a consequence of an applied force, which takes us back to Newton’s first law i.e. that the applied force causes the time dilation; we just need to investigate how this happens.

Scientists don’t tell us what happens during acceleration stating that SRT doesn’t deal with accelerating reference frames. But here’s my layman’s explanation:

1. A clock at rest runs normally; but if you accelerate it
2. after the first second, it’ll acquire a velocity v1; and the clock will run slower than at rest;
3. after another second, it’ll acquire a velocity v2; and the clock will run slower than at v1;
4. after yet another second, it’ll acquire a velocity v3; and the clock will run slower than at v2;

As you can see, the clock slower and slower with each passing second; but will carry on at the rate it achieved when the acceleration is stopped. This proves that time dilation occurs during the acceleration and not during uniform velocity.

Notice that I say that the clock ‘runs slower’; that’s why I call it clock dilation because the force is affecting the clock’s mechanism and not the passage of time. I only used time dilation because that’s what everyone is familiar with.

They also use the survival to sea level of atmospheric muons by claiming that time passes slowly for them enabling them to survive to sea level. My explanation is that the atmospheric muons simply decay slower so that they survive longer to reach sea level. This means that motion is affecting the rate of decay of unstable substances i.e. the decay constant is subject to relativity.

The implication here is what other constants are subject to relativity? If we assume that the gravitational constant is subject to relativity, dark matter may disappear altogether. This is because dark matter can be inferred only by its gravitational effects on matter within its vicinity. Hence, it could be a flaw in the laws of gravitation; and this flaw could be Big G itself.

This brings us nicely to gravitational clock dilation. Scientists calibrate clocks in the lab where the gravity is stronger than in high-altitude orbits. Then they assume that this is constant everywhere in the universe and under all conditions. In this case, it’s the force gravity that causes the clock dilation which complies with Newton’s first law.

This also means that the transition rates of caesium electrons or any other mechanism, slows down when a force is applied to the clock. Einstein was right when he said that dilation only happens to those actually moving. Besides, Einstein said that relativity affects the rhythm of clocks i.e. it doesn’t affect the passage of time. It seems that mainstream scientists have been putting words in Einstein’s mouth to give their theories credibility.

Another implication of this is that time is invariant which means that the speed of light is not the same for all observers irrespective of their state of motion.

[Kasim]

Gravity can’t be a ‘push’ but a pull because gravity is electric in nature and hence it’s an attraction. If gravity is a push, then is electric attraction also a push?