An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
Next: Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin
From: Sebastian Garth on 30 Oct 2009 14:10 On Oct 29, 11:23 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > Let's start again shall we. > > YOU and other relativists have always pointed out that if an observer is > approaching a light source at v, the light from that source will 'close on' or > 'approach' the observer at c+v. You have stressed that this is allowed in SR. No, the light source will approach the observer at precisely c. > > Now: > > S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v. > S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v > > S1's light must close on O1 at c. > S2's light must close on O2 at c. > > So according to any third observer, > the two rays close on O1 at c+v and c. > And the two rays close on O2 at c-v and c. > > I want you to explain, in simple English, how two rays can have different > 'closing speeds' on the one object if they are traveling at the same speed > relative to that object. Let's say that observer O1 is travelling with the velocity V1, at 99% c, and O2 with V2 in the opposite direction, also at 99%c. Standing between them is observer O3, who we will arbitrarily describe as 'at rest' with respect with the others. O1 and O2 both transmit beams of light in the direction of their motion (L1a and L2a) and in the opposite direction (L1b and L2b). The fact that the sum of L1a and L2a equals 200% c (with respect to O3) does not violate relativity simply because nothing (eg: information, energy, etc) is being transmitted in excess of c. Moreover, that the sum of V1 and V2 is 198% c neither implies that any *single* observer, relative to any other *single* observer, is travelling in excess of c. So the error is really due to introduction of a third frame of reference, and the fact that the concept of 'closing speed' is being confused with 'relative speed'. Furthermore, the question of whether L1b will ever arrive at O2 (and thus L2b at O1) must of course be to the affirmative. Consider it just from the perspective of O3: since L1b is travelling at 100% c and O2 at 99% c, it is clear that the former will eventually overtake the latter. Finally, even as O2 has reached a coasting speed of 99% c relative to O3, within the reference frame of O2 itself the vehicle is completely at rest. In fact, it could be accelerated once again to 99% c. And yet again. This doesn't mean that O2 is now travelling at 297% c relative to O3. Indeed, as observed from O3, O2 has simply increased it's speed by a mere fraction of the remaining 1%. No matter how many times the process is repeated, the relative speed will always be less than c. Even as O3 sails millions, billions, trillions of years into the future, a signal could still be transmitted, reflected, and received from any of the reference frames in question.
From: Sebastian Garth on 30 Oct 2009 19:35 >> Di you mean 'the light from the source will approach the observer at precisely c'? If so you are disagreeing with both Diaper and inertial and the rest of the relativist fraternity.. I can't speak for others here. The fact has been confirmed time and again by experiment - noone has *ever* measured the speed of electromagnetic radiation to be anything other than c (in a vacuum), regardless of the frame of reference in consideration. >> ...by light....So what? So there is no contradiction. The special theory of relativity isn't referring to 'closing speed'. That's just a measure of the 'effective speed of separation'. >> Only if the SR velocity addition equation is applied. You are assuming it is correct in an attempt to prove it is correct. You are simply restating Einstein's second postulate. It is not a proof. Experiment confirms it, and many other theories support it. That is proof enough. I was merely illustrating a well-known principle. >> Your experiment doesn't make any sense. How so?
From: Inertial on 30 Oct 2009 21:01 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:n3kme5d88tqs5fucd6nia6rr5ckkhjpuoh(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:24:50 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> Look at the diagram I drew in the original message. YOU are the third >>> observer. >>> >>> The light from S1 approaches O2 at c-v. >> >>No it does not. Or, perhaps it does. I depends on what *you* mean. >>Your sentence is ambiguous and has different interpretations. Make it >>more clear: specify who is the observer ( specify relative to which >>frame). >> >>> The light from S2 approaches O2 at c. >> >>This sentence is a little more clear since it has basically has only >>one possible interpretation. >> >> >>> How by any stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that the two rays >>> are >>> traveling at the same speed? >> >>They are: >> >>Wrt O1, *the* ray(s) are approaching O1 with speed c, no? >>Wrt O2, *the* ray(s) are approaching O2 with speed c, no? >> >> >>Now... >> >>Wrt O1, the *closing speed* between (the ray and O2) is c-v. >> >>Understand the difference? >> >>We are not talking about the *speed* of a ray. We are talking about >>*closing speed*, a totally different concept ( which has nothing to do >>with SR by the way). >> >>We are not talking about the speed of *a ray*. We are talking about a >>difference of speeds of *two* objects. > > That doesn't alter the fact that if a particular observer sees two rays > closing > on a particular observer at different speeds those rays cannot possibly be > traveling at the same speed. But he doesn't
From: Inertial on 30 Oct 2009 21:02 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:bnkme5pupa4ad7b5m5f3jpudofnsnh9m8m(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:28:54 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:uh4le59v2en28ukdebqe1j7q2sm1hr8o1e(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:40:06 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:jsqke5936rh07g17ulndhs7l9grcgctkbn(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:26:16 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>>>news:81jke5dved8naupaunfsdico8rfjv23i47(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>>>> <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Oct 28, 3:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>>>>>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is >>>>>>>>> connected to >>>>>>>>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1 >>>>>>>>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to SR, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2. >>>>>>>>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v. >>>>>>>>However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are >>>>>>>>moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is an interesting new slant. We now have a disagreement between >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> members of the relativist fraternity. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope .. no disagreement at all. We all agree you are wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> My question has split them into two camps. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. We're all saying the same thing. But you don't understand >>>>>>physics >>>>>>enough to see that. >>>>> >>>>> I'll let you fight it out with Diaper. >>>> >>>>We already agree, and nothing to figure out. We both know you're a >>>>lying >>>>idiot. >>> >>> >>> Let's start again shall we. >> >>Oh good .. we get to laugh at you again >> >>> YOU and other relativists have always pointed out that if an observer is >>> approaching a light source at v, the light from that source will 'close >>> on' or >>> 'approach' the observer at c+v. You have stressed that this is allowed >>> in >>> SR. >> >>It depends on the frame of reference, but in the frame of the source, then >>yes >> >>> Now: >> >>O1----------------------------------------------------S1 >> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2 >> >>I assume we're going to be talking in my frame .. the frame of the diagram >>which is also the frame of S1 and O1. And that be "closing on" you mean >>closing speed. And I assume you're talking about what SR says, as it is a >>question for relativists .. So let us continue ... >> >>> S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v. >> >>Yes, as the light is travelling at c and O2 travelling at v >> >>> S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v >> >>No. the closing speed is c, as O1 is at rest in my frame >> >>> S1's light must close on O1 at c. >> >>Yes > >>> S2's light must close on O2 at c. >> >>No, the closing speed is c-v, as the light is travelling at c and O2 >>travelling at v >> >>> So according to any third observer, >>> the two rays close on O1 at c+v and c. >> >>No observer says that, except one for which v = 0 >> >>> And the two rays close on O2 at c-v and c. >> >>No observer says that, except one for which v = 0 >> >>> I want you to explain, in simple English, how two rays can have >>> different >>> 'closing speeds' on the one object if they are traveling at the same >>> speed >>> relative to that object. >> >>They don't. >> >>BAHAHAHA .. it was fun to laugh at your idiocy again. Do you enjoy making >>such a fool of yourself > > You on the other hand have demonstarted that you are an aetherist in > disguise. You don't understand enough about physics to comment > There is no other explanation for claiming that light from S1 to O1 > travels at > the same speeds as that from S2 to O2. You are relying on an absolute > property > of the space between them to determine that speed. No .. i am telling you what SR says. Your claims are wrong and your question that follows from them pointless. How embarrassing for you again.
From: eric gisse on 30 Oct 2009 22:13
Inertial wrote: [...] >> You on the other hand have demonstarted that you are an aetherist in >> disguise. > > You don't understand enough about physics to comment Ask him about "H-aether" and how his 'atherist' jab makes any sense in that context. > >> There is no other explanation for claiming that light from S1 to O1 >> travels at >> the same speeds as that from S2 to O2. You are relying on an absolute >> property >> of the space between them to determine that speed. > > No .. i am telling you what SR says. Your claims are wrong and your > question that follows from them pointless. How embarrassing for you > again. |